<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Reality:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The national debt can not be paid off without additional
revenue. Those that say it can either have their heads up the terminus of
their alimentary canal, are ignorant, and/or are liars.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w</FONT><FONT size=2>.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lfalen@turbonet.com href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=NGIER@uidaho.edu
href="mailto:NGIER@uidaho.edu">Gier, Nicholas</A> ; <A
title=nickgier@roadrunner.com
href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 13, 2011 10:01
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Faculty
Salary Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Nick<BR>I said that paying competitive salaries compared to
other states was a valid argument. But given the current budgets where are you
going to get the money? It is not right for staff to be the only ones
that take it in the shorts, just because they are less likely to move.
Again start the cuts at the administrative level. Raul Labradour said that"
people come into his office and say that they agree with cutting everything
but their area. There should be no sacred cows, everything should be
cut.".<BR>I agree with that. As far as the federal government is concerned,
cuts should start with the salaries of congressmen and their
benefits.<BR>Roger<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Roger<BR>-----Original
message-----<BR>From: "Gier, Nicholas" <A
href="mailto:NGIER@uidaho.edu">NGIER@uidaho.edu</A><BR>Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011
11:02:08 -0700<BR>To: "lfalen" <A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>, <A
href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</A>, <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject: RE:
[Vision2020] Idaho Faculty Salary Survey<BR><BR>> Hi Roger,<BR>>
<BR>> There is a flaw in your argument. During good times
administrative pay skyrocketed, but faculty salaries did not and we have
thereby lagged for years. Unions all over the nation have agreed to pay and
benefit cuts during bad times. If Moscow teachers and their
administrators agree to a very modest one percent raise, then your have no say
in the matter.<BR>> <BR>> Hiring new faculty is done on a national
market with no regard for "small" states. Nevada, for example, is at the top
of our peers and we are at the bottom. If Idaho cannot pay competitive
salaries, then the state will lose out big time. Take a look at my
"greener pastures" list that Shirley Ringo asked me to make up several years
ago. You can find it at <A
href="http://www.idaho-aft.org/greener.htm">www.idaho-aft.org/greener.htm</A><BR>>
<BR>> Furthermore, last time I looked Idaho faculty were paid $10 per hour
less than other professionals (engineers, chemists, etc.) in Idaho. Are
we expected to earn less than what some of our students will earn even in our
small state?<BR>> <BR>> Nick<BR>> <BR>> Nick<BR>> I agree with
you 100% on the pay of administrators. In addition to them being payed to much
there are too many oif them. To argue that Idaho faculty salaries are not
keeping up with other state is a valid point. However we are a small state and
should live within our means. My wife who is UI staff has been reduced
to 87% of her normal salary. This means she she gets paid for 7 hours a
day. She puts in about 12 hours a day. She would have been reduced to 50% on
July 1. She with the help of our daughter, who works for the Idaho Soils
Commission was able to line up a Nitrate study on the Camus Prairie.
This will be done with farmer cooperators in the area. This will allow her to
stay at 87% until January. <BR>> I understand the desire for wanting pay
increases as the cost of living is going up, however in hard times everyone
should share the burden. This should also apply to the county budget and
to the schools. The county should toe the line to last years budget. A slight
increases might be allowed for the Sheriffs budget, but not the amount
requested. Congratulation to Bill Thompson for requesting a decrease.
The Troy teachers voluntarily took a decrease. Moscow teachers should have
done the same. Genesee recently hired a new Superintendant for $90,000. I
think that this was too much. Again we are still in an economic slump
and everyone should share the burden.<BR>> Roger<BR>> <BR>>
-----Original message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</A><BR>>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:27:54 -0700<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> Subject:
[Vision2020] Idaho Faculty Salary Survey<BR>> <BR>> > Dear
Visionaries:<BR>> > <BR>> > Usually the faculty union is able to
published faculty salaries much earlier in the year, but we did not get the
data until last month. The most telling contrast is President Nellis'
487 percent increase over 29 years vs. 211 percent increase for UI full
professors. (CPI for that period is 218.) For 11 administrative
positions the increase was 280 percent.<BR>> > <BR>> > Idaho
Faculty Salary Survey 2010-11<BR>> > <BR>> > We have published a
UI salary survey every year since 1974. Individual faculty data come from the
UI Budget Office. UI Salary data and analyses going back to 2000-2001 can be
found at <<A
href="http://www.idaho-aft.org/salaries.htm">www.idaho-aft.org/salaries.htm</A>>.<BR>>
> UI full professors are 23% behind their peers on Ph.D.-granting campuses,
while UI associate and assistant professors are 14% and 17% behind
re-spectively. Since FY82, when the full professor differential was 17%, UI
fulls have lost 6% to their peers.<BR>> > <BR>> > Also at the URL
above you can find UI salaries by department and unit; an all Idaho campus
survey with UI administration salaries; a national survey by discipline; and a
UI survey by discipline. The superb Oklahoma State study by discipline is no
longer available to us.<BR>> > <BR>> > ISU, BSU, and LCSC Salaries
Now Included<BR>> > <BR>> > With aid of the annual salary survey
done by the American Association of University Professors we are now able to
add faculty salaries from ISU, BSU, and LCSC. We urge faculty from these
campuses to gather their department and unit salaries in the same way that the
