Kwantlen Polytechnic University A Compensation Review datedjune 13, 2014 Prepared by: Rob Mingay Assistant Deputy Minister Labour Relations Public Sector Employers? Council Secretariat Redacted Version Background 1) Kwantlen Polytechnic University Established by the Province of British Columbia in 1981, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) offers bachelor degrees, associate degrees, diplomas, certificates and citations in more than 200 programs. More than 17,500 students annually attend KPU's campuses in Surrey, Richmond, Langley and Cloverdale. 2) KPU Key Personnel Dr. David Atkinson was the President and Vice Chancellor of KPU from July 1, 2008 to June 30,2011. Dr. John McKendry was the Acting Vice President (Academic) and Provost of KPU from July 19, 2010 to June 30, 2011. Dr. McKendry then became the Acting President and Vice Chancellor of KPU from July 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012, upon Dr. Atkinson?s departure from this position. Dr. Anne Lavack was the Vice President (Academic) and Provost of KPU from July 1, 2011 to August 16,2012, replacing Dr. McKendry who had been acting in this position. Dr. Alan Davis became the President and Vice Chancellor of KPU on September 1, 2012, replacing Dr. McKendry who had been acting in this position. Dr. Davis continues to occupy this position. -2- Administrative staff at KPU who provided information relevant to my inquiry are: Mr. Gordon Lee, who was and is the Vice President of Finance, and Mr. Harry Gray, who was and is Associate Vice President of Administration. Members of Board of Governors who provided information relevant to my inquiry are: Mr. Gord Shoberg, who was at the relevant time and continues to be Chair, the Honourable Amrik Virk, who was a Board member from July 31, 2008, Vice Chair effective September 1, 2011, and Chair of the Human Resource HR Committee from September 2009 to May 14, 2013. 3) The Public Sector Employers? Council Secretariat The Public Sector Employers? Council Secretariat (PSEC) supports the Government in setting and coordinating strategic directions in human resource management and labour relations for the majority of public sector employers in BC (employers). PSEC's authority is derived from the Public Sector Employers Act The Honourable Michael de Jong, Minister of Finance, is the Minister responsible for the PSE Act and PSEC (the Minister Responsible). Under the PSE Act, upon direction by the Minister Responsible, employers must have compensation plans in place. PSEC supports the Minister Responsible in creating guidelines directing employers to create compensation plans for both excluded and executive employees. The PSE Act sets out certain rules and requirements regarding excluded and executive compensation practices in -3- public sector and provides that the Minister Responsible must approve all compensation plans. The total compensation and salary maximums administered by the PSEC Secretariat are described in terms of an annual amount. Accordingly, compensation for employees serving only a partial year in a position is approved on a pro-rated basis. For example, an employer may only pay a new employee beginning work in the sixth month of the year fifty percent of the approved annual salary or total compensation limit. The employee would only be eligible tor the full amount in their first full year of work. During the annual disclosure process, PSEC requires employers to footnote the annualized compensation amount for reported employees who were not in the position for a full year. The compensation plans must be submitted to PSEC in accordance with the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. These Guidelines are enhanced disclosure requirements that apply to the CEO and the next four highest ranking/paid employees who have a base salary of $125,000 or more. For CEOs and Presidents, employers are required to stay within total compensation limits set by the Government. The purpose of the Compensation Reporting Guidelines is to demonstrate that employers are within the approved maximum total compensation limits as set out in their compensation plans as approved by Government. Employers may not make any changes to compensation outside of the existing compensation plans without the prior approval of the Minister Responsible. The disclosure under Compensation Reporting Guidelines -4- is distinct and in addition to disclosure employers are required to make under the Fi'nan_cr'al Information Act. In the post?secondary setting, Boards of Governors and senior administrative staff are responsible for ensuring that the total compensation paid to their executive employees is in compliance with compensation plans approved by the Minister Flesponsible pursuant to the PSE Act. Disclosure of any payment that a reasonable person would view as compensation must be made in accordance with the Compensation Reporting Guidelines as