By John Hrabe

With 427,000 students and 44,000 staff on 23 campuses, the California State University System is the nation’s largest higher education system. But from Los Angeles to San Francisco, Cal State is raising tuition, cutting enrollment and campaigning for a multibillion-dollar tax hike — all while providing high salaries and lavish benefits to its top executives. “If the tax measures fail,” the Associated Press recently reported, “fall enrollment would be cut another 20,000 students and 3,000 employees laid off.”

In less than eight years, tuition has risen 150 percent, from $2,334 per year in 2004 to just under $6,000 this fall. Just don’t ask Cal State’s top executives to share the burden. The college’s trustees have doled out massive pay raises, misled the public about its executives’ compensation and now want to use nonprofit donations to supplement already excessive salaries.

College Foundations Face Minimal Scrutiny

Cal State’s official executive-compensation summary leads the public to believe that the average president receives $300,000 in pay and up to $60,000 toward housing costs. The job isn’t easy, and the high salary reflects the need to recruit top executives that can raise money for the school, among other tasks. To fulfill their fundraising obligations, Cal State argues, presidents need two things: a housing reimbursement and the authority to run a tax-exempt, auxiliary foundation. These auxiliary foundations, however, offer crucial evidence that Cal State has underreported the total amount of taxpayer-funded compensation its officials receive.

College auxiliary organizations, like any tax-exempt nonprofit, are required by law to report executive compensation on publicly available tax returns. In order to prevent organizations from hiding the true amount of executive compensation, the IRS requires the disclosure of all compensation from the nonprofit and any related organization, including “a nonprofit organization, a stock corporation, a partnership or limited liability company, a trust, and a governmental unit.”

That means every president’s taxpayer-funded salary should be disclosed on the college foundation’s tax return because it is from a related organization. The IRS regulation is designed to prevent non-profits from hiding executive compensation from other sources. Therefore, Cal State foundation tax returns can act as a way to verify the taxpayer-funded compensation disclosed by each Cal State University. Cal State foundation tax documents don’t come close to matching the numbers disclosed by the Cal State Chancellor’s Office or the State Controller’s Office.

Consider the case of Mohammad Qayoumi, the former president of California State University East Bay and current president of San Jose State University. Cal State’s website reported his East Bay starting salary at $237,072 per year, plus $60,000 toward housing costs. Yet the Cal State East Bay Educational Foundation, the nonprofit auxiliary organization the college president manages, reported that Qayoumi received zero compensation from the foundation or any related organization on federal tax returns for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The foundation’s Form 990 tax return is inaccurate and contradicts the IRS’s straightforward instructions for disclosing executive compensation.

It’s conceivable that East Bay’s missing executive-compensation data could be an inadvertent accounting error. However, East Bay’s tax returns don’t resemble the tax returns of other Cal State foundations that reported total presidential compensation. For example, Sacramento State University’s foundation tax returns for the same period include executive compensation data from both taxpayer and foundation sources.

East Bay: Non Responsive to Requests for Public Information

Cal State East Bay hasn’t responded to repeated requests for the total compensation data for the periods in question. “The IRS Form 990 tax reports filed by Cal State East Bay and available to the public on the university Web site were complete and accurate at the time each was filed,” Barry Zepel, Cal State East Bay’s Media Relations Officer, wrote to CalWatchdog on April 28. “The 990 forms include some information presented on a fiscal year basis and some on a calendar year cycle, which includes data from two fiscal years (e.g., the 990 for CY 2008 would reflect data drawn from FY 2007 and FY 2008).”

Taxpayer advocates like Senator Joel Anderson, R- Santee, aren’t buying the excuses. “CSU’s leaders are proving over and over again that they’re incapable of being good stewards with taxpayers’ money: the $400,000 executive salaries, the tapping of Foundation money to cover-up these outrageous salaries,” Anderson told CalWatchDog.com. “Now we find out that they may have committed tax fraud in the process.”

The foundations’ missing or misreported numbers bear directly on the debate about Cal State’s executive compensation. The Cal State Chancellor’s Office continues to claim that high salaries are needed to attract the best talent. Moreover, the Cal State Board of Trustees has now shifted all future pay raises to these nonprofit foundations.

“As I said last week when the chancellor proposed this new policy, it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors disguised as reform,” said State Senator Leland Yee, D- San Francisco. “The trustees are beyond tone deaf; they are either completely oblivious or simply don’t care what students, lawmakers, and taxpayers think.”

