Comparing salaries

Ohio State ranks near middle of pack in compensation levels

Edward J. Ray, executive vice president and provost, and Larry Lewellen, associate vice president for human resources, outlined a five-year salary history for the trustees that compared Ohio State's record with that of nine other major public comprehensive teaching and research universities in the nation. 

The trustees and the University's senior leadership have committed themselves to moving into the top ranks of these benchmark institutions by the year 2010. 

On average, Ohio State ranks approximately in the middle of the institutions in faculty salary and benefits levels. 

Ohio State annually gauges how competitive its faculty and staff salaries and benefits are with benchmark institutions and the local market. 

Ohio State ranks fifth, at 4.1 percent, when looking at the five-year average for faculty salary increase budgets during fiscal years 1995 through 1999. The University of Minnesota is ranked first, with an average of 5.7 percent, while the University of Washington is ranked last, with an average of 2 percent. 

"Our ability to offer competitive salaries to outstanding faculty is a key element in our ability to move to the top ranks of public universities in this nation," Ray said. 

"The faculty are the heart of our desire to increase our academic excellence and to further enhance our student body. As we balance the competing demands on our limited financial resources, it is essential that we provide compensation that is both competitive and attractive." 

Lewellen noted that salary levels have increased steadily since the state's financial difficulties in the early 1990s - difficulties that caused the University to absorb more than $80 million in budget reductions. 

"We fare reasonably well when studying our five-year raise history compared with the benchmark institutions, because we had a good string of raises in fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997, of 4 percent, 5 percent and 5 percent, respectively. That string of raises was clearly better than the majority," Lewellen said. 

For fiscal year 1999, a 3.5 percent increase was allotted in Ohio State's budget for faculty, civil service staff and unclassified staff. 

In the ranking for faculty salaries, the University moved from its 1997-1998 third-place position to sixth this year out of 10 national benchmark institutions. 

Ohio State's average faculty salary is $66,890, which is 1.9 percent below the benchmark average of $68,171. 

The benchmark institutions are nine universities that are highly ranked academically and comparable to Ohio State in mission, size and configuration. They are Pennsylvania State University, and the universities of Arizona, California at Los Angeles, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. 

For staff salaries, most positions still remain below market average but the compensation varies by occupational category. 

Managers and administrators rank above the market this year. They are 8.4 percent above the average salary for comparable positions in the Columbus area. Professional positions are 2 percent below market, while clerical and secretarial positions are 3.8 percent below market and 6.8 percent below state government. 

This year, for the first time, fee increases and their effect on salary increases were reported to trustees. 

"This is in response to faculty and staff committees who have long been concerned about the interaction of fee increases with salary packages," Lewellen said. "We have divided the fees into 'core' -- health care and parking -- and 'elective' -- athletic tickets and fees. Many of these decisions are made independently, and we are striving for collective context and planning." 

For the next year, nationally, higher education institutions and nonprofit organizations are anticipating a 3.7 to 3.9 percent salary increase for the coming year, Lewellen said. Within Ohio, the average is 3.6 to 4 percent for all employer groups and 3 percent for the state government. All employer groups nationally are expected to have a 3.8 to 4.4 percent increase in salaries. 

Recommendations for Ohio State's raise packages in fiscal year 2000 will be presented to the trustees at their May meeting. 
 

Negotiations to buy Park nearly finalized

"We're feeling pleased with the spirit of the negotiations and we hope to have a deal finalized very soon," said OSU Hospitals spokeswoman Sue Jablonski. 

Park's owner, Quorum Health Group of Brentwood, Tenn., and Ohio State have agreed on a $12.7 million purchase price, and OSU officials had set a March 31 deadline for closing negotiations. 
 
 
 

File photo

Park Medical Center
 
 

But a contractual agreement between Wendt-Bristol Health Services and Quorum halted the sale at the 11th hour. Wendt-Bristol operates an oncology center on Park property, and a noncompete clause in its 12-year-old lease prevents the hospital's owner from offering radiation treatment at another site in Franklin County. 

OSU operates an oncology center at the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute. 

"That's the outstanding issue," Jablonski said, "but that's between Quorum and Wendt-Bristol, not us." If the deal is completed, Park Medical Center will be renamed Ohio State University Hospitals East, and R. Reed Fraley, executive director of University Hospitals, will become CEO of the three-building complex at 1492 E. Broad St., according to OSU officials. 

Park was formerly the Saint Anthony Medical Center.
 

New research regulation concerns OSU

President Kirwan has asked the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget to delay implementation of proposed revisions to current law that would require the public release of formerly confidential research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

In a letter to Jacob J. Lew dated March 31, Kirwan said the new regulation and the use of FOIA to access scientific data "may damage scientific integrity, imperil the privacy of our research subjects, and compromise the University's ability to complete cutting-edge research." 

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Alabama) added the revision to current law as part of the 4,000-page appropriations bill last fall. The revision would require that all data produced by researchers involving federal grants be readily accessible. 

The regulation was in response to the complaints of power company executives who wanted access to all data and medical records used in a Harvard University study that linked power plant emissions to health problems, said Richard S. Stoddard, Ohio State's director of federal relations. Harvard refused to release the data, citing research subject confidentiality agreements. 

The National Academy of Sciences is supporting a bill by Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-California) that would repeal the new language. Officials of the Association of American Universities, scientific societies and organizations, and faculty and researchers nationwide have opposed Shelby's language and the new OMB regulation, claiming it will bring about the premature release of research findings that could jeopardize important research. 

The new OMB regulation has the strong support of the business sector nationally, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to Stoddard. 

"There is strong support outside the university community for this legislation," Stoddard said. 

The OMB had asked for comments on the regulation, and that comment phase ended April 5. 

In his letter, Kirwan told Lew that the Ohio State administration is urging the Office of Management and Budget to delay implementation of the revision to allow members of the scientific community, Congress and funding agencies to "develop an alternate mechanism for access to data developed through federal support." 

Kirwan said Ohio State officials were especially troubled by the effect the new regulation could have on the numerous clinical research projects under way at the University, including those at the federally funded Heart and Lung Institute, the National Center of Excellence in Women's Health, and the Comprehensive Cancer Center. 

"The University's clinical researchers are very concerned that the proposed revisions to Circular A-110 may require them to break their promise of confidentiality to patients involved in clinical trials," Kirwan said. "Under the proposal, such confidential information as the names and personal behavior of patients would possibly become federal agency records -- open to public display despite the University researcher's prior promises of confidentiality." 

Ohio State also is concerned about the effects that the regulation would have on collaborative agreements the University has with private groups, Kirwan said. He said changes in the law will discourage further collaborations if the data developed in university-industry joint ventures are subject to FOIA disclosures. 

"Disclosure of such data would have a chilling impact on the University's ability to protect intellectual property through the patent process and come at a significant financial cost to the University and our private partners," Kirwan said. 

In another letter to the OMB, Nils Hasselmo, president of the Association of American Universities, and Milton Goldberg, president of the Council on Governmental Relations, said the early release of research findings under FOIA could be "terribly misleading and create problems in many areas of public health and safety." 

"Epidemiological researchers, who often publish series of articles concerning data collect over years, are concerned that compulsory premature disclosed of data could alter the behavior of study participants." 

The new regulation also would allow for the release of raw research data before it has been peer reviewed could pose problems relating to patents and ownership of intellectual property, they wrote. 

next page...