part of the employer?s Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement. It is the Board Chair who attests by signature that the disclosure statement on behalf of the institution reflects the executive compensation paid in the prior fiscal year. KPU is a public sector employer under the PSE Act. Facts and Findings 4) Lavack Facts - October 18, 2010 PSEC approved the total annual salary range for Vice President (Academic) and Provost Position (the VP position) at $125,000 to $170,000 salary plus benefits, which then becomes part of compensation plan under the PSE Act. an April 9, 2011 Board of Governors approves a motion to offer the VP position to Dr. Lavack. -5- 0 April 18, 2011 Letterfrom Dr. Atkinson, the then President of KPU, to Dr. Lavack offering her the VP position. The offer letter states that KPU will provide Dr. Lavack with the following: 8) a $50,000 consulting fee to be paid prior to the beginning of her first day of work; $170,000 in annual salary; a $20,000 per year research allowance; a reimbursement of up to $50,000 for relocation expenses; a housing loan; and an administrative leave after at least one full five year term in the VP position. a May 2, 2011 A contract for the $50,000 consulting fee referred to in Dr. Lavack?s offer letter (the "pre-employment contract?) is drawn up by Dr. Atkinson and executed by both parties. The pre-employment contract states that Dr. Lavack?s consulting services are to be provided in May and June 2011, with payments of $25,000 plus HST to be made each month. There are no deliverables or services described in the offer letter or the pre- employment contract. 0 May 9, 2011 - email from KPU's HR department to Dr. Atkinson's Executive Assistant that states: "Attached please find a draft employment contract for Anne Lavack for David's (Atkinson), review and signature. As Anne's compensation level is such that it requires contract disclosure to -6- the PSEA and to PSEC, have omitted any reference in the contract to both the administrative leave and the annual research allowance. These benefit details were contained in the offer letter, which should suffice.? May 9, 2011 Dr. Atkinson and Dr. Lavack sign her employment agreement for the VP position which contains a 5 year term of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016 (renewable for another five (5) years_subject to review). The other terms included in Lavack employment agreement are: a) Salary of $170,000 per annum; b) Probation period of one (1) year; c) Relocation expenses of $50,000 for moving from Regina, Saskatchewan; 50% of the relocation allowance is repayable if she leaves KPU within one (1) year. May 24, 201 1 An invoice from Anne M. Lavack, Marketing Consultant to KPU for $28,000 ($25,000 plus $3,000 for HST) for consulting services. The invoice states that this was to cover the first 50% of the pre-employment contract amount. This amount was paid to Dr. Lavack on June 1, 2011. May 26, 2011 A cheque requisition for $50,000 payable to Dr. Lavack was prepared by KPU for "advance for relocation expenses." June 24, 2011 A second invoice lrom Anne M. Lavack, Marketing Consultant to KPU for $28,000 ($25,000 plus $3,000 for HST) for consulting -7- services. The invoice states that this was to cover the last 50% of the pre- employment contract amount. This amount was paid to Dr. Lavack on June 29, 2011. 0 May 7, 2012 KPU submits to PSEC its Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement for 2011/2012 (see attached Appendix A). In the cover letter, Mr. Schoberg attests that: ?the information has been reviewed by [him] and reflects the executive compensation paid in the prior fiscal year and that the compensation provided is within approved compensation plans.? 0 The amount paid to Dr. Lavack pursuant to her pre-employment contract with KPU was disclosed by KPU in its Statement of Financial Information as an amount paid to a supplier of services, pursuant to the Financial information Act. On August 16, 2012, Dr. Lavack ends her employment at KPU, a little over one year into her five year term as VP. 5) Lavack Findings The terms contained in Dr. Lavack's offer letter differ from the terms contained in her employment agreement. While the employment agreement contains some of the terms set out in her offer letter (salary and relocation costs), it does not contain the terms relating to the $50,000 pre-employment contract, the $20,000 annual research allowance, the housing loan or the administration leave. Dr. Lavack?s $50,000 pre-employment contract did not contain a reporting structure or any discernible deliverables or other basis on which to determine why the pre-employment contract was set at that level. There were two payments of $25,000 plus HST made to Dr. Lavack pursuant to this contract. The amount paid to Dr. Lavack pursuant to her pre?employment contract with KPU was not included in 2011/2012 