SCCC wants to ignore independent salary findings

I see that SCCC is not inclined to accept independent findings that show pay at the school is significantly below pay for the same positions at most community colleges of similar size in this area. The school wants to compare the raises to those of other (non-teaching) employees in terms of percentage, rather than compare the actual annual value of the salary to what appears to be "fair market value" for educators at similar schools.

I keep hearing about the things the school is doing, and they don't sound like poverty to me. When a school is adding courses and planning new buildings, it's hard to justify a wage policy which looks like paying below customary wages initially and then compounding the problem by offering substandard raises to the people who do the actual work which brings students to the school. I would love to see a comparison of SCCC administrator wages to those at the same similar schools. Are the people who want to hire cheap labor working for 15% below equivalent jobs at other schools themselves?

There are four things which people mention when choosing an employer; wages, benefits, location, and job satisfaction. And while I usually hear them mentioned in that order, when people tell me they are leaving a job, they say the reason is "not happy there" more often than "more money." And those who leave without a new job all lined up are very likely to describe the reason as some variation of "that job sucks." I have to think that a low ball offer on raises, given the comparison to wages elsewhere and the money being spent in other areas will leave a lot of dissatisfied teachers, higher turnover, and being forced to hire those teachers who weren't good enough to find better paid employment somewhere else. Accepting low pay is easier when you feel as though there isn't much money available than when you feel as though you are just not fairly valued.

Has empire building warped the judgement of the administration? Have the media unfairly neglected to report the administrators themselves working for less to fund the infrastructure growth? Or are our students being taught by teachers who couldn't find a better job, while money goes into expansion?