The high cost of educating a rookie president

Published November 9, 2015

by Tom Taydus, NC SPIN view, November 8, 2015.

Why are our representatives and the Governor not monitoring and restricting outrageous pay and benefits for those who service in state government?  The most recent case is the contract for Margaret Spelling and the millions it will cost taxpayers for someone with no experience managing a university system.  She only has a four year degree in political science, could not be employed in the very system she will oversee, and yet her pay increase $175,000 over her predecessor who was better educated and had relevant experience.  She could receive her $775,000 salary for 6 years or at a taxpayer cost of $4,650,000. Ms. Spelling has a 5 year contract but if her contract is not renewed she get $775,000 in the 6th year for doing some unnamed research.  Who would own and benefit from the research and is Ms. Spelling qualified to do said research?

If Ms. Spelling resigns after 2 years, she gets $387,500 for the next year to do some unnamed research. If the Board dismisses Ms. Spelling without cause, she gets a 4 month notice and pay and then a year’s salary or $1,033,333.  Taxpayers will also contribute $77,500 annually to her retirement and will subsidize her health insurance.  Then, because she apparently cannot afford a car on this salary, taxpayers will be giving her some unspecified car allowance amount. I also bet we taxpayers will give her a credit card to pay for gas and other university and private expenses. She also apparently cannot afford to pay relocation expenses on this salary so we will give her up to $35,000 to cover those expenses. 

Ms. Spelling is also eligible for performance based deferred compensation; however, the Board has not set any goals for her or the amount of compensation at this time.  Call me suspicious but performance goals and compensation written after the fact stinks to high heaven.  With all the goodies we taxpayers are already giving Ms. Spelling, why do we have also give her a bonus?  

Lastly, is the rent free housing she will get living at the taxpayer provided President’s house.  We taxpayers will pay her water, electric, and housing repair bills.  I cannot help but wonder if we play for cleaning, food, and other incidentals too.  Providing housing as a benefit was a good idea when Presidents did not receive much compensation but now Ms. Spelling could afford to pay one or two thousand a month in rent to help with housing expenses. The irony of all this money is that Ms. Spelling’s first statement to the press was that she hoped to cut the high cost of a college education in the state.  

Read More NC SPIN >>

November 9, 2015 at 9:55 am
bruce stanley says:

And a warm welcome to Ms. Spelling NC from Tom Taydus!

November 9, 2015 at 10:06 am
Norm Kelly says:

If this were the first or only case of 'higher education' pee-ing money away like it was simply confetti, your argument might hold some water.

But everything about 'higher education' is outrageously expensive. Most everyone in 'management' in 'higher education' are incredibly overpaid. Too many 'professors', those who are paid to teach, don't. Too many high-level managers for the number of faculty/staff & students.

Everything about 'higher education' appears rigged against the tax payer. Everything about 'higher education' appears to be another scheme where those who pay the bills are paid pennies on the dollar compared to those who 'serve' the people. When a private company pays their CEO more than some small group of socialists/liberals/democrats think they should get paid, based on a comparison between the 'worker' and management, we are all supposed to get up in arms. But when the liberals 'higher education' scheme does the same thing, we are supposed to shut-up, sit down, and accept that this disparity is acceptable. Why? What part of the high cost of 'higher education' is NOT connected to the outrageous pay, benefits, and top-heavy management structure.

Some of us out here struggle with finances. Some of us are frustrated that elected officials 'feel our pain' but simply say that we can afford whatever their new scheme is. Remember when health insurance costs were going to go down because competition increased? Except competition has decreased, and the socialist scheme is forcing premiums to sky-rocket. What's the lib solution? MORE government interference in the market. Demands to expand medicare. Like that would reduce costs! Kinda like paying outrageous salaries to more & more & more management in 'higher education' helps to bring down the cost. If it doesn't make sense to you, then congratulations, you have not yet drunk the liberal cool-aide. But it sure appears there are fewer of us remaining every year.