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement filed with PSEC, even though by virtue of her compensation levels Dr. Lavak was among the KPU employees subject to the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. The May 9, 2011 email from HR department to Dr. Atkinson?s office states that Dr. Lavack?s ?contract disclosure to the PSEA and to PSEC. . was required. From a review of documentation and through interviews, it appears that neither Board of Governors nor its administrative staff were aware of the terms of Lavack?s offer letter and agreement or the pre-employment contract. Administrative staff became aware of the terms of the offer letter, employment agreement and pre-employment contract after they were signed by Dr. Lavack and Dr. Atkinson. The maximum annual amount of total salary approved by PSEC for the VP position was $170,000. Dr. Lavack?s disclosed salary from the start of her employment at KPU on July 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 (fiscal year end) was $121,615.36. The addition of the $50,000 payable under the pre-employment -9- contract thus places Dr. Lavack?s total cash received at $171,675.36 for three- quarters of a fiscal year, which is above the amount approved by PSEC as salary for a full fiscal year. Receiptable relocation expenses do not form part of an executive employee?s total compensation for disclosure purposes under the Compensation Fieporting Guidelines. That said, the $50,000 for relocation expenses contained in both Dr. Lavack?s offer letter and her employment contract is high compared to other allowances for relocation expenses paid in comparable circumstances, particularly in light of the fact that she was relocating from Saskatchewan to BC. Moreover, Dr. Lavack received the $50,000 in a lump sum payment in advance of her move, although in due course she provided receipts for those expenses. Research allowances do not form part of an executive employee's total compensation for disclosure purposes under the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. During her term at KPU, Dr. Lavack expensed and KPU paid $8,954 ?of the $20,000 in research allowances contained in the offer letter. Dr. Lavack?s offer letter also included a housing loan, which is not commonly found in public sector executive contracts. Dr. Lavack?s offer letter did not disclose any terms of the housing loan so I cannot determine if it would have increased her total compensation, as Dr. Lavack did not utilize the housing loan. In summary and in answer to the questions put to me: -10- The payments made to Dr. Lavack and the contractual arrangements for these payments are as follows: 8) $121,615.36 total salary July 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 (fiscal year end) pursuant to Dr. Lavack?s May 9, 2011 employment agreement; $50,000 consulting fee plus HST for services in May and June, 2011 pursuant to Dr. Lavack?s May 2, 2011 pre?employment contract; $50,000 in receipted relocation allowance pursuant to the employment agreement. Disclosure of payments made to Dr. Lavack: 8) In its 2011/2012 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement, KPU listed Dr. Lavacl<'s pro?rated salary of $121,615.36 plus benefits of $13,668.24, plus pension contribution $11,249.73 for a total compensation amount of $146,605.12; KPU did not list Dr. Lavack?s $50,000 pre?employment contract in its 2011/2012 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement as required by the Executive Compensation Reporting Guidelines. KPU did disclose the amount paid to Dr. Dr. Lavack pursuant to the pre?employment contract in its Statement of Financial Information as a payment to a supplier of services pursuant to the Financial Information Act. Was disclosure consistent with Compensation Reporting Guidelines? -11- Yes in relation to salary and other benefits; The amount paid under the pre?employment contract was disclosed as an amount paid to a suppier of services pursuant to the Financial Information Act. KPU maintains that in doing so it fully met its obligations. However, in my view, it also would be a payment that would reasonably have been considered to be compensation, and so it should also have been disclosed under the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. 0 Was Lavack's total compensation consistent with guidelines in relation to compensation plans? 8) When I take into account the $50,000 pre?employment contract, the answer is no. This puts Dr. Lavack's total cash received marginally over the maximum annual permissible salary approved by the Minister Responsible and PSEC, on a pro-rated or absolute basis; The $50,000 pre?employment contract was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of guidelines. My review did not reveal information to suggest that the then Board of Governors was aware of the Lavack offer letter of employment or pre?employment contract. 