Latest Employee Paycut

I think we're just about scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of ways to suck money up to the top layer of fat at UNCG. A new policy has just been announced by the Chancellor's office regarding adverse winter weather. Really, you will find yourself in one of three tracks should the roads be covered with ice and visibility reduced to only slightly past the end of your own nose.

Track 1: You are an essential employee. You must come to work. No matter what. Plagues of locusts, sharknadoes, or the storm of the century. You are probably paid the least and therefore your safety is cheaper. Upper admin uses the Jedi mind trick of saying your are essential but not valuable.

Track 2: You are not an essential employee. At least not in the sense of needing to risk life and limb on the highway coming to work...if you are willing to buy your safety. For the low, low price of a vacation day or leave without pay, you can stay off of the ice covered roads just long enough to realize that the money you have lost means that even if you could go out and get milk, you wouldn't be able to afford it.

Track 3: You make a ridiculous amount of money for something that nobody really can define. You aren't essential, that much is clear. You are encouraged to keep yourself safe and warm by your fireplace, wrapped in your imported noro afghan and occasionally wondering aloud "how the other half lives." Should you find the tedium of being trapped inside drinking brandy begin to overcome you, you could always reorganize departments, fire employees, create new draconian 'money-saving' policies or simply kick someone smaller and weaker.

My suggestion?

 When there's black ice on the roads and snows are piling up, let the chancellor warm up her fancy car and risk her $324,000 salary to come in and cook and clean and patrol. And let the men and women who are among the most shamefully underpaid employees have those days as paid vacation. I think that seems more just, don't you?

I'm confused...

Setting aside for a moment any opinion about Tom Ross’ efficacy as UNC system president, can somebody please explain to me why he has been forced out?

Is it because of this bit of character assassination issued by UNC’s Board of Governor’s Chairman John Fennebresque:

“President Ross has our complete confidence in managing an incredibly complicated system in an area, education[1], that is changing every day.”

Or the UNC athletics scandal as alluded to by Fennebresque using the poetic device of repetition to ensure that people’s minds were focused on, well, on the situtation:

“President Ross handled that situation, managed that situation, led that situation in exemplary fashion.”

Or because Ross indicated he was ready to go when he said:

“I wasn’t planning on leaving in the near future…It’s not an easy thing for me because, you know, I love it, and I would love to be here forever.”

Or is it a result of the dissatisfaction expressed by Governor McCrory in the statement:

“Tom Ross has been a great partner and longtime friend of my family. I want to especially thank him for helping us build bridges of cooperation between our K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.”

And obviously, he should not have been allowed to continue serving as UNC System President given this statement from the Board of Governors:

“The Board believes President Ross has served with distinction, that his performance has been exemplary, and that he has devoted his full energy, intellect and passion to fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of his office. This decision has nothing to do with President Ross’ performance or ability to continue in the office.”

The very nerve, no wonder he is being forced out. No one should have to tolerate that type of behavior.

And, of course, we can certainly rule out politics. There’s not really any reason to even need to bring that up, it so clearly doesn’t play a part in this decision. At all, I mean really, why would you even ask. There’s no possible way that politics can have played any part at all in getting rid of someone. I mean, just because the Board can’t come up with any reasons why they were getting rid of him doesn’t mean it’s political.  You’d be off your head to think that if the Board is so satisfied with him and he wants to stay where he is that politics could have been sufficient to cause the call for his resignation.

In fact, just to prove that this isn’t political, I have typed out the transcript of the press conference where Board of Governor’s Chairman, who certainly did not look like an Alzheimer’s patient in a rocking chair trying to recall how to use language, eloquently and powerfully expressed all of the reasons that the board made this decision in a way that did not appear the least bit hostile and certainly wasn’t outright stupid.

Fennebresque’s opening statement: “I want to make a few things clear, this Board believes that Tom Ross has been a wonderful president, fantastic work ethic, perfect integrity, worked well with our board, and, speaking for myself, and I have some great excitement about working with him for a minimum of a year and maybe longer. I wanted to clear something up, uhh that, I saw from some article with a quote attributed to a member of the board, which I am disappointed in and that is that age had nothing to do with this. Full stop. President Ross has our complete confidence in managing an incredibly complicated system in an area, education, that is changing every day. And I look forward to the next year plus with my president.”

