HA forum: adm. raises - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 17, 2005

HA forum: adm. raises

Date: Oct 17, 2005

What a great series of comments appear in this forum. Be sure to read them all. Just click the site in the post above this one.

Date: Oct 17, 2005

Wow! wrote:

What a great series of comments appear in this forum. Be sure to read them all. Just click the site in the post above this one.

Looks like there are some off- campus folks who have some insight as to what's going on at USM. Viewing their comments is a must.

Date: Oct 18, 2005

It appears that COH dean fos has donated his raise to the university after questioning the legitimacy of the raise process. Maybe Exline will do the same.

Date: Oct 18, 2005

row_faster_ben_hur wrote:

It appears that COH dean fos has donated his raise to the university after questioning the legitimacy of the raise process. Maybe Exline will do the same.

Fos pledged $10,000 over 10 years to a College of Health scholarship fund. A commendable gesture, to be sure, but the dean will net $90,000 from his $10,000 per year raise over the same time period. Not a bad deal -- get credit for a magnanimous gesture and pocket $90K. If Fos truly questioned "the legitimacy of the raise process," why did he not decline the raise altogether? The resulting increase in reputational stock with faculty and staff tired of this crony-ridden regime would have far outweighed the pocketbook sacrifice.

Date: Oct 18, 2005

do the math wrote:

It appears that COH dean fos has donated his raise to the university . . . . Not a bad deal -- get credit for a magamananimous gesture and pocket $90K. sacrifice.

Couldn't his megaraise also conceivaly increase the "highest four-year-average" in the retirement benefits formula

Date: Oct 19, 2005

do the math wrote:

...the dean will net $90,000 from his $10,000 per year raise over the same time period.

Actually, the dean will gross $100K over 10 years, netting probably about half that. You see, there's an old monster called tax withholding involved & anybody who's ever read their pay stub knows that "net" & "gross" are radically different animals.

He is contributing the equivalent of one year's gross raise out of the net that he actually takes home. So if you really "do the math," you'll figure that he's actually going to "net" about $40K over the 10-year period. That figures to be 4 grand a year.

(I'm leaving the possibility that some or all of the raise might be put in a tax deferred annuity, but that would mean that the contribution would then come out of his regular take-home.)

Assuming a person works to 25 years service in PERS, the impact of a $10K raise on the "highest four" would be $5K in annual retirement benefits. And of course, it is not a given that in 578.5 days, any of the current USM deans will be earning their current salaries. So whether a raise given now will ever become part of a "highest four" is also equally debatable.

I think Fos made a nice gesture. Why bash him out of hand?

Date: Oct 19, 2005

There was a time when every dean was "encouraged" (shall we say rather strongly encouraged) to pledge $10,000 to the Foundation. I know Lucas did this, and I suspect Fleming did too.

Date: Oct 19, 2005

Invictus wrote:

do the math wrote:
...the dean will net $90,000 from his $10,000 per year raise over the same time period.

Actually, the dean will gross $100K over 10 years, netting probably about half that. You see, there's an old monster called tax withholding involved & anybody who's ever read their pay stub knows that "net" & "gross" are radically different animals.

That's fuzzy math. Federal tax at that income is 28% and state tax is 5%. Other deductions remain the same (healthcare, life insurance, etc). So he'll make about 67% of his gross. Plus, if he's smart, he'll earmark his contribution to go to the COH; then he can use the money for travel to his favorite workshop/ski trip.

Rap the dean? Sure. If it were me, I would have said "No thanks, Shelby. Thats not the way things should be done. I've got a lot of good faculty and staff in my college. I lead by example and getting a stealth raise does not set a good example of how I want my people to do business. Have a nice day."

Date: Oct 19, 2005

Rod_Sterling wrote:

That's fuzzy math. Federal tax at that income is 28% and state tax is 5%. Other deductions remain the same (healthcare, life insurance, etc). So he'll make about 67% of his gross. Plus, if he's smart, he'll earmark his contribution to go to the COH; then he can use the money for travel to his favorite workshop/ski trip.

Rap the dean? Sure. If it were me, I would have said "No thanks, Shelby. Thats not the way things should be done. I've got a lot of good faculty and staff in my college. I lead by example and getting a stealth raise does not set a good example of how I want my people to do business. Have a nice day."

My math may be fuzzy, but you just left out a few things: FICA (7.65% for up to $90K salary) & PERS (7.25% for up to $150K salary). I believe when you factor that that in, your 67% is a bit farther off the mark than my 50%.

My point, which you chose to overlook, is that he most definitely is not "netting" any $90K over a 10-year period. Moreover, you chose to ignore my secondary point that the odds of any dean at USM still being a dean at USM 10 years from now are slim to none. As I indicated, I don't think the raise would have full-impact on a "highest four" calculation, unless SFT gets a contract extension.

I agree that the raises were stupid, ill-advised, malfeasant, an abuse of power, etc., but I'd love to see how many faculty members who read this board would turn down a $10K raise themselves on principle. I know there would be some, so maybe a better question would be, "How many faculty members would be murdered by their spouses if they turned down a $10K raise?"

There is something perverse about a group that goes into a feeding frenzy attacking a person who is at least contributing part of his raise back into the university while not saying a d@mned thing negative about the folks who aren't!

Date: Oct 19, 2005

The administrative raises are an outrage in the context of the university's protracted fiscal crisis and the complete absence of any transparent budget strategy, at a time when faculty hires are virtually frozen and the provost talks of faculty sabbaticals being iced as well.

I am aware that the AAUP chapter leadership is currently working on a statement condemning the administrative "stealth" raises. I hope that the statement becomes public very soon, and that it is very strong. There has been far too little outcry over this latest eruption of really bad management practice.

Date: Oct 25, 2005

Check out the responses from today. The link at the top of this thread still works.