Open letter to the Chatham community

Admin

Ladies and Gentlemen:

All of the Chatham community is concerned for its future and want it to remain a viable, thriving, relevant university.  President Ronald Reagan quoted an old Russian proverb when he signed the INF Treaty in January, 1987; “trust but verify”.  I believe it is time for us to verify the information obtained by the Board of Trustees that has led to its apparent “leanings” toward changing the College for Women from a single-sex institution.

Noel-Levitz, Inc. issued a report1 based upon university self-reported data in October, 2011.  Chatham University participated in this survey that generated a report titled “2011 Cost of Recruiting an Undergraduate Student Benchmarks for Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions”.  According to the report, of the 236 colleges and universities (including Chatham) that responded between 10/12/11 and 10/28/11, 165 were four-year private, 49 were four-year public, and 22 were two-year public institutions.

Summarizing Noel-Levitz:

  • The median cost to recruit a single student was steady between 2011 and 2009
  • Four-year private colleges and universities spent an average of $2,185 per new student at the median.  They used the most staff per new student, with a ratio of 1 Full Time Equivalent for every 33 new students.

The survey respondents self-reported:

  • Staff salaries, including benefits, for full and part-time employees working in recruitment and admissions positions, including temporary and work-study employees and supervisors with additional responsibilities outside of recruitment and admissions
  • Capital costs and equipment
  • Supplies
  • Travel
  • Publications and advertising
  • Consulting services
  • Vendor/outsourced services and
  • Additional expenses not named, such as costs incurred with recruiting and admissions that might be covered by departments, excluding grants and scholarships.

Noel-Levitz reported a steady median expenditure per 4-year Private Institution student from the period 2005 – 2011.

2005

2007

2009

2011

$ 2,073

$ 1,941

$ 2,143

$ 2,185

Question 1:

  1. What were the comparable expenditures for Chatham for each of the cited years – 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011?
  2. What was the expenditure for fiscal 2013?
  3. What is the budget for fiscal 2014?
  4. What is the anticipated budget for fiscal 2015?

Noel-Levitz found “smaller schools continue to spend more per new student, larger schools continue to spend less”.  The four-year Private Institutions reported

Percentile

Overall

Smallest third in enrollment size

Middle third in enrollment size

Largest third in enrollment size

25th

$ 1,364

$ 1,761

$ 1,368

$ 1,234

Median

$ 2,351

$ 2,351

$ 2,304

$ 1,781

75th percentile

$ 3,519

$ 3,519

$ 2,975

$ 2,964

Question 2:

  1. What were the comparable expenditures for Chatham for each of the cited years – 2005, 2007,

2009, 2011?

b.   What was the expenditure for fiscal 2013?

c.   What is the budget for fiscal 2014?

d.   What is the anticipated budget for fiscal 2015?

Noel-Levitz reported four-year private institutions and smaller institutions use “more staff for each new undergraduate enrollee.  The smallest four-year institutions used the most staff per new student”.

Percentile

Overall

Smallest third in enrollment size

Middle third in enrollment size

Largest third in enrollment size

25th

24

19

27

31

Median

33

25

33

41

75th percentile

43

35

39

59

Question 3:

  1. Does Chatham’s admissions department meet or exceed the efficiency cited for (at least) the median?
  2. What were the acquisition numbers by years historically and for fiscal 2014?
  3. If Chatham does not meet or exceed the efficiency cited for the median, what institutional challenges should be addressed?
  4. Where is Chatham with respects to an anticipated action plan?

Noel-Levitz reported four-year private institutions and smaller institutions “use more outreach staff per student” including “high school visits, college fairs, (and) on-campus events/tours”.

Percentile

Overall

Smallest third in enrollment size

Middle third in enrollment size

Largest third in enrollment size

25th

39

30

47

55

Median

57

43

59

77

75th percentile

81

57

78

106

Question 4:

  1. Does Chatham’s admissions department (including all outreach opportunities) meet or exceed the efficiency cited for (at least) the median?
  2. What were the acquisition numbers by years historically and for fiscal 2014?
  3. If Chatham does not meet or exceed the efficiency cited for the Median, what institutional challenges should be addressed?
  4. Where is Chatham with respects to an anticipated action plan?

