[Vision2020] [Spam] Should Former Deans Retain Their High Salaries?
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 25 22:29:07 PDT 2006
Joe,
Not every dollar given to a government run school provides a positive return to the taxpayer. And not every college degree produced is worth the expense of producing it. Paying a lousy university president that is no longer president doesn't increase the value of the degree either, as your argument seems to be predicated upon.
The risk of not paying your taxes is not equal to the risk not investing in a particular company, to make such a comparison as you did, is illogical.
I am for limiting government spending to what is productive and beneficial to society. There are limits to what people can afford to pay. Torturing the working class by making them pay for luxurious salaries for former government employees is highly unethical in my opinion. After a certain point, people get a diminished return on their investment in government, UI has demonstrated this.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote: Dear Donovan,
Tax payers take risks; they profit (or not) from their government; they have choices, e.g., payment or prison; they contribute to corporations, etc.
People with university degrees benefit society. Investment in universities provides a large bang (to the tax payer) for the small buck.
Or is your point that you are an anti-Education advocate?
Best, Joe
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Joe,
You wrote:
"Lastly, if it is OK to stick stockholders with the costs of paying for
an inadequate CEO, then it is OK to stick taxpayers for the cost of
paying for an inadequate president."
No, there is a difference here, a huge one. A stockholder takes an assumed
risk when purchasing stock in a company in order to gain a substantial profit.
The taxpayer has no choice but to pay and has little to gain personally in return.
The goals are also different. The purpose of a university is academic success of
its students. The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. The risks are different
too. A business that doesn't beat its competition goes under. A university is going to be
around even if it has the worst President. There is also a difference in size. The Home
Depot is a giant company that has billions of dollars, and bigger than many countries.
A university only has a few thousand students and a relatively small budget.
Government operated schools have no clue how to spend money properly. In part, because it
is given to them for free with zero accountability for its misuse. This results in devalued
degrees, unhappy students, economic hardships, higher taxes, and former teachers that lose their
retirement benefits like what is happening now at UI.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell wrote: Donovan,
I was not making any presumptions about Roger's views. I was just trying to get some clarification. I usually agree with what Roger has to say on Vision 2020.
Lastly, if it is OK to stick stockholders with the costs of paying for an inadequate CEO, then it is OK to stick taxpayers for the cost of paying for an inadequate president. Both are competitive markets. If you want to get the best CEO or the best university president, you have to make a competitive offer, and we've gotten to the point now where the competition calls for a huge package in the event that the CEO/president is forced to resign.
Best, Joe
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Joe wrote:
"I didn't SAY anything; I just asked a question:
Does Roger think that CEOs should be treated the same as, or different from, university presidents wrt lucretive resignation packages?"
No Joe, you didn't ask a question, you made a statement. You said,
"Roger,
I'm wondering if you'd say the same thing about CEOs."
That is public speculation as to what someone is thinking, not a
question.
Second, Joe, you stated,
"I think that CEOs and university presidents should be treated
equally in this regard."
So Joe, are you saying that the taxpayer should continue
compensating former university presidents that underperformed
and sank their school into bankruptcy or financial hardship just
because some private companies do that?
Care to explain to us why that sounds like a good idea to you?
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell wrote: Whoa, Nelly!
I didn't SAY anything; I just asked a question:
Does Roger think that CEOs should be treated the same as, or different from, university presidents wrt lucretive resignation packages?
I haven't said how either group should be treated. If you can read something into the question, it is only that I think that CEOs and university presidents should be treated equally in this regard.
--
Joe Campbell
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
I agree with Roger. People that are not working should not be paid the same salary as those that are, regardless of if they were Deans, grocery checkers, or teachers. They should been treated like everyone else. Your salary should be for the work that you do or the value that you add, not work that you once did do.
If Mr. Campbell believes that it is unjust to do that with private company CEOs which we are free to choose to not support with our dollars, then he should also agree it is unjust to do that with government jobs that we have no choice but to pay into.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell wrote: Roger,
I'm wondering if you'd say the same thing about CEOs.