UI union has done for years.<BR>> > BSU faculty suffer a much greater
differential than their peers: 34% for fulls; 22% for associates; and 20% for
assistants. The ISU gap just as bad: 33%/23%/22%. For B.A./B.S. institutions
LCSC is also way behind: 33%/31%/ 26%.<BR>> > Some BSU and ISU faculty
have higher teaching loads but the same research expectations, so they should
at least have salary equity with the UI.<BR>> > <BR>> > NIC, CSI,
CWI Salaries Coming Next Year<BR>> > <BR>> > We will publish Idaho
2-year campus salaries in next year's survey. For the time being faculty there
can compare their salaries with the national averages for ranked and
non-ranked faculty. CSI faculty have rank but no tenure; NIC faculty have
tenure but no rank; CWI faculty have neither rank nor tenure.<BR>> > For
many years NIC faculty have enjoyed the ad-vantage of a salary step system,
and after several years of no funding for the steps, the NIC president and
board authorized money for the steps. In good years NIC faculty receive
cost-of-living raises on top of the automatic steps. The union has always
argued that that merit pay should be a separate appropriation and should be
awarded by extra steps.<BR>> > <BR>> > UI Administrative Raises up
273% over 29 Years vs. Full Professors at 211%; CPI is 218<BR>> >
<BR>> > In terms of cost of living, UI full professors have suffered a
7% pay cut over 29 years, while UI administrators have enjoyed a 55% pay
raise. (We wish we had FY82 data for the other ranks, but we were lucky to
find these full professor salaries in an old issue of Faculty Advocate.) ISU,
BSU, and LCSC professors have lost much more compared to the CPI.<BR>> >
<BR>> > Most fortunate, however, is the fact that we have UI
administrative salaries from FY82. These were years before the corporate model
for higher education had taken its full and disastrous effect. Please note
that 29 years ago UI deans made pretty much the same salary, and that the
president earned only $7-14,000 more than his deans.<BR>> > <BR>>
> Those who justify huge administrative salaries say: "This is what the
market demands, and we are still paying less than peer institutions." If
faculty salaries had been keeping up, this would have been persuasive. Former
UI President Elizabeth Zinser justified her huge salary increase by claiming
that it "would raise all boats." But, as the State Board of Education
continues to approve these administrative increases each year, faculty
salaries have fallen further and further behind.<BR>> > <BR>> >
During the period 1990-1995 raises for UI higher administrators rose by 21.3
percent compared to 16.5 percent for faculty. When the AFT made these
increases an issue in 1995, the next year top administrator pay rose only 2.33
percent, about 3 percent lower than the faculty.<BR>> > <BR>> >
UI's Duane Nellis' $335,005 is 487% over Richard Gibb's 1981 Salary; <BR>>
> From Three Times to Eight Times Entry Level Professors<BR>> >
<BR>> > In 1972 entry level professors made about $10,000, and then
President Ernest Hartung made about $30,000. When President Richard Gibb was
hired in 1977, his salary had risen to four times entry level faculty. (In a
1977 interview with the AFT president, Gibb contended that top faculty should
make more than he did.) Faculty complaints became more vocal when Elizabeth
Zinser's FY 94 salary was $125,039, five times entry level salaries. The
differential with entry level faculty has now risen to over eight
times.<BR>> > <BR>> > Pay Equity at the Presidential Level Why not
for Idaho's Professors?<BR>> > <BR>> > When the SBOE met Duane
Nellis half way on his salary demands, they then decided that the ISU and BSU
executives would receive essentially the same pay. This action puts the lie to
the UI's status as Idaho's "flag ship institution. Each of our major
universities have outstanding faculty and most of them do cutting-edge
research. So why should ISU and BSU salaries lag more than 10 percent behind
the UI?<BR>> > <BR>> > Thank the AFT for Your Promotion
Increase<BR>> > <BR>> > For many years the AFT urged the UI
administration to increase the promotion increments in order to alleviate
salary compression in the upper ranks. The increments used to be $1,000 for
promotion to associate and $1,500 to full professor. We take some credit for
the fact that UI President Robert Hoover raised those increments to $5,000 and
$6,500 respectively. In the 2000s they were boosted to $6,000 and $8,500 at
the UI, and we would like to see the same amounts for BSU, ISU, and
LCSC.<BR>> > <BR>> > Across the Board Raises before Merit Pay;
otherwise Many Faculty Lose Pay to Inflation<BR>> > <BR>> > The
Hoover administration committed itself to "across the board increases" for
"all employees showing at least satisfactory performance." This promise stands
first in a list that includes promotions, merit pay, and equity adjustments.
The AFT position has always been that as a long as salaries do not keep up
with the cost of living, then merit pay is a moot point. When legislative
raises are applied according to merit, many faculty end up with pays cuts
because of the decline in general buying power. Merit pay must be funded by a
separate appropriation.<BR>> > <BR>> > Collective Bargaining is
the Only Answer<BR>> > <BR>> > During the late 1960s there was a
large expansion of our public higher education system. This was good for
educational opportunity, but bad in the way that this system developed
according to a business model. University presidents became less like academic
leaders and more like CEOs, and their salaries, as well as those of their
management teams, have skyrocketed.<BR>> > <BR>> > A natural
response to the industrialization of the uni-versity was the rise of faculty
unions. They now represent a large majority of faculty in states where
collective bargaining is allowed. (Idaho, unfortun-ately, is one of the 19
where it is not permitted.) Over 320,000 faculty on 1,130 campuses are now
under union contracts.<BR>> > <BR>> >
=======================================================<BR>> >
List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> >
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>
>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
> =======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>