Outraged over the mid-September retroactive pay raises given to 26 of the California State University’s top 28 executives, two recent CSU graduates filed a lawsuit against the university Oct. 3, claiming that the salary increase is an illegal gift of public funds.

“The suit is an injunction to stop the pay of over $100,000 to the top campus executives,” said California Faculty Association spokesperson Brian Ferguson.

The plaintiffs are Cal State San Bernardino graduates Paul and Crystal Rodriguez who were student activists and former CFA interns, according to Ferguson. After the pay raises were approved in September, they approached the faculty union, which aided in filing the suit.

The injunction would require campus presidents, Chancellor Charles Reed and his chief deputies to each hand over thousands of dollars in retroactive pay that was awarded to them. State controller John Chiang is listed as an “interested party” who would facilitate the return.

If the retroactive pay raises are found to be illegal, an estimated $125,000 to $175,000 would be returned to the state treasury, said Glen Rothner, the Pasadena lawyer who represents the CFA.

Rothner said the California state constitution forbids such pay to a state employee because work of the CSU executives would be considered “services already rendered.”

“They didn’t do any new work,” said Rothner. “There is no legitimate basis to increase an already approved rate of pay.”

Defendants in the suit are CSU’s governing board of trustees, Chairwoman Roberta Achtenberg and Chancellor Charles Reed.

The salaries of the top-paid executives were increased an average of 11.8 percent when the resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees on Sept. 19. Since the state budget was delayed 52 days, the pay raise was made retroactive to July 1, garnering the executives additional money.

As of Wednesday, the CSU had not received the lawsuit.

“So far, we have not been served with anything,” said CSU spokesperson Clara Potes-Fellow. “Everything we know about the lawsuit is through the press.”

Potes-Fellow said the CSU has not hired any lawyers to deal with the case so far and asserted that the pay raises were not illegal.

“Retroactive pay raises are a common practice in the CSU, government offices and the private sector,” she said. “It’s not like they are getting paid for nothing.”

Rothner called the CSU’s justification of the budget delay to apply the retroactive pay a “red herring” in their attempt to obtain additional money.

“Even from their position, it’s illegal,” he said. “These are public, taxpayer funds that cannot be used like this.”

The lawsuit comes at a time that the CFA is aggressively working to get Gov. Schwarzenegger’s signature on what supporters call two crucial pieces of reform legislation, SB 190 and AB 1413.

The bills aim to bring more transparency and public oversight to executive meetings, particularly on decisions regarding executive compensation and perks. SB 190 addresses more time for public comment on decisions made by the board of trustees. AB1413 designates a representative to attend board meetings when ex-officio trustees cannot attend.

Reed has repeatedly asserted that the pay raises and perks routinely handed out to top executives are crucial to attract and retain qualified staff. SF State’s president Robert Corrigan now earns $289, 749, up from his previous salary of $271,590.

“This is an attempt to get the money back from people who have completely misplaced priorities,” said Ferguson. “The amount of money being used to give them their pay raise could be used to open a lot of class sections.”