As an alumnus of both The American University and The Chronicle of Higher Education (I am proud of one of those right now)... and as a longtime PR person who was once responsible for pushing The Chronicle's "editorial choices" on to other publications so that they could make the same "disappointing" decisions to publish this factual information...
This letter from our alumni association president looks like a serious case of the university's institutional advancement machine stepping on its own dick.
I bet this wasn't the PR folks' idea, and I feel kind of bad for them. Campaign must not be going well.
From: aualum=american.edu@reply.bronto.com on behalf of AU Alumni Association
To: Matthew Snyder
Subject: Important Message from Your Alumni Association President
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:14:19 PM
Dear fellow alumni,
I am writing you today as proud as ever to be an alumnus of American University, and with great confidence in the students, faculty, and leadership of our shared alma mater.
In your local paper, online, or in national publications such as the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, you may have noticed a story that referenced a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding presidential compensation in higher education. Annually, the Chronicle collects and compares data as listed on publicly available IRS Forms 990. On Monday, the Chronicle published a story using the data from 2007–2008, which reported that AU president Neil Kerwin, SPA/BA ’71, received $1,419,339 in total compensation in 2008, ranking third highest in the nation.
Eagle to eagle, you should know that this report of Dr. Kerwin’s income is misleading. Dr. Kerwin’s annual salary, $559,067 in FY2008, historically ranks third among the seven presidents of private research universities in Washington and is moderate in relation to presidents at private universities. The total reported included deferred compensation ($481,304) and investment growth ($318,864) that Dr. Kerwin earned over nearly a decade during his service as provost and interim president. He was required to take the payout when the funds vested, consistent with board policy. It is important to note that each year of the deferred compensation was previously reported on IRS 990 forms and prior surveys as a benefit.
I hope you are able to take a moment to review a communication from AU Board Chairman Gary M. Abramson, SPA/BA ’68, on this subject here.
On behalf of the AU Alumni Association Board, I would like to express my disappointment for the editorial choices utilized by the Chronicle and, subsequently, by other news outlets. During his tenure, Dr. Kerwin has led the university to tremendous financial and academic success and the board’s compensation is especially focused on competitive, market-based compensation that is not excessive. I am proud to be serving as Alumni Board President during this time. I hope that this information is helpful to you, and I encourage you to maintain an open and honest dialogue with your alma mater.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,Brian F. Keane
3 comments:
I'm having a hard time figuring out what the PR gaffe was here. Could you spell it out a little clearer for the math majors in the room?
Lessee... the first wrong thing was sending an alumni e-blast highlighting news coverage that few alumni would have noticed at all had it not been brought to our attention.
Then, in that e-mail blast,the author questions the editorial bona fides of The Chronicle (unassailably the publication of record in its field); the Wall Street Journal (ditto); the New York Times (OK, not so much); and while he's at it he takes care to let us know that "your local paper" sucks too. Hey, piss on the pope and Grandma too!
Then, there's a counter-argument built around the fact pattern that, well, actually, hmmm, let's see, I guess AU actually did pay the guy that much. But at least they were required to pay him!
My takeaway from this whole message isn't that any of those media outlets erred in their coverage... it's that AU is unnecessarily thin-skinned about this topic, as if it's an institution that still has something to hide.
Hope that $1.4M at least bought homes a personal chef ...
Ok, I agree that I'd never heard of this. And, frankly, I'd probably never had heard of the Chronicle, either, if I hadn't known about you working there. The actual data appears to be behind a pay wall, but I found the corresponding WaPo article.
I don't know what those IRS forms say, but the WaPo article talks about the rate of increase in these salaries, which, apparently, doesn't really have that much to do with the $1.4M that Kerwin got. I don't know if the Chronicle did any more in depth reporting on any of the figures, though I suspect that it would probably be easy to come away with the impression that the figure was his salary. The WaPo, BTW, doesn't give any indication that this was stuff that was deferred and invested in a fund over the last 12 years.
An interesting question is whether next year (when his compensation is around the $600K that is reportedly his salary), they'll report that he got a 50%+ pay cut.
Perhaps it would have been better to report the amount deposited in the trust each year. I think this is an unfair portrayal of his compensation, though I generally don't think much of this sort of class warfare executive salary baiting.
But given that that so many AU grads are into that sort of thing (extrapolating from the preponderance of liberals that were on campus when I was there), maybe it's not such a bad statement.
Post a Comment