Bob Kerrey’s rocky tenure as president of the New School may seem a fading memory, but the recent disclosure that he earned $3-million from the institution last year could rekindle resentments on campus and raise questions about Mr. Kerrey’s continuing and lucrative role at the college.
Under fire from New School faculty over turnover in the provost’s office and his management style, Mr. Kerrey announced in May 2009, after eight years as president of the New York City college, that he would step down once his successor was named. After that announcement, the New School’s Board of Trustees awarded the former governor and two-term U.S. senator from Nebraska a $1.2-million “retention” bonus, according to the college’s Form 990 tax form, which was filed in May. The bonus, and a payout of more than $620,000 in deferred compensation, brought his total earnings from the New School in 2010-11 to $3,047,703, tax forms show.
Mr. Kerrey will also be paid to serve through 2016 as president emeritus, which New School officials describe as a fund-raising position. Mr. Kerrey, who is again campaigning for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, will earn between $400,000 and $600,000 a year in his emeritus capacity, financial disclosures from his campaign office estimate.
Michael J. Johnston, chairman of the New School’s Board of Trustees, said the board decided to award Mr. Kerrey a retention bonus to ensure a smooth transition to his successor’s presidency. The college was also counting on Mr. Kerrey to raise money for the largest capital project in its history: a university center with a price tag of more than $350-million.
At the time, the board did not think the package was excessive, Mr. Johnston said, “and I still don’t think that was excessive.”
However, “excessive” is the exact word James Dodd, co-chair of the New School Faculty Senate, used to describe the package. The payout is particularly troubling, he said, at a time when lower-than-expected enrollment numbers have precipitated fiscal challenges.
“Competitive compensation, even to excess, might make sense in an enterprise oriented chiefly toward growth in market share, but I don’t think that should be the principal goal of a university,” Mr. Dodd, an associate professor and chair of philosophy, wrote in an e-mail.
David E. Van Zandt, who succeeded Mr. Kerrey as New School’s president in January 2011, said he learned of the payout shortly after he arrived on campus. He anticipated the $3-million figure could present a “perceptual” problem on campus, even if it wasn’t a salient financial issue in the scheme of the college’s $382-million budget.
“Our community in general is going to look at this and have some concerns and questions about it,” he said. “It’s up to me and the provost and the other members of our team to explain the situation as best we can without violating any privacy rights. People do have questions about it, and we’ve certainly gotten e-mails about it.”
Paid on the Campaign Trail
The financial landscape at the New School has grown bleaker since the board decided to award Mr. Kerrey a $1.2-million bonus and six-figure salary as an emeritus president. The institution, which has about 10,300 students, did not meet projected enrollment growth for last fall, and revenues were $9-million less than anticipated.
In May, Mr. Van Zandt announced that he and Tim Marshall, the university’s provost, would both reduce their base salaries by 5 percent for the coming year. Mr. Van Zandt’s base compensation is not yet public, but Mr. Kerrey’s base earnings for 2010-11 were $602,593. Mr. Marshall’s base salary was $386,273 in the same year.
In response to financial challenges, faculty hiring will be limited at the New School, Mr. Van Zandt and Mr. Marshall wrote in a recent e-mail to faculty, staff, and students. The university “cannot address a fiscal imbalance without looking at staffing,” they wrote. In the context of these challenges, some faculty are questioning how the New School can justify paying Mr. Kerrey as an emeritus president when he is in the throes of a political campaign some 1,300 miles away from campus.
“As a symbolic issue, I hope the trustees understand how demoralizing this looks to my colleagues, just because it comes at a time of cutbacks,” said James E. Miller, a professor of politics and chair of liberal studies.
“I understand this was a deal that was cut before the whole outlook of tuition-driven institutions began to go south, but it just doesn’t look right because of the financial situation,” said Mr. Miller, who co-chaired the Faculty Senate when a no-confidence vote on Mr. Kerrey was passed in 2008.
Mr. Kerrey’s campaign declined to comment for this story.
Mr. Johnston, the board chair at the New School, said Mr. Kerrey was “such a moral person he would never take advantage” of the institution by collecting a paycheck he did not earn.
If Mr. Kerrey is elected in November, U.S. Senate ethics rules would very likely prohibit him from continuing in his role at the New School.
Mr. Kerrey has been a valuable contributor in his emeritus role, Mr. Van Zandt said. He has helped introduce the president to members of Congress and cultivated potential donors on the university’s board, Mr. Van Zandt said. “Whenever I’ve asked him to do something, he’s been more than willing to pitch in.”
From a purely political perspective, Mr. Kerrey’s greatest concern is not the size of his compensation from the New School, but rather the source of it, said Michael W. Wagner, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
“I don’t know that having wealth is something that would disqualify him in the minds of Nebraska voters,” Mr. Wagner said. “Getting that wealth from a well-known, left-leaning school in a left-leaning state, maybe that’s a different story.”
A Mixed Legacy
Mr. Kerrey’s record as New School’s president elicits both praise and criticism from faculty. The college’s enrollment grew by 44 percent during his tenure, and the number of full-time faculty also more than doubled over the course of his presidency.
Yet Mr. Kerrey was criticized for a style described as less-than-conciliatory, and critics viewed the instability of his cabinet as a symptom of larger management failures. In his first seven years as president, Mr. Kerrey cycled through four provosts. He was criticized for his lack of a Ph.D., and his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq ran afoul of the liberal sentiments of many students and faculty at the New School.
In his defense, Mr. Kerrey suggested his efforts to transform what was largely a patchwork group of disciplines into a cohesive university had simply ruffled the feathers of those resistant to change. “The problem at the New School is not necessarily me,” Mr. Kerrey told The New York Times five months before announcing his resignation.
Joel Towers, dean of Parsons School for Design, said Mr. Kerrey’s mixed legacy may contribute to the “distraction” his compensation package has become.
“I’m not going to double-guess the board” on the amount, he said. “When I look at Parsons today versus Parsons eight years ago, I know we’re in a stronger position. You can’t take everything away from what Bob did. I fully see the complications of it, but I’m not so black and white on this.”
