Search News


Browse Archives

News

Camp Jackson

January 26, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

University presidents are often criticized for excessive compensation, but Shirley Ann Jackson is taking heat for a benefit that may place her in a class all her own.

Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, is taking heat for her high pay, and a notable perk: a second home in the Adirondacks, provided by RPI in addition to her presidential residence. Inside Higher Ed surveyed all 26 private institutions within the Association of American Universities, and officials with 25 of those colleges confirmed that their presidents are not provided a second residence. The University of Chicago was the only institution not to respond, but Chicago’s 2006 Form 990 only mentions a single home provided to the president.

While RPI is not a member of the AAU, the elite cohort of research universities surely constitutes the institute’s aspirational peer group.

Jackson’s $1.3 million compensation makes her one of the highest-paid private university presidents in the country, and her generous perks have drawn particular scrutiny as the university faces financial challenges. RPI recently laid off 80 of its more than 2,100 employees, and Jackson’s Adirondacks home, first reported on by The Albany Times Union, has emerged as a symbolic structure of inequity.

“We’re kind of upset,” said Brian Dolan, an RPI student who has led a petition drive for Jackson to decrease her pay. “It seems like it would be easy enough for her to cut a few of her luxuries, because she certainly has them, to help a few people maintain their livelihood here.”

Jackson declined an interview request, but RPI issued a statement about the second home, which the college purchased for $450,000, the Times Union reported. The home sits on 36 acres, a tract of land roughly one-third the size of Camp David.

“The purchase of this property was funded entirely by a restricted gift by a donor to the Institute,” William Walker, an RPI spokesman, said in an statement e-mailed to Inside Higher Ed. “The gift by the donor was given specifically to purchase this property. The Board of Trustees has made it available to the president as a retreat, and as a facility to host high level official activities, at her discretion.”

The chair and vice chair of the board did not return calls for comment.

Jackson has for many years been a prominent figure in government and academic science. She serves on many panels related to science and technology policy, and she was appointed in 1995 by then-President Clinton to serve as chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jackson has also been heralded for her fundraising prowess, securing a $360 million unrestricted gift to RPI in 2001 and regularly landing major donations.Yet she has been a controversial figure on the Troy, N.Y. campus, where a no confidence vote in Jackson was only narrowly defeated in 2006. While the measure did fail by a six-vote margin, it revealed simmering tensions about Jackson's leadership, and growing objections to her generous compensation.

On Smithsonian Board, Jackson Heard Similar Criticism

Criticism of executive compensation levels should be nothing new to Jackson, who has been a member of the all-volunteer Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution since 2005. In the summer of 2007, an independent panel criticized the Smithsonian regents in a report for failing to recognize the lavish spending practices of Lawrence Small, the former Smithsonian director who resigned amid an accounting probe. An audit of the institute uncovered a string of unauthorized expenses, including charges for chartered jet travel and a trip to Cambodia for Small’s wife.

Dean Zerbe, who aided Sen. Charles Grassley’s investigations into the compensation of college chiefs and other spending practices on university campuses, said he was surprised Jackson would accept a presidential retreat, particularly given her work with the Smithsonian.

“I’ve never heard of such a thing,” said Zerbe, who is now national managing director of AlliantGroup, which provides tax services to accounting firms. “It raises huge questions of what is going on there. How anyone who could have had a ringside seat for all the Smithsonian debacle could believe that that is an appropriate benefit really needs to rethink where they are. I can’t think of any instance where I’ve seen this.”

The Smithsonian instituted a number of new policies in the wake of the scandal, including the establishment of a Governance Committee, which Jackson now chairs.

Some of Jackson’s other benefits at RPI are also fueling criticism. In addition to an “executive housekeeper,” the president’s office receives a substantial amount of personal security. According to RPI’s faculty/staff directory, the president’s office employs two separate “executive protection specialists,” as well as an “executive protection coordinator." RPI officials declined to discuss what these employees do, and why they are necessary additions to the campus police force.

As of last week, student protesters said they had garnered more than 1,000 signatures on an online petition that calls on Jackson to “publicly and significantly reduce her compensation.”