Finance Expert Qayoumi Can’t Fill Out Basic Forms

A former vice president for administration and finance and chief financial officer at Cal State Northridge, Qayoumi had impeccable credentials to sort through the foundation’s finances. However, Qayoumi couldn’t follow basic tax instructions. Two sections of the 2009 tax return clearly call for disclosing compensation from related organizations: “Column E: Reportable compensation from related organizations (W-2/1099-MISC)” and “Column F: Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.”

One reason to think the foundation’s numbers may not be the result of mere oversight or clerical error appears on Schedule O of the East Bay Educational Foundation’s Form 990. It describes in painstaking detail the review process officials undertook before submitting their 2010 returns to the IRS: “Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 11: The organization’s Form 990 is reviewed line by line by the president and treasurer and then signed by the president. After the president and the treasurer have approved the final draft of the Form 990, the organization will create a PDF of the form and email it to the members of the governing body before submission and/or due date of the form.”

East Bay is the fourth Cal State campus to report one set of compensation numbers to the IRS and another to the public. On federal tax returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009, San Jose State University’s Tower Foundation reported zero compensation paid by the organization or any related organizations to more than a half-dozen high-ranking university personnel, including the college’s president, provost, athletic director, and several vice-presidents. The California State University Office of the Chancellor understated the annual compensation of San Francisco State University president Robert Corrigan by as much as $52,787 when compared to the San Francisco foundation tax returns.

The most substantial discrepancy uncovered so far involves Cal State Los Angeles president James Rosser. He reported $515,612 in annual compensation to the IRS for the 2009 tax year. In at least five instances, including official statements from the chancellor’s office, Cal State’s website, and an independent competitive pay analysis by the Mercer Consulting firm, Cal State officials have falsely claimed or implied that Rosser’s compensation was nearly $200,000 less—an annual base salary of $325,000.

Rosser’s half-million-dollar compensation, which was reported on foundation tax documents, provides evidence that Cal State’s official compensation data is bogus. It turns out that base salary and housing benefits are only a fraction of total executive compensation, and these miscellaneous benefits represent as much as 50 percent of a college president’s base pay.

Retirement benefits alone cost taxpayers an amount greater than the state’s average per capita income. In the case of East Bay’s 2006 presidential compensation of Qayoumi, base pay and housing were supplemented by a $12,000-per-year car allowance, five weeks of annual paid vacation, 12 days of sick leave, a top-of-the-line health-care plan, dental coverage, vision care, automatic enrollment in the state’s retirement program for public employees, an annual physical examination, relocation costs and moving expenses, and “entertainment allowances.”

In 2011, Qayoumi transferred to San Jose State University, which increased his base salary to $328,200, a $91,128 raise in five years. By transferring to San Jose, Qayoumi picked up another $25,000 from the university’s nonprofit auxiliary foundation. Four Cal State officials (including Qayoumi) collect anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 in bonuses paid by tax-exempt college foundations.

Cal State’s Ongoing Pay Scandal

Cal State’s executive-compensation woes began last July, when the university’s Board of Trustees approved a $400,000 base salary for Elliott Hirschman, San Diego State University’s new president. At the same meeting, the trustees announced a 12 percent tuition increase for the fall term. Students protested. The faculty union president blasted the trustees for their “complete arrogance and tone deafness.” Governor Jerry Brown questioned why Cal State presidents should be paid “twice that of the Chief Justice of the United States.” Ultimately, the public outrage encouraged Republicans in the State Senate to oppose the reconfirmation of Herbert Carter, chairman of Cal State’s board of trustees.

Carter is gone, but his successor hasn’t learned anything from the executive compensation scandal. “Herb Carter was basically the fall guy,” Bob Linscheid, the board’s interim chairman, bluntly told the Chico Enterprise-Record. The board has matched Linscheid’s talk with equally tone-deaf action. Trustees last month voted 10 percent pay raises—the maximum allowable under a rule the board passed earlier in the year to mollify critics—for the new presidents at Cal State’s East Bay and Fullerton campuses. “I’m just sorry we can’t pay them more because of the policy we adopted,” CSU Trustee Roberta Achtenberg lamented at the meeting.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat representing La Cañada-Flintridge in Southern California, and Senator Yee are calling on Cal State administrators “to come clean with a complete and detailed look at just how CSU executives are paid.” The two Democratic legislators are hoping to “ferret out the truth,” which isn’t too much to ask, especially since Cal State’s motto is Vox Veritas Vita: “Speak the truth as a way of life.”

