Advertisement
Opinion

The $410,000 question

The debate over the $410,000 in bonus payments to former University of Maryland School of Law dean Karen Rothenberg has largely devolved into an argument between two camps. Her defenders say that the focus on the payments is smearing the record of an excellent and transformative leader for the school, and her detractors are appalled by the amount of money being thrown at a public employee. There's truth to both sides, but that argument misses the point.

Ms. Rothenberg was, by all accounts, an excellent dean. Under her tenure, the school's academic reputation improved, its endowment soared and its programs expanded. Her colleagues at the law school say she could easily have left Maryland when her contract expired and gone on to a more lucrative post at an even more prestigious institution. It's no doubt also true that her salary -- about $370,000 a year -- may be large for a public employee but isn't compared to what she might be able to make at a top-tier private law school or in private practice. They argue that keeping her as dean for another two years was worth that much and more to the school and that, at heart, former University of Maryland, Baltimore President David Ramsay did the right thing in negotiating what amounted to a retention bonus.

But $370,000 a year is a huge salary for anyone, particularly someone who effectively works for the state. It is, after all, well more than double the governor's salary, and at a time when furloughs are making it tough for rank-and-file workers to make ends meet, it's galling to think that it wasn't enough for her. But Ms. Rothenberg's record is not the issue; nor is the propriety of Mr. Ramsay trying to retain her or even the amount of money involved. The issue is the loose fiscal management over such extra payments at UMB, of which Ms. Rothenberg's $410,000 may only be the most egregious example.

According to a state legislative audit and testimony by University System of Maryland Chancellor William E. Kirwan, this is what happened in her case. As she neared the end of her contract more than three years ago, Ms. Rothenberg complained that she was underpaid relative to colleagues at other top law schools and was interested in pursuing other opportunities. Mr. Ramsay decided to negotiate a retention package to keep Ms. Rothenberg as dean during a major fundraising drive.

The University System of Maryland has procedures in place for addressing salary inequities, but they weren't followed in this case. Instead, Mr. Ramsay consulted with a human resources officer at the university about ways to boost her compensation. The option Mr. Ramsay chose was to pay Ms. Rothenberg $350,000 for a sabbatical she was eligible for but which she had not taken. She did not submit any of the paperwork that is ordinarily required for a sabbatical. Neither the university system nor the legislature was informed of the payment.

During the next two years, Ms. Rothenberg received five payments totaling $60,000 for summer research. Ms. Rothenberg did research, but such aid is only supposed to be offered to faculty whose contracts call for 10 months of work, and Ms. Rothenberg was a 12-month employee. In addition, the payments were approved by Ms. Rothenberg's subordinate, not her superiors.

In an interview last week with The Sun's editorial board, Mr. Kirwan portrayed these lapses as an aberration, and although he said the university is taking a closer look at UMB's finances, he appeared intent on putting the affair behind him. Mr. Ramsay has stepped down from his post months earlier than he planned and under circumstances that belied what was otherwise a notable career at the university. Ms. Rothenberg has agreed to repay the $60,000, and the attorney general is looking into the remaining $350,000. And of the $55 million in nonsalary compensation doled out by UMB during the years in question, Mr. Kirwan said, the $410,000 to Ms. Rothenberg were the only payments not covered by a specific university policy.

Mr. Kirwan is right that the $55 million figure distorts the scope of the actual problems the auditors found, but there are legitimate questions about more than just Ms. Rothenberg's $410,000. Just because the university system has policies governing the other payments doesn't mean all the policies were followed correctly or that the policies were strong ones.

Auditors looked into 36 extra compensation payments at UMB in fiscal years 2007-2009, including summer research stipends and bonuses. They were rife with problems. The auditors found weak policies for summer research compensation; the school did check to make sure the professors did the research, but it had no clear way of determining how much an employee would be paid. The university spent more than $1.1 million on such payments over that period.

Similarly, UMB had no system for determining who should get bonuses and how much they should be, despite a university system policy requiring one. Instead, bonuses were made at the discretion of the deans of each school and the heads of each department. The university didn't specifically disclose any of those payments to the legislature.

Then there is the matter of those who played a part in developing Ms. Rothenberg's bonus package. Although the circle of people who knew about the payments was small, it does extend beyond the former dean and the former president. Someone thought of the idea for the sabbatical payment, and someone cut the check. They may not be as culpable as the university president who approved the arrangement, but they exercised poor judgment, too.

In his presentation to the legislature, Mr. Kirwan said the university system agreed with virtually all of the auditors' criticisms and either already had implemented or was in the process of implementing corrective action. Legislators seemed satisfied that the payments were an isolated incident, but they're less so about the fact that Ms. Rothenberg has kept the remaining $350,000. They should not let that or any other questions about UMB's fiscal controls drop just yet. They bear further scrutiny.

Readers respond

Karen Rothenberg brought the University of Maryland School of Law to national prominence. Her accomplishments are many and changed the direction of the law school. Those of us who have worked with Dean Rothenberg on the Board of Visitors were impressed with her boundless energy, her continuing positive attitude and her dedication to the school.

Based upon these tremendous achievements, the president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, David Ramsay, was keen on retaining Ms. Rothenberg in the position of dean. For Maryland to move ahead in all facets of the law school, we need great leadership. Great leadership is hard to find. It may even be harder to retain. That is why President Ramsay exercised his discretion in doing all he could to retain Dean Rothenberg.

No one is disputing that there are rules and procedures that have to be followed in the hiring and retention of faculty and deans. The board endorses those procedures. The board further emphasizes that at all times during her tenure as dean of the law school, Karen Rothenberg has acted with the highest degree of integrity in all matters affecting the law school and has been an excellent role model for students, faculty and alumni.

Paul D. Bekman, Baltimore

The writer is chairman of the University of Maryland School of Law Board of Visitors, which endorsed his remarks. Read the full text of his letter online at .


Advertisement