The Noel-Levitz website2 included a blog exchange regarding the differences between undergraduate and graduate level recruitment.  The below exchange is verbatim.

“January 13, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.  As always this is a helpful report.  Any thoughts on how this might differ at the graduate level?  Are institutions typically spending more or less per graduate student?  More or less staff dedicated to graduate student recruitment?”  Andy Woodall.

“January 17, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.  Mr. Woodall,

Unfortunately we do not have any normative data on graduate student recruitment costs but I suspect they would be considerably lower, at least in most disciplines.  To your point, we tend to see far fewer staff devoted to graduate recruitment (at least in proportion to desired in-take) so that is why I believe costs would generally be lower on a per student basis.”  Kevin Crockett.

Question 5:

  1. How has Chatham historically budgeted undergraduate vs. graduate admissions and recruitment (please respond by fiscal year)?
  2. What is the budget (undergraduate vs. graduate) for fiscal 2013?
  3. What is the anticipated budget (undergraduate vs. graduate) for fiscal 2014?

These are challenging times for individuals as well as non-profit organizations.  The shrinking middle-class coupled with decreased government funding has led all to re-examine their budgets and allocation of resources.  In her article3, Debra Erdley quoted Murray Rust, Chatham’s chair of the Board of Trustees when he justified Esther Barazzone’s $1.8 million salary for 2011.  Ms. Erdley wrote “Chatham officials said they gave Barazzone the deferred compensation package in 2006 because before 2004 the school did not have the money for competitive executive packages.  If she left before 2011, she would have forfeited the package”.

Ms. Erdley also wrote “Total compensation typically included a base salary, retirement or deferred compensation, bonuses, benefits and housing.  Chronicle (The Chronicle of Higher Education) researchers found the median total compensation for all the leaders the survey covered was $410,523 in 2011, or 3.2 percent more than in 2010”.

Dr. Barazzone’s historical compensation, as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education4  is below.  To reiterate, the median total compensation for all leaders was $410,523 for 2011.

2008

2009

2010

2011

$ 571,738

$ 666,097

$ 601,917

$ 1,812,132

Question 6:

  1. What was the amount of deferred compensation for each year?
  2. On what basis was that amount awarded?

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s website allows the user to create its own salary comparisons4.

Institution

President

Compensation Package

Chatham University

Esther L. Barazzone

$ 1,812,132

Bryn Mawr College

Jane Dammen McAuliffe

$ 543,529

Swarthmore College

Rebecca S. Chopp

$ 701,755

University of Pennsylvania

Amy Gutmann

$ 2,091,764

Lehigh University

Alice P. Gast

$ 1,162,598

Washington and Jefferson College

Tori Haring-Smith

$ 561,566

Carnegie Mellon University

Jared L. Cohon

$ 946,095

Question 7:

  1. Did the Board of Trustees benchmark the compensation package ultimately negotiated by Dr. Barazzone?
  2. What outside resources were considered?
  3. Since Dr. Barazzone’s contract is scheduled to expire at the end of 2015, has the Board begun to consider the package to be paid, should she wish to extend her contract?
  4. If an agreement is not reached, (or if Dr. Barazzone opts to leave) what will the Board budget for Dr. Barazzone’s replacement?  What parameters will be considered?

All boards of directors are charged with the legal duties of

  • Care
  • Loyalty and
  • Obedience (to the organization’s Mission).

An article published in the University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of Business Law5 included a footnote citing “compensation practices…recommended as stemming from the IRS changes to Form 990”.  The recommendations include:

“Adopt an executive compensation philosophy that outlines the process and procedures for reviewing and approving the total compensation paid to senior executives and ‘key employees’

“Appoint a compensation committee comprised of independent members of the board

“Adopt a compensation committee charter that sets out, among other things, the purpose, responsibility and authority of the compensation committee, including the following:

  • Adherence to the compensation philosophy
  • Compliance with the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
  • Use of an independent compensation consultant to provide comparability data…”.

