Show Me the Money, Part II (Updated)
We recently located and reviewed publicly available documents regarding Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) issued by the Iowa Higher Education Loan Authority to UD. This information is quite informative in regards to the financial situation of the University.
To explain...
In 1999, former UD math professor Dr. Julia K. McDonald noted that the University's administration had cited, at that time, a projected deficit for the 1998-1999 fiscal year of $1.35 million. This (in addition to other financial concerns) was used to justify reductions in salaries and the cutting of programs at the institution.
Interestingly, the 2004 RAN document contains a section in which the University projects a $1.9 million deficit for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Additionally, UD's total liabilities dramatically increased from $15.6 million in 2003 to $28.3 million in 2004, as reported in a 2005 RAN document (see page 35). As we previously reported, Jeffrey Bullock, the president of UD, received a 54% raise between May 2003 and May 2004. As far as we can tell, it would have been during this timeframe that the University would have made their projection of a $1.9 million 2004-2005 deficit, while at the same time experiencing the dramatic leap in total liabilities.
The Pressing Questions
Rumor has it that faculty pay raises above the typical 2-3% "across the board" increase are non-negotiable due to the fact that the institution is still working through its financial problems. Why then was Bullock granted a 54% raise when the yearly deficit was expected to be over $1.9 million and the liabilities had skyrocketed? What could reasonably justify the president's raise? Furthermore, what could reasonably justify Associate Professor Alan Garfield's 12% raise between 2001 and 2002, and his 7% raise between 2002 and 2003?
It seems that some professors are exempt from the 2-3% "across the board" increase. What criterion is employed to determine who can negotiate a raise and who cannot?
For those of us concerned with Professor Jeffries' termination, this is a serious question, particularly since it is believed that one reason his tenure contract was revoked was due to the fact that he wanted to discuss the possibility of a pay raise.
To explain...
In 1999, former UD math professor Dr. Julia K. McDonald noted that the University's administration had cited, at that time, a projected deficit for the 1998-1999 fiscal year of $1.35 million. This (in addition to other financial concerns) was used to justify reductions in salaries and the cutting of programs at the institution.
Interestingly, the 2004 RAN document contains a section in which the University projects a $1.9 million deficit for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Additionally, UD's total liabilities dramatically increased from $15.6 million in 2003 to $28.3 million in 2004, as reported in a 2005 RAN document (see page 35). As we previously reported, Jeffrey Bullock, the president of UD, received a 54% raise between May 2003 and May 2004. As far as we can tell, it would have been during this timeframe that the University would have made their projection of a $1.9 million 2004-2005 deficit, while at the same time experiencing the dramatic leap in total liabilities.
The Pressing Questions
Rumor has it that faculty pay raises above the typical 2-3% "across the board" increase are non-negotiable due to the fact that the institution is still working through its financial problems. Why then was Bullock granted a 54% raise when the yearly deficit was expected to be over $1.9 million and the liabilities had skyrocketed? What could reasonably justify the president's raise? Furthermore, what could reasonably justify Associate Professor Alan Garfield's 12% raise between 2001 and 2002, and his 7% raise between 2002 and 2003?
It seems that some professors are exempt from the 2-3% "across the board" increase. What criterion is employed to determine who can negotiate a raise and who cannot?
For those of us concerned with Professor Jeffries' termination, this is a serious question, particularly since it is believed that one reason his tenure contract was revoked was due to the fact that he wanted to discuss the possibility of a pay raise.
posted by WhatWendtWrong at 12:01 PM
3 Comments:
I'm guessing the editors aren't accounting wizards. The $1.9 million is a cash deficit, not an operating deficit. Add up the monthly net for the fiscal year (June - May) and you get $1 operating deficit.
A deficit is still a deficit, its unfavorable, inadequate, and insufficient.
The top five salaries for the University are shown on 990 forms. Before Garfield came, there were no faculty members listed in that august company on any of the 990 forms. After he arrived, his name appeared and now he is joined by Dr. Chesterfield. Let it be known that those faculty who retired after many years of service earned somewhere between $40, 000 and $50,000. Compare this to Garfield’s $98,000 and it can be seen how favored he is. Imagine the low faculty morale after this disclosure shortly after Garfield arrived until now. It is an obscene discrepancy and not even the faculty members in his department come close to his salary. Let us call UD “Denmark” as in “something stinks in Denmark.”
Post a Comment
<< Home