5) -12- Davis Facts February 17 2011 Board of Governors initiate a search for a new President and it approves the retention of Odgers to assist with this search. Discussion by Board of Governors included an urging of . .caution on rushing this. The compensation levels are just not competitive. November 5, 2011 Email from Gord Lee (VP of Finance) to Fluth Wittenberg, ?President of the BC Association of Institutes and Universities (and copied to Mr. Schoberg and Mr. Virk), inquiring about the Government?s possible reaction to a KPU proposal that it provide supplementary compensation of $100,000 to its new President through the KPU Foundation. The email reads in material part: am writing to find out r'f you would talk to the Chair of our Board of Governors about how the Government (based on your experience in Government) might react r'f the Board of Governors arranged for Kwantlen?s new President to be compensated up to the PSEC limit by the University and a supplementary amount ($100k) by the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Foundation. A number of Board members floated this idea on Friday before or after they met with Odgers about the presidential search. Clearly, this is a very confidential matter. lt?s our goal (my A VP Harry Gray and me) to provide the Board of Governors with as much information as we can from those with experience and expertise in public sector executive compensation and related issues. _So far, we have solicited advice from the University's legal counsel and from our auditor. There is some urgency here, as the Board of Governors intends to meet on Monday to pass a motion to move in this direction. 80 it would be useful if you could talk to our Board Chair on Monday.? -13- November 7, 2011 email reply from Ms. Wittenberg to Mr. Lee, which states that a $100,000 supplementary amount to be paid to the President by the KPU Foundation would: ?result in an extremely negative reaction from Pro Vince?. November, 7, 2011 Email reply from Mr. Gray to Mr. Shoberg, Mr. Virk and others that states: ?there is substantial risk of serious repercussions on a number of PSEC would fairly quickly learn of this I would recommend not following the process?. November 7, 2011 Board of Governors drafts a motion regarding the provision of a $100,000 supplementary compensation through the KPU Foundation but this motion is withdrawn after Mr. Virk states in an email dated November 7, 2011 that ?our advice at present is to hold off as the risk factors are very high. Stay tuned and hold off on the motion and conference call please?. November 23, 2011 Mr. Virk updates KPU's Board of Governors on the search process for the new President. Short listed candidates are to be interviewed on December 8 and 9,2011. -14- March 19, 2012 Board of Governors approves a motion to offer the President position to Dr. Davis and that a sub-committee be formed to negotiate the employment contract for this position. The sub-committee members were Mr. Gray, Mr. Schoberg, Mr. Virk and another Board member, Kristin Ash. March 22, 2012 Email from Mr. Gray to members of KPU's Board of Governors regarding an offer be made to Dr. Davis. The email covered two topics: (1) next steps with PSEC to get approval for the President's salary and (2) a series of letters to be sent to Dr. Davis. The email also states: ?Please note that some of these letters are NOT to be shared, and so this e- mail should be treated confidentially. (emphasis in original) March 22, 2012 Email from Mr. Schoberg to other members of KPU's Board of Governors and to Mr. Gray. The email addresses the offer to be made to Dr. Davis and states in material part: "Ftegarding the contract for services [the pre-employment contract], I would recommend eliminating reference to hourly rates and just have a $50,000 contract over three months billable in equal installments. We don ?t want to manage [Davis] to an hourly basis, and I believe the spirit and intent of this contract is to incent him to enter into an employment contract. I would anticipate his focus would remain largely at Empire for the first month or two, and he apparently has some things on his calendar for the summer. 80, having said that, if we held him to hourly billing he may not be able to achieve the full contracted amount." Mr. Gray responds: will look into this, and see if the contract can be written more broadly along the lines of the contract being to meet, discuss with senior leaders, -15- begin the transition and prepare for assuming the role of President on September 1. March 22, 2012 - PSEC approves compensation plan, setting the total annual compensation for President and Vice Chance lor?s position (the ?President position?) at $225,000. March 26, 2012 - At the request of Mr. Virk, a draft of Dr. Davis? employment agreement is sent to PSEC. That draft did not include the pre-employment contract that KPU ultimately entered into with Dr. Davis. March 27, 2012 A letter of