By JOHN HRABE

A loophole in the California State University’s new executive compensation policy will allow new Cal State Northridge President Dianne Harrison to earn a 20 percent raise over her current salary as president of Cal State Monterey Bay. Harrison, who annually earns $270,315 in base pay as Monterey Bay’s chief, will be eligible to earn $54,185 more per year by switching institutions.  The potential pay raise is double the 10 percent limit claimed by the Cal State Chancellor’s office.

In January, the Cal State Board of Trustees responded to public outcry over the $400,000 base salary of San Diego State University President Elliott Hirschman and approved a new 10 percent limit on future presidential pay raises. The text of the policy reads: “When a presidential vacancy occurs, the initial base salary, paid with public funds, to the successor president, shall not exceed ten percent of the previous incumbent’s pay.”

The carefully-worded language means that Harrison’s pay raise won’t be based on her current salary but that of former CSUN president Jolene Koester, who retired in December. Kester’s base salary was $295,000 per year. A 10 percent increase would bring the new CSUN presidential salary to $324,500.

If the 10 percent cap were applied to Harrison’s current pay, she’d only be eligible to receive $297,346.50 per year, or a $27,000 boost.

Loophole

The Cal State Board of Trustees has yet to determine Harrison’s salary. The Monterey County Herald reported, “Her new salary at CSU Northridge will be determined at a future board of trustees meeting.” However, recent board actions and trustee statements give some indication that the board is likely to exploit the loophole. This week, Cal State Trustees handed out 10 percent pay raises to the two new college presidents at Fullerton and East Bay, while simultaneously threatening enrollment cuts.

“I’m just sorry we can’t pay them more because of the policy we adopted,” CSU Trustee Roberta Achtenberg said at this week’s board meeting, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Base pay is only one component of the total compensation provided to college presidents, who also receive $72,000 per year in car and housing allowances, more than the annual salaries of 3,888 Cal State professors. The board has a history of providing top administrators with other perks and benefits that have not been widely reported by the media.

In 2008, Cal State Trustees approved a compensation package for then-San Jose State University President Jon Whitmore that included an annual $25,000 bonus from foundation sources, $18,775 for moving costs, $66,577 in escrow fees for the sale of his Texas residence, CalPERS retirement benefits  an annual medical physical examination, top-of-the-line health plan, insurance programs, vacation days, sick leave accruals and eligibility for the system’s transitional program for university presidents. These perks were in addition to a $328,209 base salary and the housing and car benefits.

The presidential transfer loophole also exposes the hollow and ineffectual nature of a pay cap recently approved by a California Senate committee. On March 21, the Senate Education Committee passed SB 952 by Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, instead of a tougher option proposed by Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.

According to the text of SB 952, “This bill would prohibit, on or after July 1, 2012,  and until July 1, 2018,  the Trustees of the California State University from entering into, or renewing, a contract that provides for a compensation increase for any administrator, as defined,  of more than 10 percent using General Fund moneys in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately past contract for that same position.” Yee’s SB 967 would prohibit raises for Cal State University’s top administrators during bad budget years or within two years of a student fee hike.

Tougher Bill

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D- Sacramento, said Thursday that he was unsatisfied with the Alquist measure and may support Yee’s more stringent cap. The Los Angeles Times reported that Steinberg “suggested that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara), should be tougher and apply to other top executives besides presidents.”

CalWatchDog.com has previously reported on the numerous loopholes in Cal State’s new executive compensation policy, including the option of supplementing presidential salaries through university foundations. A CalWatchDog.com investigation has also revealed numerous financial irregularities in the tax returns of these Cal State foundations. The Tower Foundation of San Jose State University on federal tax returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 reported zero compensation paid by the organization or any related organizations to more than a half dozen high-ranking university personnel, including the college’s president, provost, athletic director and several vice-presidents.

This week, CalWatchDog.com first reported that the California State University Office of the Chancellor understated the annual compensation of San Francisco State University President Robert Corrigan by as much as $52,787.

Earlier this month, CalWatchDog.com revealed that Cal State Los Angeles President James Rosser reported $515,612 in annual compensation to the IRS for the 2009-10 tax year. In at least five instances, Cal State officials have falsely claimed or implied Rosser’s compensation was nearly $200,000 less. On March 12, the California State University system falsely claimed to have received a 2012 Sunshine Award, which recognizes “the most transparent government websites in the nation.”