I respectfully ask the Board to affirm to the community that it is in full compliance with its legal duties, and to

  • Articulate, in writing, the steps that will be taken to demonstrate the consideration and review of the Women’s College status
  • Share that information with the Community 30 days before a final decision is reached, allowing public debate before that vote
  • Share the University’s full current balance sheet and proposed financial information for fiscal 2014
  • Outline the process to be undertaken in advance of Dr. Barazzone’s next contract negotiation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sandy Kuritzky, Class of 1973

1  The report can be obtained from the internet.  See www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports.  The information and statistics sited are from this Report.

2  http://blog.noellevitz.com/2012/01/05/spending-student-recruitment/

3  http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5243305-74/university-compensation-2011. Debra Erdley, December 15, 2013.

4  http:chronicle.com/article/Executive-Compensation-at/143541/

5   www.law.upen.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume14/issue2.  “Punctilios and Nonprofit Corporate Governance – A Comprehensive Look at Non-Profit Directors’ Fiduciary Duties” by Thomas Lee Hazen and Lisa Hazen.

Footnote 238.  Yaffee & Co., The New Form 990 and Executive Compensation: “Best Practice”

Recommendations for Boards and Compensation Committees 4 – 5 (2009)

Footnote 239.  Above citation.

22 thoughts on “Open letter to the Chatham community”

  1. I am very interested to hear the Administration’s response to these questions. However, I fear that they will maintain their status quo of silence, secrecy and lack of transparency regarding changing the College for Women from a single-sex institution.

    Reply

    • I understand your concern. I prefer to look at the issue – at this moment – as an optimist. I tried to frame my questions around solid facts, not emotion. Hopefully, if asked to respond with data, we’ll be able to remove some of the heat from the discussion.

      One of my classmates wrote she’s tired of having the same discussion every 10 – 15 years. As my husband (Brown, ’59) commented, Chatham is UNIQUE. Perhaps, with greater focus on the allocation of resources, we can expend the energy to attract those young women who WANT the option of a single sex institution for their undergrad experience and increase enrollment to a sustainable level.

      Reply

  2. This is an amazingly thorough report! Well-done, and thank you for voicing in facts what so many of us have been struggling to put together in words. We certainly lack a large amount of information that could help us to see the picture more clearly.

    Reply

  4. Sandy – thank you for this incredibly insightful and factual outline of what I believe so many of us have been struggling to articulate. Bravo!!!

    Reply

  6. Thank you. Your research and questions should go a long way toward understanding where Chatman has been and how decisions were made.

    Reply

  7. When I chose Chatham College in 1958, it was because it was a small,liberal arts,women’s college with an outstanding reputation in the academic world. When my oldest daughter chose Chatham College it was for much the same reasons. My youngest daughter chose Chatham College for the fine graduate program that lead her to her degree as a Physician’s Assistant. Sadly, over the years, Chatham College became Chatham University and focus changed from what the alumnae saw as academically valuable in their lives to what would make money so that salaries could be raised, programs expanded and decisions made without looking ahead to the future. Now we are at a crossroads again…Chatham made its reputation as a women’s college and I, for one, would like more information as to how and why we have come to the point of making Chatham co-ed. Have other alternatives been researched and found inappropriate or are decisions being made on what looks good at the present time. I would like to feel that I better understand this step that is being proposed and that it is truly the only way that Chatham can continue to exist. The Open Letter was certainly an eye-opener and prompts me to respond. Rather than say “do what you want”, I want every possible avenue searched to keep Chatham a women’s-only-institution. Yes,”trust but verify” and keep the Chatham community involved before decisions are made.

    Reply

  8. Well done! We all anxiously await the administration’s thorough response. Nothing less should be expected, given the amount of work you put into this.

    Reply

  11. Thank you for doing this research! It’s exactly the kind of statistics that I have been wondering about. I will be very interested in seeing the administration’s responses.

    Reply

  12. You are a wonderful example of a Chatham graduate. I am so impressed with your poise, articulation, and intelligent questions. Thank you for your hard work and your Chatham sisterhood.

    Reply

  13. This is just terrific. Thanks for giving us a clear, succinct rundown of the financial issues at play behind the decision to go co-ed.

    Reply

  14. Sandy – Thank you so much for this careful and thorough analysis. My hope is that the decision makers will actually hear the voices of their alums and not just go through the motions of “listening”. I, too, want Chatham College to remain women-only.

