2008 Woodie Awards
27,000 reasons to be angry
Editorial
Issue date: 9/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Following yet another raise in executive salaries, and possibility of a tuition hike, it's time everyone on campus seriously evaluated whose interests are being represented.
The California Board of Trustees, an unelected body that includes educators, alumni, businesspeople and a single student, seem to have a goal of placing more responsibility on students for paying exec raises.
Students paying for raises? Let us break it down.
In 2005, the California State legislature and the boards of both the California State University and University of California systems entered into the Higher Education Compact. It is clear in the compact that no more money would be given by the State for the administrative portion of the budget unless expressly mandated.
The compact, among other points, aimed to stem the atrocious flood of student fee hikes that the board passed from 2002 and 2004. Over that time, yearly student fees increased by $906. The only other ways to create funding for these raises would be either out of students' pockets or by further cutting programs.
What the top dogs of the Cal State system aren't telling students is that their increases come from students pockets. It is not readily available the amount of money from student fees used for the raises. Any portion of fees going toward anything other than improving the direct instructional experience of students is wrong. Administrators do not improve a student's learning experience directly, yet they decide where student-generated money goes.
Let us bring it to the local.
Does President Rollin Richmond deserve a $27,000 raise? What has he done in the past year to warrant a reward? This question should be seriously evaluated, especially by students, whose pockets will end up picked to pay for his raise.
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said that these raises were necessary to retain and recruit quality presidents. At the same time, he doesn't define what a quality president consists of. Everyone on campus should ask that question, and furthermore: Does the amount of money printed on a president's check define their quality? Or does the president's actions define their quality?
It's time to start holding Richmond accountable for his quality. Students: you need to start demanding that you shouldn't have to sit on the floor in class and that your voice be heard. Faculty and Staff: you should start demanding more inclusion in the decision-making process on campus. And if he doesn't listen to your discontent, then its time to find other ways to make him listen, especially for students who gave the man a $27,000 raise without any input at all.
The California Board of Trustees, an unelected body that includes educators, alumni, businesspeople and a single student, seem to have a goal of placing more responsibility on students for paying exec raises.
Students paying for raises? Let us break it down.
In 2005, the California State legislature and the boards of both the California State University and University of California systems entered into the Higher Education Compact. It is clear in the compact that no more money would be given by the State for the administrative portion of the budget unless expressly mandated.
The compact, among other points, aimed to stem the atrocious flood of student fee hikes that the board passed from 2002 and 2004. Over that time, yearly student fees increased by $906. The only other ways to create funding for these raises would be either out of students' pockets or by further cutting programs.
What the top dogs of the Cal State system aren't telling students is that their increases come from students pockets. It is not readily available the amount of money from student fees used for the raises. Any portion of fees going toward anything other than improving the direct instructional experience of students is wrong. Administrators do not improve a student's learning experience directly, yet they decide where student-generated money goes.
Let us bring it to the local.
Does President Rollin Richmond deserve a $27,000 raise? What has he done in the past year to warrant a reward? This question should be seriously evaluated, especially by students, whose pockets will end up picked to pay for his raise.
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said that these raises were necessary to retain and recruit quality presidents. At the same time, he doesn't define what a quality president consists of. Everyone on campus should ask that question, and furthermore: Does the amount of money printed on a president's check define their quality? Or does the president's actions define their quality?
It's time to start holding Richmond accountable for his quality. Students: you need to start demanding that you shouldn't have to sit on the floor in class and that your voice be heard. Faculty and Staff: you should start demanding more inclusion in the decision-making process on campus. And if he doesn't listen to your discontent, then its time to find other ways to make him listen, especially for students who gave the man a $27,000 raise without any input at all.
Be the first to comment on this story