Q: So, Mr. F. You said age had nothing to do with – there is a historical coincidence that his four preceding presidents retired, left at 65…so why?

A; It had nothing to do with the age, okay.

Q: okay why

A: I think, the board um felt like umm at the appropriate time uh there should be a transition to a new president and (pause) well, we had a timeline umm that we were thinking along and, and President Ross had a, had a different timeline and that’s it.

Q: So, with respect, that doesn’t really answer the question. You had a different timeline, what does that mean?

A: I think it answers the question. Look at the statement, it answers the question.

Q: It seems to me there was a difference of opinion, but you must have had a reason, but you’re not saying what the reason was.

A: Figuring out, uh trying to figure out the time for this board to (five minute pause) work with a new leader a year from now that may bring uh other umm assets to the, to the job. It has. Tom, has been terrific.

Q: Did the board have pressure from legislative members

A: okay there is one of me and, and 32 of us. I had absolutely none. Okay?

Q: Have you heard of other board members…

A: No. I just know people who live in Raleigh talk about politics. But I don’t live in Raleigh.

Q: When you talk about other assets that the next president could bring, what are you referring to?

a. Ummm… a lot of that is, uh is, is gonna be determined by a search committee and my experience with a search committee is zip. So, our, our board of governors is going to, we’ve gotta do a, a job description, and, and so it’s all new, so I, I , I , I would, I’m just, I’m just going to wait until umm we have a ummm this organizational meeting of the search committee and try to explain it, have 32 people weigh in on it and then give the uh, give the uh characteristics, the traits.

Q: Mr. Ross, you said there was a difference of timeline. What was your timeline?

A: [Ross] Well, I don’t know that I had finely determined what one was, but you know I’ve been enjoying my work with the BOG and I think we’ve accomplished a lot during the last four years. When I cam here I was clear that I would not be ready to stop working at age 65. And I’m not ready to stop working at age 65. So, I don’t know how much longer, but I was not planning on leaving in the near future. But, I think the board did have a different timeline and I respect their right to, and their prerogative to select the president, and I think so what we’ve done is develop a plan that will allow for a smooth transition and will allow the university to continue its work, and that has to be the most important thing, we have to put the university first and I know the board believes that I certainly do.

Q: do you think UNC-CH scandal attributed to that in any way?

A: [Fenne…] Let me answer that. Absolutely not. In fact, I would suggest to you that President Ross has handled that situation, managed that situation, led that situation in exemplary fashion and I’ve been with him all the way.

Q: If he’s done such a great job, if he’s such a wonderful president and you don’t even have assets or a job description indicating what you are looking for yet, why? What’s the hurry? Why do this now?

A: Um…it’s a, it’s a conversation, about, ummm. Ummm…succession planning, transition, ummm, and as you can see from the, umm, the document you’ll, I don’t know if you have it now, it’s 12 more months of this leadership, maybe more. There’s no magic to the time.

Q: President Ross, did anybody on the board give you a reason other than what’s stated?

A: [Ross] You know, we’ve had a lot of discussions about this and I think it’s the board’s interest to begin transition and we talked about how best to do this and this was the agreement.

Q: But no one has expressed dissatisfaction with what you’ve done?

A: [Ross] No, no I’ve had no one express dissatisfaction with the job you’ve done.

Q: Were there some on the board who didn’t want

A: [Ross]I don’t know the answer to that.

[Fenne] Umm.. the agreement was, umm, ummm, approved and the joint statement was approved by all but one person on the board. And we spent a long time talking with board members umm about it and I think that, that whatever, 31/32nds of the board is on the same page here.

Q: Does this have anything to do with politics?

A: Absolutely not. Ummm to elaborate on that umm it’s my understanding of BOG history that people have generally left their politics at the door. If we’re talking about politics D’s and R’s I have heard close to nothing about D’s and R’s since I’ve been on the board which is, how long have I been on the board? About four years.  I’m about in my fourth year. It doesn’t come up. I can’t tell you the registration of my fellow board members. They don’t ask me about mine. It doesn’t come up.

Q: President Ross, do you believe this has anything to do with politics?