intent dated March 26, 2012 is sent by KPU to Dr. Davis. The terms include the following provisions: 8) Terms and conditions of letter of intent are not legally binding and are subject to a mutually acceptable employment agreement being negotiated with KPU and approved by the Province; Employment will commence September 1, 2012 or other agreed upon date; [Dr. Davis] will hold the position of President and Vice-Chancellor; 5 year term of employment, total compensation including salary benefits, allowances etc. to not exceed $225,000 per year; 8 weeks? vacation per year. -16- March 28, 2012 - PSEC requests that KPU make the following changes to Dr. Davis? employment agreement: maximum potential re-imbursement for moving costs; and 2) Specification that outside contracts that are approved by the Board can?t be for ?stuff? that amounts to the normal duties of the President. March 28, 2012 Board of Governors resolve to announce the selection of Dr. Davis in the President position on April 2nd, 2012 and that Dr. Davis will assume the President position on September 1st, 2012. March 28, 2012 KPU sends Dr. Davis? draft employment agreement to PSEC for its approval. Dr. Davis? employment agreement included the following: a) Total compensation of $224,995.37 per annum; b) 40 days of vacation; c) Relocation expenses of $35,000 for moving from Saratoga Springs, New York; a pro-rated amount of the relocation allowance is repayable if he resigns or is terminated with cause before completing 24 months of employment. April 5, 2012 Email from KPU to Dr. Davis (copied to Mr. Schoberg, Mr. Virk and Mr.Gray) regarding his employment agreement. The e-mail states that: 1) The ministry has approved the attached employment agreement. The agreement will be to sent to [you] in advance of a discussion that will occur with Gord Schoberg and Amrik l/irk on April and 2) Also attached is "a contract for services [the pre?employment contract] regarding the period prior to your official talce?over. Please return a signed copy to my attention.? April 5, 2012 Email from PSEC to KPU regarding President Compensation Plan Approval Disclosure which states: would like to take this opportunity to remind wantlen of its accountability obligation to report on the CEOs compensation according to the Public Sector Employers Act and the Financial Information Act reporting requirements." April 9, 2012 An email stream between Dr. Schoberg, Mr. Virk_, Mr. Gray and Dr. Davis regarding Dr. Davis? compensation. Discussion revolved around a request from Dr. Davis to have a clause in his employment contract April 12, 2012 A pre?employment contract was signed between Dr. Davis and KPU for three months (June to August 2012). The contract was signed by Dr. Schoberg on behalf of KPU. The services were described as ?consulting services as wantlen may request subject to Alan Davis? availability.? The pre?employment contract set out an amount of $50,000 for the term June 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012. The contract states that Davis -18- would provide such consulting services as Kwantlen may request?subject to his availability. - May 4, 2012 An email from lVlr.Gray to Dr. Schoberg and Mr. Virk regarding the leasing of a vehicle for Davis, and possibly triggering an issue with PSEC due to the total compensation increasing beyond the maximum approved under compensation plan. 7) Davis Findings KPU found itself in a competitive environment during its extensive search in 2011 and 2012 for a new President. A number of potential candidates for the President position had removed themselves from the competition once they were advised of the total compensation amount. As a result, certain members of the KPU Board of Governors and its Administration investigated ways to supplement the President?s compensation. This included the possibilities of supplementary compensation of $100,000 through Foundation and leasing a vehicle for Dr. Davis, although neither was pursued. On March 19, 2012, Board of Governors approved a motion authorizing that Davis be offered the President position. A sub?oommittee was formed to negotiate Davis? employment contract. The $50,000 amount of the pre?employment contract plus Davis? pro-rated total compensation of $140,548 from September 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 totals $190,548. That was below the total annualized compensation approved for this position under compensation plan of $225,000. KPU's 2012/2013 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement did not include Dr. Davis? $50,000 pre-employment contract. Dr. Davis worked extensively during the period covered by the pre-employment contract and in my opinion provided valuable services to KPU. He made several trips to Vancouver to attend at he prepared a vision statement, made presentations, helped to resolve issues and prepared himself for his first day as President. As entered into, the pre-employment contract was vague on deliverables. In summary and in answer to the questions put to me: The payments made to Dr. Davis and the contractual arrangements for these payments are as follows: a) $140,548 total compensation per year pursuant to Dr. Davis? April 12 2012 employment agreement; b) $50,000 plus HST for services in June, July and August, 2012 pursuant to Dr. Davis? April 5, 2012 pre-employment contract; c) Up to $35,000 in receipted relocation allowance pursuant to the employment agreement. 