The Faculty Senate at Clemson (S.C.) University unanimously passed a resolution yesterday expressing its “lost trust” in the administration of President James Barker.
The unanimous vote was surprising – as was the fact that the Greenville News actually got off of its Clemson-sympathizing ass and covered the event.
From the News article:
The resolution also seeks a greater role for faculty members in the operations of the administration on compensation issues. The Faculty Senate vote calls for annual reports from Barker on administrative and faculty raises and representation on the university’s administrative council, the provost’s advisory council and the board of trustees’ compensation committee.
Barker said after the vote that he has met with the incoming Faculty Senate president and will work toward greater transparency and accountability. He said he will review the salaries to determine whether faculty and administrative pay are out of balance. He didn’t commit to allowing faculty representation on the university councils.
Of course Barker didn’t commit to the one thing that would actually give Clemson professors some assurance that this sort of crap wouldn’t happen again … how else
He did commit to singing a little “Kum Ba Yah” though …
Barker and Provost Dori Helms said that they aren’t surprised to see the issue arise in the current economy. The discussion is a sign of a healthy university where people with diverse views can come together and work together to move forward, they said.
Awwww … “someone’s crying, my Lord, Kum Ba Yah …”
Anyway, our little website was quite the subject of conversation, too.
Professor Bill Surver – who is to lead the Faculty Senate next year – reportedly ripped FITS as a “rag,” and questioned how we were able to get a copy of the draft resolution as quickly as we did.
Honey, you shouldn’t have …
Pingback: Study & Money » Blog Archive » All the news that’s…
By Austin April 15, 2009 at 8:38 pm
MUSC will have a faculty senate meeting next Monday night at 5PM. I expect the vote will be the same for J. Reves and Ray Greenberg. Both are shafting the faculty and there is absolutely no confidence in their leadership. I look forward to casting my vote against them both. They are removing the meaning of tenure and recasting salaries while they support and hire more administrators and staff.
By Peterbog April 16, 2009 at 8:24 am
Oh hum…. So the cycle continues. In the mid to late 90′
s the faculty were similarly concerned about Adminstrative pay. So a committee was developed to look at the discrepancies. The problem at that time was that ALL of administrator’s salaries were shown in the University budget, but only the budgeted salary of Faculty were shown. When the committee actually looked a the W-2 (That is the earnings from the University as reported to the Internal Revenue Service) the report was quickly buried because it showed many faculty received “overload” payments and payment for summer work which brought many of their salaries for 12 months of work up to measure.
Now that committee was working up until the early 2000′s….what happened to it?
Yes the Administator’s Pay at Clemson needs looked at, but not from whether it is equitable with that of the Faculty! It needs to start with whether it is equitable for the actual responsibilities of specific administrators at a relatively small public University in a low cost of living area! Simlarly faculty pay needs looked at from a similar perspective……
A market salary is a measure of what pay an individual can get from multiple sources for their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Typically you expect some turn over of qualified personnel because it is healthy for the entity (gives promotion opportunities for others and brings in new blood) and good administrators will always be seeking options to broaden their horizons and gain new and larger experiences.
Trivia Question 1: Name the last Clemson administrator that left for a larger salary or better opportunity than the nest they cozily had provided for themselves at High Tuition U.?
Trivia Question 2: List the major Administrator’s at HTU that have administrative experience at any other Research Institution?
By clemosonprof1 April 19, 2009 at 11:31 am
Peterbog vaguely remembers the CU Budget Accountability Committee but gets the details wrong.
The Budget Accountability Committee in the late 1990s conducted a “total salary survey” for faculty, two years in a row. The TTS found that a few professors were getting lots of extra pay, in the summer especially. Some violations of university rules were found and quietly corrected.
It was the administration that didn’t want any TTS released to the public, out of fear of Harry Stille (anyone remember him?).
The TTS did not show that Clemson faculty were getting paid competitive salaries on the average. Most weren’t, as could be seen from the Oklahoma State salary comparisons (available on the CU Institutional Research website). In about 2/3′s of the departments the salaries still aren’t competitive (see the latest Oklahoma State comparisons).
The Budget Accountability Committee took a hit when its chair was removed by a pro-administration Faculty Senate President (who now works for the Provost). He’d published an op-ed in the Greenville News calling for deep cuts in administration. BAC gradually became an administrative committee and was allowed to die when a couple of Faculty Senate presidents didn’t push for its reactivation: “We have a Senate Finance Committee, so why do we need a Budget Accountability Committee?”
Now the Faculty Senate knows why it needs a Budget Accountability Committee…
Peterbog is of course correct about the lack of turnover in the CU administration.
In some cases this has been the result of deliberately protecting incompetent administrators. The recently departed Dean of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities is a notorious example. Should have been fired after 3 months, lasted 7 years.
The present Dean of Business and Behavioral Science is another. Came to Clemson from that big-time research university, UNC-Charlotte. Said he would raise lots of money. Spent his time trying to intimidate the faculty instead. Still hasn’t raised a whole lot of money. Still has his job.
By clemosonprof1 April 19, 2009 at 11:33 am
Duh, total salary survey abbreviates to TSS, not TTS…
By Plantation University April 24, 2009 at 4:30 pm
What the F Senate was forced to do by the overwhelming facts was looong overdue. The Senate, for the last eight years has been an “Administration Senate. When the Senate President did what the administration wanted, the reward would be a cushy job in the President’s or Provost’s office. I.E. Pat Smart, who was very smart to move ahead because she could not teach nor publish. There are several other examples of quid pro quo that benefited the Senate Presidents. No wonder this administration feels untouchable. The gap between them and the faculty is an abyss. Who suffers? The students. But who cares about the students when what the Clemson administration care for is to enrich themselves?