By Edwin Naidu
In a world in which information flows fast and freely, one must question the slowness in which the higher education sector deals with figures particularly as they concern the national fiscus.
The exorbitant vice-chancellor salaries have long been a questionable issue with gross discrepancies in what institutions pay their top guns. Yet, the recent Council on Higher Education report on the remuneration of vice-chancellors is five years old, covering the period 2019.
Similarly, one cannot obtain current statistics from the department on the higher education landscape. At best, one will only get the previous year’s data if one really looks.
Discussing before Parliament the salaries of vice-chancellors, some of whom are no longer in office, would seem a moot point. In an age of transparency and commitment to governance, why should vice-chancellor salaries not be available?
In 2019, the average total cost to company (TCTC) for vice-chancellors was R4,129,835 (median: R3,966,069).
The university VC with the highest TCTC was at the University of Johannesburg (R7,166,995) and the VC with the lowest was at University of Venda (R3,033,988).
- In 2019, VCs’ average basic salary was R2,912,846 (median: R2,785,633). The university VC with the highest basic salary was at Stellenbosch University (R4,198,875) and the VC with the lowest basic salary was at Vaal University of Technology (R1,915,565).
- From 2005 to 2019, VCs’ median TCTC grew from R1,296,987 to R3,966,069, which was a 206% increase and, when compared with inflation, the real annual increase is 2.41 percentage points on average.
- From 2005 to 2019, VCs’ median basic salary grew from R821,185 to R2,785, 633, which was a 239% increase and, when compared with inflation, the real annual increase is 3 percentage points on average.
VCs have therefore been receiving real increases over these years.
So why can the nation not be told what the current crop of vice-chancellors are earning?
That the matter is up for discussion five years later makes one wonder about the wisdom in addressing an issue long after the horse has bolted.
Yet, the salary issue remains a current topic for discussion.
The report also shows that VCs receive on average 1.4 times more than P2 senior executives and 1.7 times more than P3 senior executives.
On average they get 2.2 times more than P4 senior professors and 2.3 times more than P5 professors.
Compared to administrators, VCs are paid 8.5 times more, and 12.3 times more than general workers.
These make for interesting reading.
The task of a vice-chancellor as chief executive of the university is an arduous one. The pressures in some instances insurmountable.
However, what the 2019 statistics show is gross discrepancy in what public university officials are paid. It highlights the need for serious discussions around remuneration.
There should be benchmarking and key performance indicators to ensure that varsity heads meet the criteria to better serve the country.
Absent is a sense of quality control to ascertain whether vice-chancellors are delivering on the mandate and providing value for money.
The one thing buried in the CHE report and lost amid the glare of who earns what, is the need for institutional governance and accounting practices to be improved. This falls on the university councils.
The CHE is correct in calling for changes to the composition of university councils and council sub-committees, and how long their members serve.
It also says the eligibility criteria for nomination and election to council positions needs a rethink.
It goes without saying that executive remuneration should be linked to the imperatives of higher education transformation, development and sustainability; and the remuneration of all university staff ought to be linked to performance and subjected to performance appraisal.
These generous remuneration packages and spiraling above-inflation increases have been facilitated by weak institutional governance and accounting practices, including decisions made by limited numbers of university councilors based on selective and sometimes problematic assumptions.
Given these conclusions, the report recommends greater external and institutional oversight and more regular scrutiny.
It also calls for improved institutional governance, accounting and reporting practices, and strengthened and more developed policy frameworks, with respect to executive remuneration.
But what about looking at who earns what in 2024? And let a discussion on executive pay at universities become part of the public discourse than the current free for all scenarios.
Edwin Naidu is the Editor of Inside Education.
INSIDE EDUCATION