0 Disclosure of payments made to Dr. Davis: a) In its 2012/2013 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement, KPU listed Dr. Davis? pro-rated salary of $103,255, benefits of -20- $13,331, pension of $9,400 and $14,560 of other compensation, for a total compensation amount of $140,548; KPU did not list the amount paid to Dr. Davis under the $50,000 pre- employment contract in its 2012/2013 Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement. 0 Was disclosure consistent with Compensation Reporting Guidelines? 3) b) Yes in relation to salary and other benefits; The amount paid under the pre-employment contract was disclosed as an amount paid to a suppier of services pursuant to the Financial information Act. KPU maintains that in doing so it fully met its obligations. However, in my view, it also would be a payment that would reasonably have been considered to be compensation, and so it should also have been disclosed under the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. - Was Dr. Davis? total compensation consistent with guidelines in relation to KPU's compensation plan? 3) b) The total amount of salary and benefits paid to Dr. Davis was within the total compensation allowed when prorated over the year; The total pro rated compensation plus the pre-employment contract amount was consistent with the maximum salary cap approved by the Minister of Finance. -21- o) The $50,000 pre-employment contract was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of guidelines. Conclusions The Compensation Disclosure Reporting Guidelines states: 0 meet your disclosure obligation, you must assess fully whether you have disclosed everything that a reasonable person would view as compensation. This template may not specify every form of compensation arrangement. Nonetheless, organizations must disclose all compensation provided to executive officers, regardless of how r't is structured or whether it fits within a column of a particular table. The requirements in this document should be interpreted with this in mind.? On an objective assessment, there were failures to disclose as required under the Compensation Reporting Guidelines. As noted, the Board Chair is responsible for attesting to the accuracy of the reporting. The Board of Governors is responsible for oversight of presidential compensation; and through delegated authority by the Board, the President and Vice Chancellor is responsible for determining the compensation of other executive members. It is the position of KPU Administrative staff that KPU did disclose the amounts paid to both Dr. Lavack and Dr. Davis under their pre-employment contracts in the Statement of Financial Information prepared pursuant to the Financial Information Act. In my opinion, more detailed disclosure under the guidelines was required to comply with the PSEC Compensation Reporting Guidelines. -22- General Qlgservations Over the course of my review, I discovered administrative practices that, in my view, may have contributed to the compensation issues leading up to this review. Most relate to events that took place between 2008 and 2012. For example, certain employment agreements and pre-employment contracts appear only to come to the attention of Human Resources and Benefits department (the Department?) after the agreements were signed. See for example the following email dated November 10, 2012 from Finance department to Dr. Davis, who became the President of KPU on September 1, 2012: "Also, HR used to draft offer letters to candidates. David [Atkinson] changed this and he and the Provost [Dr. wrote the letters without consulting HR. This led to a number of anomalies over the years, inconsistent terms and conditions of employment for new hires and offers that could be seen as overly generous and designed to get around provincial compensation constraints. For exam le, the former Provost [Dr. Lavack] was paid a significant sum of money, for consulting work before she started her employment and was provided with a $20,000/year research allowance without the budget to support this commitment. The HR was not involved in drafting this employment agreement. There are many other anomalies in the employment agreements that KPU has signed over the past few years; some are minor and others are more signi?cant." Recommendations I am recommending three changes to the Public Sector Compensation Reporting