Not even a month after prop 30 passed, UC regents give a $50k/yr raise to new Chancellor. (7 posts)

|
  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    They just don’t get it

    http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22074232

    Filled with political appointees, UC regents are every bit as difficult to get rid of as CARB appointees.

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    [Nicholas] Dirks, who will take his office on June 1, vowed to be a responsible steward of public dollars. But in the news conference after the meeting, he mostly focused on his new job: “This, for me, is in fact a kind of dream.”

    $486,000 base pay
    $8,916 car allowance
    $30,145 anually for the next four years for relocation
    That would be a dream for me, too. Sounds like something a lottery winner would say.

  • Profile picture of ApolloDawn ApolloDawn said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    Lots to say here.

    First, “I told you so.” We voted No on 30.

    Second, no kind, complimentary words for Gov. Jerry Brown and his stance? I realize that he’s a stereotyped Democrat and therefore must never, ever, be permitted to be seen as correct or portrayed in a good light, but really.

    Third, if the shoe were on the other foot, and it were a CEO taking a massive pay raise or bonus while cutting workers’ benefits, we’d be told how “hard he works” for it and how we all must pamper the “job creators.” We’re only hearing the complaint this time because someone perceived as a beneficiary of the Democratic Party is receiving the indecent largesse. If he were a Republican CEO, we’d be told how he needs even more, and that workers should put the CEO’s interest ahead of their own.

    I feel a kinship with the university mindset. But when small group of people with excessive power take for themselves even more excess, we should object to it and oppose it regardless of whether we like or dislike the recipients.

  • Profile picture of Lamonster Lamonster said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    It depends on the company the CEO runs. If he’s taking bailout money or if the company receives what amounts to corporate welfare, then yes the comparison is valid. If we’re talking private capital versus tax dollars, then no. But, are there no Democrat CEO’s?

  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    If that raise is past on to the consumers, consumers of private enterprise have a choice-don’t pay the price of admission. But this, as Lamonster pointed out is different. Was it UC and CSU or just CSU that decided to rescind tuition hikes immediately following 30′s passage? Proposition 30 was a bailout. The price of doing business is, therefore, passed on to the taxpayers, not the consumers (students). It legitimately brings into question the fairness. On the same token, why would we treat a CEO differently than a laborer or a chancellor any different than an instructor? Is our sense of fairness based soley on their salary figures, AD? Both are necessary and both should be paid according to their market value. How much would this chancellor be making in the private sector folks? Why focus on the salary of one role player? Either we keep up with the Joneses on ALL salary scales, or we freeze ALL wages. If this was a janitor working night shift at CSUB getting an annual raise, would the dialogue be any different?

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    It would be helpful and perhaps quiet suspicions if the regents were a little more transparent. Some of those perks sound extravegant. If the money amounts can be revealed, why not how they got the figures?

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    It’s not like Jerry Brown delivered a blistering sermon against the Chancellor. I’m quite sure he did that meager attempt to cover his own hind quarters, probably with a wink and a nod.

    Just another great example of how democrats are ruining this state.