    Reply

  15. Thank you, Sandy, for this incredible report. An excellent example of the knowledge and skills that can be built using a Chatham education. I doubt that the Administration will be able to dismiss this report with a hand wave.

    Reply

    • Thanks, Kathleen. Unfortunately, I believe it was. I saw that you “found” me on LinkedIn. If you email me, I’ll be happy to share the letter I received from one of the Board members.

      Reply

  16. bravo! well done research. this parent of a chatham world ready alumna thanks you.

    Reply

    • Follows is my post to the “ideas” and “general” sections of Chatham’s blog dated 3/14. I have not received an acknowledgement or administration response as of 9:20AM 3/21/14.
      _________

      Coincidentally, my husband recently received Volume 20, #1, Winter 2014 issue of “Brown Medicine”. Among its programs are the Program in Liberal Medical Education (PLEM) and Women’s Health in Emergency Care (WHEC).

      According to the article “The Whole Physician”, the PLEM is an 8 year program that incorporates both the undergraduate and graduate experience. The undergrad. experience includes a BS in “biology and chemistry, literature and music, engineering and women’s studies, and everything in between”. Afterwards, students enter Brown’s medical school.

      According to “The Beat: What’s New in the Classrooms, on the Wards, and in the Labs”, the WHEC is a 2 year fellowship in women’s health, which “has evolved over the past decade, and now refers to complex interactions between biology, behavior, and the environment. We are developing a deeper scientific understanding of sex and gender differences in the etiology, diagnosis, progression, outcomes, treatment, and prevention of may conditions that affect both women and men”.

      With Pittsburgh’s vibrant medical school community, perhaps these may be models worthy of exploration for CCW? As we have partnered with the neighboring institutions for generations, perhaps this will be an opportunity for us to joint venture and provide supporting curriculum?

      Sandy Kuritzky, ’73
      ___________

      Reply

      • Sandy, this is an excellent idea. As you may know, 5 of Pittsburgh’s most prominent physicians are biology/chemistry majors from the Class of 1971. I believe most of them are still practicing, and at least one has been very active in undergraduate medical education at Pitt. I am sure these alumnae would be open to helping to develop a program such as this..

        Reply

  17. As I have spent time on this issue, I’ve discovered resources publicly available on the internet that have helped to better educate me. As I read, I become more convinced of the need to delay the vote to disband Chatham College for Women and become a coeducational undergraduate facility. There are tools available which may enable the Trustees to agree to continue our 145 year tradition.

    1. Catalyst is a non-profit organization working to advance women. Check out their website and see “The Ripple Effect: What’s Good for Women is Good for the World”. (New York: Catalyst, March 3, 2014) for global statistics regarding “the importance of educated women to benefit families, communities, workplaces, economies, and societies at large”. Deborah Gillis, the President and CEO of Catalyst wrote it is “essential for women to be as educated, as capable of earning money, and as in control of their physical lives as men – not just because it’s fair, but because empowering women raises everybody’s standard of living”.

    2. The Womens College Coalition includes Chatham. Their website includes a 100+ slide power point presentation to the National Association for College Admissions Counseling 2012 meeting in Denver entitled “How to Get Your Girls to Consider Women’s Colleges: Connecting the Dots to Find the Right Fit”. It was presented by women from the Coalition, Bryn Mawr, and St. Mary’s College (IN). I believe the authors successfully made their argument and presented a road map to convince prospective women students “it is all about her”.

    The Womens College Coalition website also includes a 1997 foot-noted article presented by ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) of the US Department of Education titled “Women’s Colleges in the United States: History, Issues, and Challenges”. Its 3 authors identified issues that warranted further investigation and frequently appeared as they conducted their research . The issues included:
    – “What happened to women’s colleges that closed or became
    coeducational?…
    – What can other institutions learn from those women’s colleges that have
    survived, in terms of such issues as marketing, enrollment management, and
    program development?”

    I recommend ALL of Chatham’s constituents – its Board of Trustees, Administration, Alumnae, Faculty and Staff, and Students continue to educate themselves regarding this important topic BEFORE any irrevocable decision is reached. After all, we cannot “unring” the Chapel Bells.

    Sandy Kuritzky, ’73

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*