A: [Ross] I think the board is committed to this university and I think what we’ve accomplished in the last four years has demonstrated that they are committed to the university and I think they’ll remain committed. I think what’s most important for people to remember today and every day this is the oldest public university in America and it’s one of the best public universities if not the best public university in America  it is and has been a key driver for this state’s success for its economy for its civic leadership and all of us have a responsibility to protect the university and I think the board is doing what they believe is right for the university ad I certainly am here today because I believe the university is one of our greatest asset and I have tried to give it all I can in my time so far and I continue to give it all I can for as long as my services are needed.

The board has both the legal right and responsibility and the prerogative to think about transition and move in a way that they think is best. And my job is to do the best job I can

[Fenn] this board agrees with president ross. This board takes very seriously its responsibility to the citizens of this state and the students, our 220,000 students. We take that very seriously, as does president ross and our wonderful cadre of chancellors, so the board is fully engaged in doing its very best to make sure that people, to, to not only keep improving the best system in the country but to make sure our elected leaders realize that this is, and our citizens, this is the most important asset that we have for the prosperity for our citizens and we are going to make that, over and and president ross and I have said that together and separately over and over and over again and we’re just going to yell even louder now.

Q: Mr. Ross would you have done anything differently

A: [Ross] that’s a complex question because I’ve done so many things that to think back over four years and say would I have done anything differently, I suspect there are but I can’t think of them right now. I ’m proud of the work I’ve done, I think we’ve done a lot together. You know, this has been a period of transition for the university in many ways. There has been a dramatic change of board leadership there has been a dramatic change in the state’s leadership and policy makers…there’s been about as bad of an economy as we’ve had, so it’s been a challenging time to lead. I’m proud that we are here where we are today. I think we are still the best public university in America, I don’t think we’ve lost ground and To me, that says a lot given what we’ve been through. I don’t, I can’t point to a single thing that I would do different…I’m sure there are a few here and there.

[Fenne interrupting and not sounding at all desperate] I can point to a bunch of things he’s done well!!

[Ross] I’m very proud of what we’ve done and what we’ll continue to do, I mean, again, as the chair points out, I’m not out of here this afternoon. I plan on being here working for the university until at least next January.

Q: you were a big advocate for Elizabeth State

A: you know, our new chancellor there is off to a great start and she’s working really hard, that institution has challenges there is no doubt about that, the board has made it clear that they are excited to work with her. I am an advocate for that institution, I am an advocate for all of our universities…Elizabeth city state is no different and for that part of the state it’s a very, very important institution and we need to remember that. I think we have our challenges still ahead, we do with a lot of our institution, it’s not been an easy time…very high on its importance to the state and I don’t plan to change my view of that and I don’t think the board will either.

Q: [address to vice president of board] Mr. Bisset , you are here for a reason. He’s been in the hotseat so far. He’s itemized a number of things that President Ross has been exemplary in,  he’s certainly not leaving because of his age. And neither one of them were really able to answer the question about whether or not politics had a factor in this…

A: [Fenne] That’s not true! I said No!

Q: You said ‘no’?

A: [Fenne] Yeah, really clearly, and it’s a short word!

Q: And that’s true as far as it relates to you, would you…

A: [Bisset] And I would say no as well. I would say no as well. You know in every organization there comes a time when there is a leadership transition and that’s what’s happening here and it’s... you know Tom is not leaving tomorrow he’s gonna to be with us for at least a year, he’s gonna, he’s gonna to consult with us after that, he’s an extremely important part of this university, and he’s our leader and will be our leader for some time to come and on top of that he’s a dear friend of mine and a dear friend of most of the people on that board.

Q: Can you tell us when the decision was reached, and how it was communicated, and how you all convened to decide this.

A: [Fenne] That’s personnel and I’m not going to talk about personnel. What’s next.

Q: President Ross, when did you first learn that this was in the works?

A: [Ross] We’ve, um, we’ve had conversations over the last several days. So I think and I ‘m sure the board has given this a lot of thought. We’ve had some healthy conversations over the last few days we’re at the point where Tuesday morning, Monday we celebrated Martin Luther King day on Monday and Tuesday morning I’ll be here and my staff will be here.