The California State University Chancellor’s Office has not responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification about its executive compensation.

By JOHN HRABE

In response to a CalWatchDog.com investigation series, two Democratic state legislators are calling on the California State University system “to come clean with a complete and detailed look at just how CSU executives are paid.” In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon to Cal State Chancellor Charles Reed, Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, and Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, urged CSU to end its repeated attempts to mislead the public about the total compensation of its top executives.

“Despite repeated attempts to ferret out the truth, recent news reports suggest that CSU officials continue to conceal details about excessive compensation for campus presidents — including tens of thousands of dollars in perks such as housing, car allowances, and retirement and health benefits,” the legislators wrote. “According to CalWatchDog.com, the president of Cal State Los Angeles makes over $515,000 in total compensation per year; that’s about $200,000 more than what’s listed on CSU’s website.”

Earlier this month, a CalWatchdog investigation revealed that Cal State officials have provided false and misleading information to the public about the total compensation provided to at least one of the system’s 23 presidents. According to IRS Form 990 documents of the Cal State University Los Angeles Foundation, CSULA President James Rosser reported receiving $515,612 in total compensation for fiscal year 2009-10, which ended on June 30, 2010. The half-million dollar figure is roughly $200,000 more than CSU’s previously cited base salary of $325,000 per year. In at least five instances, Cal State officials have claimed or implied the lower compensation amount for Rosser.

‘Open and Transparent’?

Following last year’s public outcry over the $400,000 base salary for San Diego State President Elliot Hirschman, Cal State established a special Web page for public information on its executive compensation policies. “As a public institution, the California State University is committed to being as open and transparent to the public as possible,” the Web site reads. “In response to recent discussions about the California State University’s executive compensation policies and practices, we have created this central page to make the documents related to those policies more readily accessible.”

The website makes no reference to any CSU president receiving more than half-a-million dollars per year in taxpayer-funded benefits. The webpage contains an executive compensation summary, titled “2011/2012 CSU Executive Compensation Summary.” This summarizing document lists Rosser’s total compensation as $325,000 per year, plus a $60,000 housing allowance. It excludes any reference to a car allowance or other non-taxable perks, such as retirement, FICA or health benefits.

‘No Justification’

“There is no justification for these bloated salaries and even less justification for hiding the truth from the taxpaying public,” wrote Portantino and Yee. “The need for transparency has never been greater, and thus why we call on you and your administration to use Sunshine Week to come clean with a complete and detailed look at just how CSU executives are paid.”

CalWatchDog.com has been repeatedly rebuffed in our requests for the total compensation packages of all 23 college presidents. “The information is publicly available and included on 990 forms for each president and the chancellor that are posted on each campus website, as well as on the chancellor office website,” said Claudia Keith, Cal State’s assistant vice chancellor of public affairs.

However, the IRS documents provided on the Cal State Foundation’s website are nearly three years old. The most recent IRS Form 990, which is available on the CSU Foundation’s webpage, is for July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009.

In addition to their letter, Portantino and Yee have proposed legislation to limit the excessive compensation of high-ranking government employees.  Portantino’s AB 1787 would freeze compensation for public employees making more than $100,000 a year.  Yee’s SB 967 would prohibit raises for top executives during bad budget years or within two years of a student fee hike.

Both legislators have a long history of championing government openness and transparency. Last year, Portantino led the effort to force the state Assembly to disclose its total operating budget. On January 1, new legislation authored by Yee took effect that expanded the state’s Public Records Act to include the University of California, Cal State and the community college auxiliaries and foundations. SB 8 provides the public with greater tools to investigate the financial statements and contracts of public colleges and universities.

By JOHN HRABE

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff flunked Cal State University’s “fuzzy math” and is calling for “substantial changes at the institution.” His action followed CalWatchDog.com‘s investigation into the system’s false and misleading information about the total compensation of its top administrators.

“The California State University system faces a difficult challenge with mounting trigger cuts that have placed enormous financial pressure on the backs of middle class families,” Huff said. “But using fuzzy math to camouflage escalating executive compensation, while student fees are skyrocketing, underscores a need for substantial changes at the institution.”