Bruce Nauman, a professor of chemical engineering and frequent critic of Jackson, said he was “stunned” that the president’s compensation has reached such levels.

“I remain stunned at the level of her compensation in light of her performance,” he said, “and understand that her perks, such as the Adirondacks vacation retreat and her personal security staff, are completely out of line with normal university practice.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Camp Jackson

  • RPI President Jackson
  • Posted by Brian Madden on January 26, 2009 at 8:20am EST
  • The writer failed to establish if the property in question, the vacation house and land, is Ms. Jackson's only while she is RPI president, or if it is her's permanently.
    Also, if a donor gave the money for that specific purpose, what's the big deal? Attack the donor or the board of trustees, not the recipient. The salary is another story, and quite excessive, but only under today's economic plight, otherwise anyone who can raise 360-million bucks for a school, can't be all that detrimental to the institution.
    Let's not get loony about this stuff.

  • Poor thing.
  • Posted by dundermifflin on January 26, 2009 at 8:20am EST
  • ...but if you were to pay for the $450k house out of her annual salary she would only have 850K to live on...my God, how are you supposed to do that?

    Something is seriously wrong the the judgement, culture and education of executives...academic and business!

  • Posted by John on January 26, 2009 at 8:35am EST
  • Yes it seems the RPI President and its Board of Directors have forgotten that that while they are condsidered a "private" institution, they still get the benefit of not paying taxes - because they are a viewed, and in return for, providing a public benefit - education and employment for people throughoout the region.

    The Board of Directors ultimately have to answer for the President's salary and actions (including her earnings of $1.3 million whhile laying off people making $40,000) Members of the RPI Board should be hounded by the press - and forced to testify by members of the state Legislature until they do answer. The NYS Board of Regents also should force the RPI Board members to answer for this since they do have the power to remove the RPI Board, or revole the RPI Charter, for cause. Otehrwise let RPI change their status and start paying local property taxes and State and Federal corporate taxes.

  • why not call it a research station?
  • Posted by Michael Tinkler , Associate Professor of Art at Hobart and William Smith Colleges on January 26, 2009 at 8:35am EST
  • Jackson could have defused this problem by declaring that the 36 acre purchase in the Adirondacks was primarily an environmental sciences research station which happened to have a lodge on it suitable for administrative retreats.

    Since she didn't, one has a hard time understanding this as anything other than a vacation camp.

  • President Jackson
  • Posted by RPI Alum on January 26, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • As an RPI alum who works in higher education at a senior administrative level, I have several comments:
    - President Jackson has raised the profile of the institution that over the past several decades has declined. She's the first RPI president since George Low to have national stature.
    - President Jackson's compensation is high by most standards. The peer aspirant group average presidential salary is more than .5 million less. This is not the president's fault but that of an indulgent Board of Trustees. The anger should be directed to them.
    - Private higher education is very much market driven. If Ms. Jackson can command these types of salary and that's what it takes to keep a nationally recognized leader, I say let's continue. She's changed the campus and the reputation for the better.
    - Finally, the faculty are the last ones to make judgments about how well an institution is run. They work in a very protected environment isolated from market forces. They should thank the fates for their good fortune to have Dr. Jackson at the helm. I'd like to see one of them try and manage a complex institution like RPI.

    Higher Ed Administrator

  • Posted by Rich on January 26, 2009 at 9:05am EST
  • These are two separate issues. The second home is a donor gift that will benefit all future RPI presidents and it sounds like a good enticement at the margins. The salary is the problem--it presumably comes from the general budget and it doesn't model any kind of social solidarity or commitment to public vs. private well-being.

  • RPI
  • Posted by Bob on January 26, 2009 at 9:25am EST
  • Why don't market-driven universities declare themselves to be for-profit enterprises? And when they fail, they can go to Washington, DC asking for a bail out.

    It sounds like the President of RPI works as a fundraiser on a commission basis. Do the donors care?