[Fenne, again not seeming either overly desperate or like a person suffering from press conference related Turrets]: With the support of 32 members of the Board of Governors!

Q: Chairman, looking to the future, how soon will you start your official search process for his successor?

A: You know what? What is it, about noon on Friday? So…I don’t know. We’re gonna find out. So, McNeil is chair of governance and she got some advice from the prior chair of the BOG Hannah Gauge that maybe the processes we have in place to generally search for presidents is unnecessarily cumbersome, complicated, and so we’re working on that, that’s not, that’s in, in , in process, and then we’ve gotta, we’ve gotta get together and articulate the characteristics and traits of a new president. So it’s, we’re not in a hurry because it’s got to be the right decision because we’re five for five as a system and we want to be six for six. Does that make sense to you?

Let me, and let me answer you about Elizabeth city state. That’s a…I support Elizabeth City State University. It’s hard. I mean, its enrollment has gone off the cliff, right? If effort ummm and commitment can turn it around we’ve got that, okay.

Q: Mr. Ross you said that you’ve had these conversations over the last several days, was there an event that precipitated those conversations? Was there some reason that those conversations started, at say the beginning of this week first, for example?

A: [Ross] I mean, they were…Mr. F came to see me and we started talking about it. I think that the board was in a place where it wanted to begin the transition

Q: Has the board met in the last week or two?

A: [Fenne] No.

Q: Well, then I should address the question to you Mr. F, is there a precipitating event?

A: No. No.

Q: okay.

A: We are very pleased with Tom Ross’ umm efforts on behalf of the UNC system and I don’t know what the current count is, but he’s brought in about 9 new chancellors and we think he’s found us some great ones and we’re excited about them, I guess in the normal course, I guess 9 is a lot in four years…so we’re gonna…

Q: The fundamental question may be: where does the board want to go? You know You’re talking about change and I would think that before you can go through the procedure to terminate a new chancellor you need to determine where you want to go. Can you give us some insight on where the board wants to go going forward.

A: No. I’d like to clarify a couple of things, there was no termination and he’s not the chancellor, he’s the president.  And uhhh There was no precipitating event at all, he’s been wonderful and a very close friend of, to me and to most of us.

Q: Mr. Fenne... you spoke definitively when I mentioned politics and the role that it may or not played you said it did not play a role. I believe earlier you said that you were one of 32 and that it had no relationship to your considerations. Could you clarify that? What role, if any did politics play in this decision?

A: I don’t understand. What’s the confusing part?

Q: I think you’re, you’re more recently talking about generally and I think initially you were speaking about yourself individually.

A: That’s just me. My saying things right. I think I was trying to tell you, I don’t know. I can’t tell you what 32 other people…they don’t talk about it with me.

At this point, the incredibly insightful interview was complete and Mr. Fennesomething went home, secure in the knowledge that the money he had sacrificed for the “Public Speaking with Sarah Palin: Learning Jobs America And” was well spent.

So, there you have it, folks. Straight from the horses mouth: there was absolutely no reason to get rid of Ross because he was the most fantastic thing since sliced bread and it was ABSOLUTELY NOT about politics. It was because Tom Ross likes Coke and the Board likes Pepsi.

---

[1] For those of you who weren’t paying attention to what area he was in, I guess. Thank goodness he clarified.

Ridding UNCG of Parasites

It has been several thousands of years since rulers realized that a population guided by principles of mutual trust was much more productive. This doesn’t mean that societies end up living in pure harmony, what it means is that the laws and rules put in place were designed to facilitate interactions between people who were not friends or family members. The benefit of creating comfort for ongoing interactions among large groups of unrelated individuals comes from the non-zero-sum nature of information and knowledge. The more that more people know, the more knowledge those people can produce none of which limits the amount of knowledge available to others or for future discovery.

Robert Wright uses the metaphor of the brain to describe a productive human system. The more neurons (people) the more the overall knowledge the brain can both access and produce, nurturing the health and growth of the brain itself (and therefore its neurons). There is nothing to be gained from a rogue ‘neuron’ conquering and destroying others. It eventually damages the brain to the point that the neuron itself cannot survive – in other words, it leads to a total loss.

