Governors criticize big paychecks at colleges and universities
State leaders are challenging unreasonable compensation at tax-exempt organizations.
August 31, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Your child just began classes at San Diego State. You read in the paper the board of trustees just increased the school president's salary by $100,000 (to $400,000). And, during the same meeting they increased student tuition by 12 percent. As you write your congressman you grumble, “There oughta be a law!”
You can save your breath because there already is a law limiting unreasonable compensation in tax-exempt organizations, including colleges and universities. The problem is that the law doesn't matter. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can't seem to conclude that even million-dollar compensation packages for school executives are unlawfully unreasonable. The agency put on a good show back in 2008 when it embarked on a college/university compliance initiative, during which it sent detailed questionnaires to 400 public and private schools. The IRS then sent examiners to 35 schools for on-site audits looking at things such as unrelated business income and executive compensation. A ton of money was spent by the schools in answering the questionnaires, and more was spent by the schools and the government during the audits.
Then, nothing. No final report. No new regulations. No tax collected, that we know of (because no report was issued). Apparently the IRS has been dumbstruck on this issue even though colleges and universities constitute one of the largest segments of the non-profit sector in terms of assets and revenue, and as administrative salaries and tuition continue to rise beyond the cost of living. But even as government officials remain silent about high salaries in tax-exempt non-profits, state governors are not.
In July, California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has managed severe cuts in the state's education funding, lashed out at public university leaders for favoring highly paid “hired guns” from around the country over homegrown (and likely less expensive) talent. He zeroed in on San Diego State's decision and inspired at least one legislator to propose legislation banning big executive raises in the Cal State system in the same year it increases tuition.
At about the same time, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin criticized a $400,000 payand benefits package for the retiring president of the University of Vermont. In response to a question about the payout at a press conference, he said the cost was “excessive” and looks “more like corporate America than the academic America we used to know.” He added, “You didn't go into academics in the old days to make money.” The package also shocked some university employees, at least one of whom was reported to say the sheer size of it could rekindle efforts to unionize the faculty.
Neither Gov. Brown nor Gov. Shumlin had to conduct a study before making their views known. They spoke out immediately, and because they have executive powers, they probably will be able to take action. Union organizers and state legislators also are in positions to respond. That's why, if you're the disgruntled parent of a public college or university student, or a student yourself, you're wasting your time trying to prod the IRS into action when you see public school tuition increase, arguably to pay for sky-high administrative salaries. An email to your senator or congressman will get a form response, or it might be forwarded to the IRS. Or, it might be lost. The effect is the same.
The IRS is mired in its own procedures. Even if it were set to begin genuine enforcement of the law, it seems unwilling to take on the well-funded advocates for the status quo. Meanwhile, governors seem willing and able to act, at least as far as state-supported schools are concerned. They won't rely on the tax code and its bans on vague concepts such as “unreasonable compensation” and “excess benefit transactions.” They'll just get the job done.
Bruce D. Collins is corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN, based in Washington, D.C. Email him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250