    Bob

  • Posted by Random Thoughts on January 26, 2009 at 9:30am EST
  • The property would have attracted much less attention if it had been presented more as "available to the president as a retreat, and as a facility to host high level official activities" and if there were a deliberate effort to use it for meetings with a variety of campus constituencies. Calling it a second home makes the whole thing much more problematic, particularly in light of other questions that have been raised.

  • My Two Cents
  • Posted by Wossamotta U. on January 26, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • In response to the suggestion that somehow the RPI faculty are whiny and out of line, I want to recall that this article says nothing of what brought on the 2006 vote of no confidence--the main affront to Jackson's authority. I would say, though, that faculty members in general are certainly not isolated from market forces. Those of RPI caliber are surely afforded their fair share of enticement calls from other universities. Their estimation of their own market worth in juxtaposition with the compensation, research funds, equipment, facilities, colleagues, and leaders available at RPI and elsewhere is a central process, which directly influences the ethereal notion that others call "the market."

    As for the salary, I don't have a big problem with it. Jackson's clearly earning it with those massive gifts. As for the "vacation home," the woman is clearly working too hard to be taking it easy for the rest of RPI. It was a poorly labeled and ill-timed gift. Tisk and be done with it.

    In light of the 80 people who were laid off, though, I would say that my opinion of her (not ever having met her), is that she is cold. While other presidents take pay cuts, she sits on a comparative largess and shows 80 people the door. Not knowing who these people were, I would suggest that RPI is losing a lot of labor not to question Jackson's position on her compensation and related governance commitments.

  • Turnaround at RPI...
  • Posted by RPI Alum and Donor on January 26, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • As a 70's era alumnus of RPI, I was disheartened throughout the 1980's and 1990's as I watched the school stagnate and its fine reputation decline. In major corporation recruiting circles, RPI was being compared to non-research engineering colleges instead of AAU research universities. How things have changed in the last decade! The campus looks great, research is growing, and the quality of students is constantly improving. Shirley Ann Jackson may get paid well, but she has had a tremendous positive impact on the standing of RPI in the world. I saw a compensation list in the Albany Times-Union and there was a faculty member making well over half a million dollars. Where is the outcry over that?

  • Governance and Dr. Jackson
  • Posted by Tamar Gordon on January 26, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • It is supremely ironic that Dr. Jackson heads the Governance Committee at the Smithsonian. Dr. Jackson is one of the very few university presidents who, following the will of the Board of Trustees, has actually shut down a Faculty Senate. By dissolving the Faculty Senate and Constitution, she dispelled all pretense of shared governance that is the hallmark of a civilized university.

  • Posted by Fritz Vandover on January 26, 2009 at 11:25am EST
  • The Board of Trustees of any institution is ultimately responsible for the salary that it offers to the president. The president should not be chastised for accepting it. That being said, the President Jackson may wanted to take a pay cut to prevent the layoff of some or all of those employees to show some empathy and solidarity.

    With regard to the second residence, if a donor makes a restricted gift to an institution to buy a vacation home for the institution's president or executive staff, they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to disburse those funds to that end. I once read an interesting article (I believe it was in IHE) about this exact subject. One donor made a large restricted gift that could only be spent on physical plant and would come have coffee/tea with physical plant staff while sitting in the boiler room every year.

  • Turnaround at RPI
  • Posted by Michael on January 26, 2009 at 11:25am EST
  • I couldn't agree more with what RPI Alum and Donor has said. And uless I missed it somewhere, where does it say that faculty have to have shared governance? Faculty are there to teach (how many do that now a days), research and mentor students. The administration is responsible for running the institution. They appear to be doing a good job based on a Newsweek Article about RPI becoming one of the "new ivy's".

  • Not All the Facts expressed
  • Posted by Diogenes on January 26, 2009 at 11:46am EST
  • two things that people forget

    1. The money used to provide maintence and pay for utlities for all thes gifted facilties comes out of the University genral fund so they are never truly "free"

    2. The funds that are claimed to have been raised by Dr. Jackson are not true $$$. Gifts in kind do not add to the University coffers. In fact a gift such as the PACE gift of sftware costs money in that someone (or someones) must maintain and update the software and associated computer systems so there is actually a net loss again to the general fund of any University.