CalWatchdog first reported this month on the deceptive practices by Cal State to misinform the public about the total compensation provided to the system’s 23 presidents. According to IRS documents of the Cal State University Los Angeles Foundation, CSULA President James Rosser reported receiving $515,612 in total compensation for fiscal year 2009-10, which ended on June 30, 2010. The half-million dollar figure is roughly $200,000 more than CSU’s previously cited base salary of $325,000 per year. In at least five instances, Cal State officials have claimed or implied a lower compensation amount for CSULA’s Rosser.

‘Doesn’t Look Right’

Senator Doug LaMalfa, R-Redding, also criticized Cal State for deceiving the public and providing its executives with high salaries during the state’s ongoing budget crisis.

“It just doesn’t look right.  We are in the middle of a budget crisis with student fees being increased left and right, yet executives are getting six-figure raises and $100,000 perks not even on the books,” La Malfa told CalWatchDog.com. “These are huge salaries for public officials, larger than the governor, yet they have a much smaller portfolio of responsibilities. They can ‘suffer along’ with their current six-digit compensation while the rest of the public weathers the budget crisis and tough economy.”

Following last year’s public outcry over San Diego State University’s $400,000 base salary for new president Elliot Hirschman, Cal State established a special Web page for public information on its executive compensation policies. “As a public institution, the California State University is committed to being as open and transparent to the public as possible,” the website reads. “In response to recent discussions about the California State University’s executive compensation policies and practices, we have created this central page to make the documents related to those policies more readily accessible.”

Senators Huff and La Malfa join a growing number of legislators that are urging greater fiscal accountability at Cal State. Senator Joel Anderson, R-Santee, and Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada-Flintridge, were the first legislators to criticize Cal State for its efforts to mislead the public on executive compensation.

“If it’s true that the CSU has been hiding important budget information from the Legislature and public review, potentially in violation of state law and the CSU’s own rules, then I believe there needs to be consequences,” said Assemblyman Portantino. “It is PAST time for the CSU to be fully and completely transparent. I call on the Assembly Leadership to support my continuing effort to FREEZE the pay and benefits for the CSU executives until we have adequate time to review, line-by-line, actual spending records.”

By JOHN HRABE

California State University officials have provided false and misleading information to the public about the total compensation provided to at least one of the system’s 23 presidents, a CalWatchDog.com investigation has found. According to IRS documents of the Cal State University Los Angeles Foundation, CSULA President James Rosser reported receiving $515,612 in total compensation for fiscal year 2009-10, which ended on June 30, 2010. The half-million dollar figure is roughly $200,000 more than CSU’s previously cited base salary of $325,000 per year. (For this and other numbers, please see the 15 pages of confirming documents below.)

A university spokeswoman confirmed to CalWatchDog.com that, in addition to his base pay, housing allowance and car stipend, Rosser also receives more than $134,000 per year in “nontaxable benefits such as retirement, FICA, health, etc.” This disclosure is the first time that Cal State has acknowledged the complete and accurate total compensation for its top executives. Rosser’s more than half-million-dollar annual compensation package raises questions about the true cost of other college executives, including San Diego State University’s Elliot Hirschman and Cal State Chancellor Charles Reed, both of whom receive “base pay” in excess of $400,000 per year.

Legislator Calls for Immediate Pay Freeze & Audit

Republican and Democratic legislators quickly criticized Cal State for its apparent deception. One influential member of the Assembly’s Committee on Higher Education is urging the Assembly leadership to freeze CSU’s pay and benefits and conduct a line-by-line review of actual spending records.

“If it’s true that the CSU has been hiding important budget information from the Legislature and public review, potentially in violation of state law and the CSU’s own rules, then I believe there needs to be consequences,” said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge. “It is PAST time for the CSU to be fully and completely transparent. I call on the Assembly Leadership to support my continuing effort to FREEZE the pay and benefits for the CSU executives until we have adequate time to review, line-by-line, actual spending records.”

Senator Joel Anderson, R-Santee, who has been critical of the Cal State Board of Trustees for its executive compensation policies, also disapproved of CSU’s misinformation campaign. “It is always frustrating when intellectually dishonest bureaucrats play hide-the-pea with public records requests,” he said.

The new revelation of the total compensation package provided to Cal State L.A.’s president contradicts at least five instances in which Cal State officials have claimed or implied a lower compensation amount. At a minimum, Cal State has violated its commitment to be “as open and transparent to the public as possible.”

