Responding to the UC executive compensation controversy, the universitywide Academic Senate has recommended a set of principles to guide future compensation decisions for all employees.

The principles call for transparency and fairness in personnel policies and practices; fidelity to respecting the roles that the regents and senate play in governing UC; and merit pay based on performance, "as assessed in fair, valid and transparent ways."

UC Davis law professor Dan Simmons, chairman of the Davis senate division, and UC Santa Barbara education professor Michael Brown wrote the principles.

The senate assembly — with a total of 59 delegates from UC's 10 campuses — approved the principles and accompanying recommendations during a conference-call meeting on Feb. 8, and then forwarded them to UC President Robert Dynes. That same day, systemwide senate Chair Cliff Brunk referred to the principles in testimony to the state Senate Education Committee in Sacramento.

If adopted by the Board of Regents, the principles "will sharpen the ethical outline of UC's compensation policies and provide appropriate, practical guidelines for employee compensation actions of all kinds," Brunk, a UCLA professor of cell and molecular biology, wrote in a Feb. 14 letter to Dynes.

From the Office of the President in Oakland, spokesman Brad Hayward said: "The Academic Senate has a very important role to play in these matters, and we welcome the thoughtful input the Senate has provided.

"We have many efforts under way at a number of different levels to improve our policies and practices in the area of compensation, and the Senate's recommendations will be taken very seriously as those efforts move forward."

The senate proposal acknowledges that "executive compensation, perquisites and separate packages may require distinctly different quantities and qualities than those for other University of California employee groups."

But, the proposal continues, "Fairness requires that the rules be public, just and consistent with the public and academic character of the University of California."

In a phone interview last week, Brunk noted the senate's use of the phrase "entire UC community" in the fairness principle: "These principles and recommendations are across the board," for all employees, he said. "UC won't fly without the staff."

In his letter to Dynes, Brunk wrote that the senate looks forward to working with the Board of Regents "to amend the university's compensation practices in ways that will ensure transparency, accountability and fairness, and that will better accord with the university's mission and its nature as a public institution."

The senate document applauds UC leadership for actions taken in the wake of the compensation controversy: launching an outside audit of senior managers' compensation packages and departure agreements; establishing a regents' committee on compensation; and appointing a task force of business, government, media and education representatives to review UC compensation policies and practices, including disclosures.

The senate's recommendations almost did not make it into the compensation principles document. In the phone interview, Brunk said some of the recommendations were not "terribly tenable."

The senate council removed the recommendations when it considered the compensation principles prior to forwarding the document to the assembly. The council comprises 19 members: divisional senate chairs from the 10 campuses, the senate chair and vice chair, and the leaders of seven standing committees.

Those 19 members serve with 40 other delegates on the assembly, which voted to put back the recommendations.

Simmons said the council deleted the recommendations because senate divisions on UC's 10 campuses had not had enough time to review them. He said the recommendations went back in with some alterations.

The first recommendation "strongly" encourages the Board of Regents to "firmly establish total compensation levels for leadership that are appropriate for a public trust, and to act promptly to identify and remedy any areas where practices do not correspond to policies."

The senate calls for careful scrutiny of policies and practices regarding compensation and perquisites, "including those associated with off-scale salaries and separation agreements."

The recommendations note that these policies and practices also need "sustained scrutiny" by the Academic Senate, "as is consistent with its role in shared governance."

"There is an apparent need for Academic Senate consultation, drawing upon its expertise in performance-based compensation reviews, in the areas of nonacademic personnelpolicies and practices."

The senate suggests that the university's academic leadership come from the faculty, within and outside the University of California, "especially those experienced in shared governance."

The senate document also states that compensation increases for leadership "should not lead" those of the faculty and other staff. Brunk said "there is no evidence that is happening" and described the recommendation as "divisive." He said that no one in the UC system received cost-of-living or "Comparison Eight" pay adjustments during the four-year period ending with the 2005-06 fiscal year. He acknowledged, however, that faculty members continued to receive merit pay.

Simmons said: "My view is the excellence of the University of California is dependent on its faculty. Our first principle has to be that we offer competitive compensation for faculty."

Among all UC employees, the average salary is 10 percent to 15 percent less than the average among the "Comparison Eight" universities, Brunk said.

"The ultimate bottom line is that the University of California is just one whale of a good university," said Brunk, who has been at UCLA for 40 years. "The administration and faculty are working at slightly less than top dollar, and are willing to do so because of the excellence of their colleagues, staff, facilities and students."

"There's a tipping point, though," he added. "How much less can you pay them" before they move on?