    While its true Dr. Jackson has the raised the profile of the University it has come at a long term cost to the fiscal integrity of the Insitution. At this point it is not clear her actions are added value.

  • RPI and real estate
  • Posted by Jim on January 26, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Seems like an odd restricted gift, doesn't it? Here's a (wild) guess: You got a buddy trying to unload some wooded property, so you arrange for a tax-deductible sale and RPI is more than happy to go along....

  • Posted by falcon on January 26, 2009 at 1:35pm EST
  • While the RPI Board may ultimately be responsible for determining Jackson's compensation and the institution may indeed be a shooting star in the US News & World's annual beauty pageant, the good president could still have demonstrated a greater degree of moral decency and principled leadership. Instead she chose to fall back on the ethos we have observed in the past few years on Wall Street. A real missed opportunity to model what it means to be part of a community. What a shame.

  • Shared Governance
  • Posted by SeenItAll on January 26, 2009 at 1:40pm EST
  • It always amazes me that people who are outside academe are so hostile to faculty. But it is even more upsetting when people who work in the sector don't understand why shared governance is important.

    I work at a private non for profit college as a faculty member. Faculty are not legally not allowed to unionize because we are technically part of management.

    If we are part of management then shared governance seems required not just reasonable. Finally, almost everyone is lauding President Obama's supposed team of rivals because it will improve the level of discussion but critics of shared governance don't seem to consider that staff members with five minute tenure aren't likely to disagree with their superiors.

    While it is clear that President Jackson has done remarkable things for the institution at least in the short run, it is hard to believe that in the long run she will succeed when the faculty is so divided. Leadership counts and if she is laying people off then she needs to cut her pay.

  • Posted by Don't make assumptions on January 26, 2009 at 2:20pm EST
  • How you do you all know that President Jackson's first suggestion wasn't a reduction in her salary?? And perhaps the Board of Trustees did not agree with this? She has done so much for Rensselaer and its reputation since she has been here. When faced with this difficult decision in a time of economic hardship she handled it quite well(in comparison to what other colleges are doing) and other avenues were explored. As far as the home in the Adirondacks goes, I'm pretty sure it's not hers to keep and considering her busy schedule I doubt she even has time to take a vacation.

  • Plantation Presidents
  • Posted by reader on January 26, 2009 at 2:50pm EST
  • Has Ms. Jackson raised the profile of RPI? In a manner of speaking. I know only one thing about the place: it has an obscenely overpaid and parasitic president. Other than that, I think it's in New York, and it must be a technical school of some kind. But the one thing I'm sure about, and have heard reported for years, is that its leadership is financially rich and morally bankrupt.

  • Posted by RPI student on January 26, 2009 at 6:41pm EST
  • As a current student of RPI, I definitely feel like she should cut some of her luxuries such as her excessive staff.

    However, she has done well for this school. And although not many people outside of college know about the institute - application numbers have rose to an amount unheard of prior to Pres. Jackson. She has done plenty good for this school and to blame her for the amount of money and what others decide to donate to the school is in my opinion, unwarranted.

    She does her job well and as a student that has gone here undergrad and now a graduate student, I am thankful for her leadership and the care she has put into her work in making this institute a better place!

  • Ism at work?
  • Posted by Diane Gusa , PhD candiate on January 26, 2009 at 7:50pm EST
  • According to the Chronicle the top 6 paid presidents are:

    David J. Sargent, Suffolk University, Boston ($2,800,461)*
    Henry S. Bienen, Northwestern University, Chicago ($1,742,560)
    Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University, New York ($1,411,894)
    Shirley Ann Jackson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ($1,326,774)

    Top-paid presidents at public universities (based on 2007-08):
    E. Gordon Gee, Ohio State University, ($1,346,225)

    Shirley Ann Jackson is number 5. Is anyone questioning these other presidents? I can't help noticing that Dr. Jackson is African-American female and the other five are all white men. I applauded RPI for having the courage and insight to place this powerful women in a position that is mainly white and male. I wonder if these ethical questions on her salary reflect the "isms" that still lurk in academia.