Should each neuron in the brain insist on working by itself, there is no doubt that things such as language, writing, medicine, or cake could never have been developed. If a neuron were to, let’s say, refuse to answer emails or always work with its door shut, it would not be contributing to the growth of the brain’s potential but instead would be a parasitic entity trying to benefit from the production of others while failing to contribute any value of its own.

If the goal of the collection of neurons into a brain is the advancement of opportunity, information, and benefits then there is a requirement for mutual and transparent communication. This has been demonstrated through an exercise known as The Prisoner’s Dilemma. The situation offered as an example is that of two prisoners who are being separately interrogated – cooperation is in their mutual interest but there are also two primary barriers to this cooperation.

The first barrier is the inability of the two to communicate with each other. You cannot communicate if there is a wall (either physical or social) between you. If your door is shut, your attitude is hostile, and your emails unanswered, communication for mutual benefit is impossible.

The second barrier is one of trust. If you cannot openly communicate with a person who is neither a friend or family member, how can you develop the ability to trust that they will do what is in the best interest of all? If they continually indicate that they don’t trust you by engaging in regular practices of anti-social behavior, the possibility to believe that their actions are or will ever be designed to be of mutual benefit is nil.

The question then becomes, why would two (or more) neurons in the same brain, ostensibly working for the betterment of the brain as a whole (and therefore the mutual benefits to its neurons) not build the possibility for open communication and trust?

The answer would have to be that they are either a sociopath or that they see a benefit to themselves that requires or is contingent upon sacrificing the health of the brain. They have other goals.

Obviously, this is a metaphor.

What I am asking here is this:

If members of UNCG’s administration (and here I am thinking particularly of Paul Mason, although he is simply representative of the type of executive that UNCG’s new public management culture has favored) are interested in the growth of UNCG as a university (that’s the brain) then how do we explain their actions?

We can’t.

Instead, those actions become explicable only if we realize that they are not working for the positive growth of the university as an institution of higher education. They have a separate set of interests…and to find out what they are, you have only to follow the money.

The faculty, staff, and students at UNCG are feeling the impact of the zero sum game being played by upper administration. Each time a neuron dies, each time a person disappears from the collective consciousness of that brain, it entails a loss of knowledge. We are each weaker for it. Certainly there are times when through growth or death, we will lose people who contribute to our overall well-being. At other times, though, we must look to surgically remove those who cause damage.

Recently, our mind has been deprived of Lyda Carpen, Beth English, Chris English, Betsi Robinson, Debbie Schallock, Andrea Spencer, and David Wilson. We have also been injured by the loss of Helen Hebert, Laurie Sims, Nelson Bob, Linda Carter, Patti Stewart, Steve Gilliam, and many others.

There is a continual, concerted, and intentional effort to carve away those who would send signals of alarm at the rampant parasitism. As with all parasites there will come a time when the damage is so severe that both the host and parasite are lost. In the short term, however, the benefits to a few are great enough that they will willingly sacrifice everyone’s potential for mutual benefit in order to collect as much as they can right now.

They are fools to sacrifice so much for so little. They give up more than they will gain. Even the corporate world understands that the non-zero sum gains to all are greater than the momentary theft of current assets. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Freddie Mac demonstrated quite clearly what happens – you could have $1 billion now but end up disgraced, jailed, and ruined or you could accept $1 million per year and be remembered as a hero. Short sighted greed will never buy long term good.

UNCG’s administration has gone corporate…but it has gone out of date corporate. Google, Costco, IDEO – these companies and many others realize that happy employees are more productive employees. They understand the non-zero sum nature of the collective brain.

I’m not suggesting they are philanthropists. Running a business isn’t a charity. However, they are smart. They see the benefits that come sharing, from feeding the brain, that are longer term and more sustainable than those that can be obtained by being a parasite. They also are working for the success of the company as an entity. UNCG’s administration has forgotten about the success of the university as an entity and become obsessed with the simple reproduction of administrative structures.

The UNCG community isn’t under attack. It’s up for sale.