Cal State Executive Compensation Website

Following last year’s public outcry over Hirschman’s $400,000 base salary, Cal State established a special webpage for public information on its executive compensation policies. “As a public institution, the California State University is committed to being as open and transparent to the public as possible,” the website reads. “In response to recent discussions about the California State University’s executive compensation policies and practices, we have created this central page to make the documents related to those policies more readily accessible.”

The website makes no reference to any CSU president receiving more than half-a-million dollars per year in taxpayer-funded benefits. The webpage contains an executive compensation summary, titled “2011/2012 CSU Executive Compensation Summary.” This summarizing document lists Rosser’s total compensation as $325,000 per year, plus a $60,000 housing allowance. It excludes any reference to a car allowance or other non-taxable perks, such as retirement, FICA or health benefits.

Cal State’s Executive Compensation website more closely reflects the compensation amount disclosed to the California State Controller’s Office, which maintains a database of public employee salary information. According to State Controller John Chiang’s Government Compensation database, Cal State L.A.’s president receives $372,461 in “Total Wages Subject to Medicare (Box 5 of W-2).”

March 2011 Mercer Report

Cal State’s campaign to mislead the public about the total compensation package provided to its top executives dates back to last March, when the system hired the high-priced Mercer consulting firm to conduct a competitive pay analysis. The Mercer Report, which has been criticized by California Watch for using bogus comparator institutions, included two references to Rosser’s compensation of $325,000. Under Section IV, “Compensation Analysis,” Mercer concluded that Rosser’s salary was 31 percent lower than the “market average” of $425,945 per year. CalWatchDog.coms revelation of Rosser’s total compensation of $515,612 per year would dramatically alter this comparison. Instead of trailing the “market average” by 31 percent, Rosser would exceed it by 21 percent.

The Mercer Report also included two references that Cal State failed to provide incentives to its presidents, a claim that is refuted by the IRS documents. “CSU does not offer its presidents any short-or long-term incentive programs,” the consultants wrote on page 11 of the report. The report continued on page 12: “CSU does not offer incentives, and therefore its total cash compensation is equivalent to base salary.”

In advance of an August 2011 meeting of the Board of Trustees, CSU staff prepared a 15-page report titled, “Cash Compensation of Public University Chief Executives.” The document summarized the Mercer Report and other executive compensation data. In that report, Rosser’s total compensation is listed at $325,000, with empty boxes in a table that included options for supplemental compensation, bonuses and deferred compensation.

Cal State Assistant Vice Chancellor Confirmed Total Compensation Amount

On February 9, CalWatchDog.com asked Claudia Keith, Cal State’s assistant vice chancellor of public affairs, to confirm the “total compensation package, including taxable and nontaxable benefits” for Cal State L.A.’s president.

CalWatchDog.com asked, “The total compensation package, including taxable and nontaxable benefits, consists of the salary, housing and car allowance. For example, James Rosser, President of CSULA, receives a salary of $325,000, plus a $60,000 housing allowance, and the $12,000 annual car allowance. (Based on the links you’ve supplied). Does that represent Mr. Rosser’s total compensation, including all taxable and nontaxable benefits?”

Keith replied, simply, “Yes.”

Twenty days later, when CalWatchDog.com supplied Keith with the IRS documents, Cal State finally came clean about the true cost of CSULA’s presidential compensation package.

Keith wrote, “Total if $380,666 in taxable compensation which includes $308,666 in salary (this was year we had furloughs for 1/2 the year) + $60,000 housing and $12,000 car allowance.  The $134,946 are nontaxable benefits such as retirement, FICA, health, etc.”

The Cal State Office of Public Affairs’ misinformation, or possible deception, substantiates Portantino’s charge that CSU has repeatedly stifled legislative attempts to rein in the high compensation of public administrators.

“For the past several years, the CSU administration has worked in concert with Assembly Leadership to squash legislation dealing with outrageous executive compensation practices,” he said.

Portantino has proposed legislation that would impose a two-year pay freeze on public employees that earn more than $100,000 per year. AB 1787 would affect more than 3,300 state employees, excluding higher education executives at the University of California and Cal State systems.

On January 1, new legislation took effect that provides the public with greater tools to investigate the financial statements and contracts of public colleges and universities. SB 8, authored by state Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, expanded the state’s Public Records Act to include UC, CSU and the community college auxiliaries and foundations.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.