3:00pm | At the July meeting of the California State University board of trustees in Long Beach, the board voted to increase student tuition fees by 12 percent, as well as to increase the salary of San Diego State University’s president by $100,000.

More than a few people were troubled by that juxtaposition. Among them was Senator Ted Lieu of Torrance who also represents a small portion of Long Beach. Senator Lieu introduced SBX1 26, a bill to cap CSU presidential salaries, to prohibit pay hikes and bonuses if there has been a tuition increase within three years, and to give priority to candidates within the CSU system (and failing that, within California) when choosing CSU presidents. (Elliott Hirshman, SDSU’s new president, was not part of the CSU system prior to his recent appointment.)

But Michael Uhlenkamp, director of media relations for the CSU system, says Lieu’s concerns are a bit off base as regards the decisions made at the July meeting.

For starters, Uhlenkamp emphasizes that while Hirshman’s $400,000 salary — $50,000 of which comes “from private funding through the San Diego State Auxiliary Foundation” — does reflect a $100,000 salary bump over his predecessor, contrary to Lieu’s characterization, this is not a raise, since Hirshman is a new-hire. 

Uhlenkamp also points out salaries for standing CSU presidents had been frozen since 2007. And Uhlenkamp says Hirshman’s compensation is all about the need for the CSU system to stay competitive in attracting the greatest talent from a limited talent pool.

“In terms of finding leaders for the California State University at the presidential level, we’re trying to trying to select the people we feel are the best and brightest leaders for these institutions,” Uhlenkamp says. “SDSU has a budget of around $800 million, Division I athletics, research…. In regards to institutions across the country that have those same factors, [Hirshman’s] salary’s probably on the lower side.”

Uhlenkamp does not accept Lieu’s implication that the CSU system does not already promote from within whenever reasonably possible. “We have a very strong record of promoting from within,” he says, citing as an example that nine of the 23 CSU campuses have presidents who came from within the system. Uhlenkamp says that all Lieu’s bill would do on this front is “limit the pool that we’re trying to choose from. … We want to provide opportunities for people that live in California, but the bigger question for the universities [is] choos[ing] the best people to run the [university], whether that person lives in Arizona or Alaska or California. We’re trying to maintain the right to choose that person.”

Regarding a tuition hike being passed at the same meeting that saw the bump in the SDSU president’s salary, Uhlenkamp notes that the two are “not linked together. … We had to react to budget cuts we received … by increasing tuition. The reality is that tuition increases and fee increases are a reflection of what the funding from the state is. So if we get cut by $650 million — like we did this year — we’re going to have to turn around and, unfortunately, ask students to pay a bigger portion of their share. But despite the fact that we did have to increase tuition, we also need to be able to compensate leaders. We’re competing against other national universities for the same leaders, and that pool is a small enough pool as it is; so to put other limits on the pool … will narrow that pool down even further and make it that much more difficult for us to be able to effectively choose those best and brightest people.”

Uhlenkamp reports that the final vote by the trustees on increasing the SDSU president’s salary was 11 to 4. Among those voting to oppose the salary increase was Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who voted as an ex officio trustee.