  • Executive Pay
  • Posted by Eric on January 27, 2009 at 5:15am EST
  • It might very well be the case that Shirley Jackson is doing a great job at RPI, but how does that justify her compensation? Does that mean that if somebody is doing a good job he or she should be paid whatever amount they want? I'm a very good teacher in the classroom. Does that mean I should be paid $200,000 a year? Of course not. Compensation for me is largely determined by my replacement cost. If I could be easily replaced with someone earning $50,000, then I should be paid about $50,000.

    I have no idea why our society has decided that CEO's, college presidents, etc. have suddenly become irreplaceable. These people can be replaced, and in this job market they can be replaced at a fraction of their current cost.

    The arguments being made to defend the exorbitant compensation of many college presidents have been made for at least two decades to defend the compensation of CEO's and Wall Street bankers. Does anyone really think that the former CEO's of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch were worth what they were paid the last 5-10 years? I seriously doubt if the high-flying college presidents are worth even half of what they are currently being paid.

  • Less biased, more accurate reporting
  • Posted by Anon student , Student at RPI on January 27, 2009 at 9:50am EST
  • None-the-less, Dr. Jackson should not have been targeted by IHE for her compensation. The VP of Student Life and CFO Ginny Gregg recently spoke with students and said that Dr.Jackson and other members of the cabinet had asked for pay cuts but the Board of Trustees refused to grant them these cuts. Dr. Jackson also donates money to the university through a number of scholarships. If IHE wishes to criticize her actions, they should report the full story. As other posters have stated the "second home" is not really a private second home as they made it out to be.

    If anyone should be targeted for her pay let it be the Board of Trustees. IHE should also be held accountable for more accurate reporting; inflammatory comments only further divides the university and spreads dis-information to the community. I hope as more information is revealed IHE will report more accurately on what is going on at the RPI campus.

  • Posted by Oldtimer on January 27, 2009 at 2:40pm EST
  • Steep increases in salary and perks and an intolerance of dissent have been the hallmarks of Dr. Jackson's tenure at RPI. Her pay from RPI is just part of her income; consider also the large sums she receives from membership on boards. (Among other things, she is the Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange Regulation Board.)

    The Board of Trustees, which one poster blames for her inflated salary, is in her pocket. Had she wished the Board to cut her pay, there is no doubt it would have done so. Likewise, if Dr. Jackson had wished to turn back a few hundred thousands of dollars of her salary, so that some lower-level RPI employees might be spared dismissal, it is not reasonable to think that the Board of Trustees could or would have stopped her.

    As one poster has suggested, however, Dr. Jackson's financial demands are a lesser issue, in terms of the overall integrity of RPI, than the Trustees' action in suspending the Faculty Senate in 2007 after a vote of no confidence in her leadership was narrowly defeated in 2006. There can be little doubt that the Faculty Senate was being punished for having embarrassed her; the American Association of University Professors has weighed in, making its concerns known. Smacking strongly of despotism, the suppression of the Faculty Senate deserves to be brought to the notice of the academic community nationwide.
    IHE therefore should not heed the posts that warn ominously against continued coverage of Dr. Jackson's leadership at RPI. On the contrary, it should give more attention to RPI, not less, and in particular, it should focus on the suffocation of academic democracy there.

  • Tears for Abolished Faculty Senate!
  • Posted by Michael on January 27, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
  • I just wish other institutions' boards would have the courage to abolish faculty senates at their own institutions. Why do faculty presume to have a voice in running the institution where they are hired to teach and do research? Administering higher education in these over regulated, complex, resource challenge times calls for experts. Sadly, that's not routinely an institutions' faculty --at least, not at my (nationally renowned) institution...

  • Executive Protection?
  • Posted by dennis menace on February 2, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • Why does a university president need a three-person security detail in addition to the campus police? Jackson has a limited profile outside her ivory-tower world, so I cannot imagine what she could say or do that would invoke the kind of threats that necessitate that level of protection. Have the engineering students built a catapult to launch tofu pies at her? Has anyone at RPI done an honest threat assessment to justify the detail?

    My guess - no.