Guidelines, as required under the Public Sector Employers Act: I) i recommend that Province proactively work with the senior administrative staff in the post-secondary sector to help them understand the intent of the Ill) -23- statutory requirements under the guidelines. To that end, I recommend that the Post -secondary Employers Association, along with the Public Sector Employers? Council Secretariat and the Ministry of Advanced Education, conduct an annual mandatory one day disclosure and reporting session for the appropriate executives in each organization. I recommend that the Boards of post?secondary institutions have a formalized process to make board members aware of their responsibilities and obligations for compensation transparency, statutory requirements and guideline reporting. I recommend that, when Statements of Executive Compensation are submitted to the Public Sector Employers? Council Secretariat, there is an attestation that there are no known pre?employment or post-employment contracts to senior administrators by the relevant employer that are not disclosed. Additionally, the terms of moving allowances should be part of an employee?s employment contract and available for PSEC to review and the public to see as part of the mandatory disclosure reporting. The recommended changes to the Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Reporting Guidelines are highlighted in Appendix of this report. -24- Additionally, I recommend that the preamble to the Compensation Reporting Guidelines be rewritten to emphasize that transparency is the overarching intent of the Guidelines. The public wants to know that there is total transparency in reporting executive compensation in the entire public sector. Transparency in reporting is one of the foundations of public trust. It is at the heart of the PSEC mandate. Attachments Appendix KPU Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement for 2011/2012 Appendix - Recommended changes to the Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Reporting Guidelines Reviewed By: 2 June 13, 2014 Mingay Date Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Relations Public Sector Employers Council Secretarial MAILING ADDRESS I l2666??2 Ave. Surrey. BC Canada VSW 2MB 07 May 2012 Board of Governors Mr. Tom Vincent PSEC Secretariat c/0 Anita Bleick, CEO Post-Secondary Employers? Association Suite 422, 1333 West Broadway Vancouver, BC V6H 4C1 Dear Mr. Vincent: Re: Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement Please find attached the executive compensation disclosure statement as provided for under the Public Sector Executive Compensation Reporting Guidelines. The information has been reviewed by the undersigned and reflects the executive compensation paid in the prior fiscal year and that the compensation provided is within approved compensation plans. Sincerely, Gord Schoberg Chair, Board of Governors 604-599-2100 KWANTLEN MAILING ADDRESS 12666-72 Ave. Surrey. BC Canada V3W 2M8 Kwautlen Polytechnic University Executive Compensation Disclosure Statement for 2011/2012 May 7, 2012 The following report provides an accurate representation of all compensation provided to all employees whose base salary was $125,000 or greater in the ?scal year 201 Compensation Philosophy Kwantlen Polytechnic University strives to maintain an executive total compensation program designed to support the institution to attract, develop and retain highly qualified individuals. Presidential compensation is subject to total compensation parameters established by the Government, subject to change from time to time as approved by Govermnent. The Board of Governors is responsible for oversight of presidential compensation. Through delegated authority by the Board, the President Vice Chancellor is responsible for determining the compensation of other executive members. The executive total compensation program is determined with reference to: A job evaluation plan which re?ects based on a composite of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions required to perform the work. Relevant external comparators, including post-secondary institutions. 0 External market data provided by appropriate resources, advice received from independent compensation experts and direction from the Government with respect to relevant statutes and public policy. 0 Salary ranges and salary range progression based on the attainment of satisfactory performance. 0 The benefit provisions established in the administrative policies and subject to change from time to time within the parameters approved by Government. Gord Schoberg Chair, Board of Governors Attached: Appendix A Compensation Summary Table 604.599.2100 I ucw_._n mm?dm I uoma mmnozu>m< mmnqom on . m. vann:uu_ uonmo: 359.. 02.9. noaunsuuaos noaunsuumou 36.. <33 .33. .8 .2 noiunnuumoz 33 G. a. G. 8. hn?suoa. Gain mu.8m.mm - u.~mm.Hw mm.8 - - Z. .03: H$.$m.mm - mhomaw - mm