Essential Employees at UNCG

The message sent out by the Chancellor’s office regarding winter weather was actually more interesting than I thought it would be. The reason for this is that it gives a list of ‘essential’ personnel. Those whose presence is absolutely required for the university’s live-in community to continue functioning. That got me thinking. If those people are essential, and I believe that they are, they should clearly be at the top of the pecking order on campus, right? They are singularly valuable and certainly we must be treating them as such, no?

If, for example, physical plant employees are considered essential, why is it that Margaret Coleman who has dedicated 12 years of her working life to that essential service making $23,837, Geraldine Coppedge after 14 years earns $24,049 and 17 years of hard work is only enough to earn Sarah Cottrell $25,718. This hardly seems the way to reward the people who are essential – the ones who are required to risk their safety even when conditions are considered too dangerous for the rest of the university employees to even attempt to come to work.

Who isn’t on the essential employee list?

The Chancellor’s Chief of Staff Bonita Brown, for example, is clearly not essential to the operation of the university. And yet, she earns $151,800 to stay at home if it gets icy outside.

I think we have seriously inverted the scale of worth here. Sure, it may be the trend across the country, but again, I’m not terribly interested in UNCG being a trend follower at a broken system when we could be a leader in something truly amazing. I also understand that not all value is reflected in money, however, in a place of employment there are two ways of conveying value: money and cultural capital (ie prestige) and we continue to assign these values incorrectly.

Assuming that the essential employees, those in physical plant, residence life, and safety are at the university closed or not, where else might we look for employees who are essential to the university when it is open?

It would clearly be incredibly difficult to run the university without any faculty. Although that would eliminate a troublesome sector for upper administration, they have not yet figured out how to get the money directly from the students without having to offer these ‘pesky’ classes.

In theory, students are here not only to learn but also here to earn their degrees, right? This would be impossible without the staff in the registrar’s office.

The gross inflation in the tuition caused by the Chancellor’s real estate development deals would be even more onerous (and in fact create an impossible burden) for a majority of our students if not for financial aid, making those workers essential to the functioning of the university when it is open.

Just as we have to maintain the upkeep of the physical plant at the university, the students’ human bodies require health services. It would be unacceptable to have 18,000 students enrolled and then leave them without access to health care – and this means both for their bodies and their minds (as the two cannot truly be separated in any case).

In other words, the circle of employees who are essential to the university continues to expand.

So, after we have students who can register, take classes, graduate, and be healthy through the experience, what else?

It would turn our university into a transparent joke if we were, for example, to eliminate the library. There isn’t even any need to waste my breath arguing for the value of the libraries, right? Surely, that’s a given. I mean, I would imagine the funding for the university libraries far exceeds that granted to something as extra-curricular as, let’s say, athletics, yes? I can only imagine a student who graduates going to a job interview and saying that they couldn’t access the latest research in their field but they sure could go the basketball games and not being laughed out of the job market.

We live in the 21^st century and while the role and applications of technology are continually changing and subject to philosophical debate, fluency in current technologies is a requirement for interacting with the world today. So my guess is we would be hard pressed to run a university without experts in information technologies.

So, the list gets longer and yet, it still doesn’t include anything indicating that it is essential to pay Kim Record $177,000 a year to direct intercollegiate athletics. In fact, quite the opposite.

We have made a fundamental error. It’s not the number on the salary so much as it is the message conveyed:

Is Kim Record worth 7.5 housekeeping employees? I sincerely doubt it. When it snows and the university closes, nobody in their right mind believes that without Record there will be a crisis. She is dispensable. She is what we pay for after we have paid for everything else and we have money to burn. Until every employee at this university makes a living wage and is rewarded for their dedicated service, the Chancellor should be ashamed of counting herself worthy of 15 employees who are required to drive over ice to make sure that our students survive even under adverse weather conditions.

And, of course, Paul Mason has proved himself to not only be not essential but actively dangerous and yet he remains, along with the burden of his salary.

Maybe those in upper administration should take a note from the president of Uruguay, José Mujica Cordano who donates approximately 90% of his monthly salary to charities and small entrepreneurs. Imagine if the Chancellor were to willingly accept a mere $112,000 (a 50% pay cut) and donate $10,000 to 11 members of the essential staff. That would increase their salary by a third and bring them above the poverty line for a family of four. 

Wouldn’t that truly be ‘doing something bigger all together’?