--
Joe Campbell
---- lfalen wrote:
=============
I'm in a hurry and havn't read this yet, but in response to the title, No they should not.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: nickgier at adelphia.net
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:17:51 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Should Former Deans Retain Their High Salaries?
> Greetings:
>
> This is my radio commentary for KRFP FM 92.5 for tomorrow.
>
> Nick Gier
>
> SHOULD FORMER COLLEGE DEANS RETAIN THEIR HIGH SALARIES?
>
> Deans have the toughest job in today's universities and colleges. Like their presidents, they are reluctantly spending less and less time on academic matters. Unfortunately, their institutions have gradually become corportized, so it is only natural that they should act more like CEOs.
>
> What makes deans' jobs difficult is that they sit in an uneasy seat between their faculty and the upper administration. Do they represent the interests of their faculty, or do they do the bidding of the upper administration? Sadly, my experience is that they usually do the latter.
>
> Deans at European universities have an easier time resolving this dilemma. Unlike our deans, who are appointed by the upper administration, European deans and presidents, according to a tradition that goes back to medieval times, are democratically elected. Therefore, European university administrators are totally accountable to the faculty they represent.
>
> Another sign that higher education administrators have become academic CEOs is their huge salaries. From 1982-2005, UI administration salaries have increased 251 percent, while full professor salaries have increased only 154 percent. (The CPI for that time period was 193.) Faculty don't want their administrators to be paid less; rather, they also want to earn professional salaries that match their long years of training and hard work on the job.
>
> In the old days, if new administrators were chosen from the UI faculty, they were given a 12-month salary and an administrative increment. That is not the case any more. When I started teaching in 1972, President Richard Gibb made three times as much as I did, but now President Tim White makes seven times more than new assistant professors. More and more deans are also hired on the open market at much higher salaries than ever before.
>
> It was also understood that when administrators returned to teaching, they would receive a 10-month contract and lose their administrative bonus. But that has not happened for many years. In some instances, but not always, there is a "step-down" agreement with some reduction in salary.
>
> There is one benefit that former deans receive that I believe is well earned. After grueling years straddling the fence between faculty and administration, former deans who stay on campus are given sabbatical leave so that they can retool for the classroom and restart research projects. Faculty, however, must take full-year sabbaticals at half pay, so there is no reason why former dean's cannot do the same.
>
> As I look at the faculty union's salary surveys for the past five years, I note the following examples:
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ An associate dean of liberal arts earned $8,074 per month in 2005, but now she is back in her department at $9,090 per month. Her department colleagues make an average $5,239 per month.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ The liberal arts dean recently resigned in disgrace, and he is now on sabbatical earning his dean's salary of $137, 134. As in the case in private industry, there is no discount for poor performance. His salary will go down 15 percent at mid-year, but that was due to a prearranged step-down agreement.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ An earlier liberal arts dean took a 6.43 percent reduction when he returned to teaching, but he is now making $10,669 per month as department chair in contrast to the full professor monthly average of $8,003.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ The former dean of art and architecture makes $8,561per month, but the current interim dean makes only $7,708 per month. The other full professors in the college earn a monthly salary of $7,063.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ The former dean of business experienced no step-down reduction and stays at $137, 322 per year.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ In 2005, a former dean of engineering returned to the UI after five years in private industry at a monthly salary of $10,537. His successor was still on the faculty at $11,758 per month. That same year the average monthly full professor salary in their department was $8,413.
>
> âââ€Ã
¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¢ The former education dean took a 14 percent reduction, and the former law dean went down 18.8 percent, placing him below many of his teaching colleagues.
>
> This issue is especially crucial when 24 UI staff employees have been laid off because of funding cuts, and students are paying higher fees and walking into ever larger classes.
>
> Administrators work very hard for their high salaries, but surely not any harder than their equally diligent faculty. Former deans return to their departments with tenure; they are awarded full-salary, full-year sabbaticals without competing for them; but there is no way to justify this huge salary advantage over their peers, on which they build financially for the rest of their careers.
>
> Nick Gier is President of the Higher Education Council of the Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. He taught philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061025/568658d4/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list