I Will Gladly Pay You Tuesday
Posted by BKisida | Arkansas, Education, Fayetteville, AR, Politics | June 30, 2010
Or will they? After not receiving any raises last year, University employees are going to have to wonder for another six months whether or not they’ll ever see the merit raises that were promised to them this year. (Bobby Petrino and John Pelphrey, however, will get their raises either way).
I don’t always agree with Mike Masterson of the Dem-Gaz, but his article about the UA-Board-of Trustees-approved merit raises was spot-on. You can read it here. Below I’ve reprinted some of his best points.
“Who can university presidents and chancellors trust if their decisions, and those of their trustees, can be overruled by a governor? Must university trustees now check with the governor before making decisions about managing their institutions? If so, then of what real use is a university president, chancellor or board of trustees?
Injecting state government directly into the decision-making machinery of a university sets a dangerous precedent. Doing so makes it extremely difficult for university leaders to confidently manage when they don’t know if their decisions might be nixed a week later by a bureaucrat or the governor.
Why would a governor even get involved in these sorts of decisions when the state provides less than half of what’s required to educate a college student? And where do the boundaries exist in such instances, if at all? With curriculum? Admissions? Hiring? Administration?
Did the governor and the state’s chief financial guru not realize that UA-Fayetteville already had announced and programmed the raises into its computers? If so, why didn’t they talk with UA leaders before issuing what amounted to a political edict to recall those increases for the time being?
It’s the poorly timed, uncommunicative and needlessly heavy-handed way this unexpected disappointment unfolded that has left leaders at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville wondering what authority, if any, they truly have within their own institution.”
I would add one more point. Masterson mentions that University leaders are left wondering what power they have, and in the case of Chancellor Gearhart and Vice Chancellor Pederson, I agree. They’re out there trying to do what is best for their employees but they lack the power to do much in this situation. I have less sympathy for Sugg (whose annual salary, by the way, is over a half-million dollars a year). He didn’t have to accept the recommendation from the governor, there was nothing binding about it. In the end, the most Beebe could do was “encourage” that the U of A not give raises at this time.
But Sugg quickly announced that there would still be no raises because he felt “we should honor the request of our governor.”
Honor the request of our governor?! What kind of good-ole-boy rhetoric is that?!
Here’s an idea for Alan Sugg: If you feel like honoring someone, how about honoring your commitment to the 1,200+ employees of the U of A who were promised raises?
Fair points, but long before Beebe made his “request,” wasn’t it a tad irresponsible to promise raises in an economic climate in which virtually no other state workers (demi-god coaches aside) received a hike? Seems to me like Gearhart jumped the gun on this one.
Whether or not the UA can afford the raises is a question they themselves are supposed to determine. After foregoing raises the previous year, making other budget cuts, and increasing tuition and enrollment, they were able to determine that the merit raises were affordable. These are the experts and this is what they concluded.
Whether other state employees get raises or not is somewhat irrelevant. State employees received raises last year, while the UA made the decision not to. Now, afer skipping a year of merit raises, the UA was in a position to offer them. The UA shouldn’t have to follow the state only when the state limits raises, but forego raises when the rest of the state receives them.
And, as Masterson pointed out, the state provides less than half of the university’s budget.
And since you brought up coaches, it’s also worth remembering that all K-12 teachers got their raises this year, and last year. Coaches and teachers have the benefit of contracts.
“The UA shouldn’t have to follow the state only when the state limits raises”
I agree and if the UA thinks it can afford raises it should proceed. My sole point is that Gearhart made a tactical mistake.
And you’re right about K-12, but as you point out, they’ve bargained for those. UA employees don’t have comparable leverage. This politicizes the issue of raises (whereas K-12′s negotiated step increases almost never arouse a fight).
I also think Beebe, et al. are taking into consideration the widespread, if unfair, complaint that UA employees are overpaid. For most of your colleagues that may seem silly but some Arkies have long complained about (for example) UAMS salaries being too high (though they’re actually right at market value).
But again, my point is not to say that UA doesn’t deserve a raise or that they should have to kowtow to Beebe, but rather that Gearhart could’ve played his hand better on this one before making any promises.
Lastly, Masterson errs in thinking the state’s funding level should mitigate its influence. Warren Buffet doesn’t own Coca-Cola — just 8% of it. But that’s plenty enough to tell Coke a thing or two.
Excuse my poor spelling: It’s Warren “Buffett,” not “Buffet:
”
This is a buffet: