"I have found the characteristics of the vast majority of academic administrators that I have worked with involve over-inflated egos that believe they are always right, power accumulation to justify positions that often contribute little value to the education process, rewarding supporters while demeaning those that are perceived as threats, the use of cutthroat politics to further careers without supporting performance evidence, hypocrisy that emphasizes decisions that benefits their own self-interest rather than educational quality, and the use of PR manipulation of potential alumni donors whose donations perpetuate their power bases within their university colleagues."
Your comments are so true. This is how administration at YSU works. Just remember, Mr. Tressel was not only a coach at YSU but also Athletic Director and as such, played a very prominent role in the administration.
I agree with NoBS that it takes money to run a university and that much of the current budget problems for all public universities in Ohio is due to Kasich. However, there is much waste at YSU. They have no problem creating administrative positions which are not really needed and then paying these administrators 6 figure salaries. Then of course they need to hire assistants to help them do their new job. It's a total bureacracy. It's just disgusting. In the meantime, it's hard to get staff jobs filled and students are expected to pay more in tuition and it seems there an enless money pit to fund the Wick Ave mansion.
I have to agree with Bertram. This is one of the stupidest things I've seen at YSU. The administration has been singing the song of "we have no money" for how long now. We heard it during the last contract talks with faculty and staff. But they keep hiring more administrators. Recently hired one at 6 figures to head up the computer area. This job was not needed. It had been vacant for some time and things were being well run. Now they plan to hire another one to fill a vice president job. Rumor mill has it that it was created with someone in mind. Another unnecessary position that has been vacant for quite a while. In the meantime, staff jobs that are needed go unfilled and students are expected to pick up the bill by paying for a "transportation" fee even if they don't drive on campus. Disgusting.
I agree with fd6636. And to bgreene, public employees provide services to the taxpayers. Therefore, of course it is the taxpayers who have the burden of paying for these services. And please don't forget that public employees DO also contribute toward their retirements (10% of our salary), we do pay towards our health care (15% of premium). We are also taxpayers and therefore our tax money also pays for these services that we as well as the rest of the taxpayers benefit from.
I wish both of them well. However, I agree with CompMan in one sense. Not sorry to see Dr. Russo leave as I feel he let the power of his position go to his head. In these last few years, I think he was working more to feed his own ego than to help improve labor/management relations.
@db " I gotta pay my own way and I gotta pay yours too? You want healthcare & you want retirement benefits but you refuse to pay for them and demand that we pay for you. " This is simply not true. MOST public employees do not make big salaries (the examples in this article are typical public employees). They DO pay for their pensions (10% of their salary). Most do pay for their health care, some pay on the low end but some pay 15% or more of the premium and have paid that amount for quite a whie. The abuses in the public sector are almost all at the top. The double dippng, the "pick up" of pensions, the huge salaries are at the TOP. SB5 will do NOTHING to stop these abuses. They have exempted these non-unon positons from the provisions of the bill, so these same abuses will continue. Our governor is the prime example. He and his cronies will continue to pilage the taxpayers. But he will continue to look for a scapegoat and try to blame the little guy for all the state's financial problems. Don't fall for this propoganda.
I agree with much of what is stated in this article. "It is difficult not to conclude that nearly half of the voting faculty has either a tenuous grasp on the economics of the day or an inflated sense of their own value in the market place." This sttement also applies to the administration. Let's see if they will be true leaders now. I wonder if they will "recognize the hard reality" pointed out in the article. Stop the wasteful spending there. The employees have done their part, now let's see the administration buckle up and do the same. There is a supposed hiring freeze going on now. I hope we will not see unnecessary high level administrative jobs being created and filled to reward people. Like those they recently tried to push through to get two new assistants for a high level administrator who apparently can't do the job he was hired to do. Stop the game playing so everyone can move forward.
Thanks for the clarification abcezas123. I understand your point now and can see how this is a sticking point for the faculty. I agree it is only right that any contributions faculty make toward health care premiums go toward health care and nothing else.
abcezas123, I would really like to understand your point of view on this. Why does anything have to be estimated? Isn't it reasonable to ask employees to pay 15% of the premium (whatever it happens to be)? If the costs skyrocket in years 2 and 3, why should the employer have to foot the entire cost of the increase? I know that the health care plan at YSU is excellent and includes vision and dental coverage and drugs with low copays and out of pocket payments. 15% seems a small amount to pay for such a top of the line health care package. I want to support the faculty and I know no one wants to give up anything they currently have, but these are hard economic times and I am having a difficult time understanding what's going on here. Seems like a bargain to me. Also, didn't the fact finder recommend a 15% employee payment and didn't the faculty vote to accept it? If faculty are unwilling to pay 15% for the top of the line plan, maybe both sides could agree to a less costly insurance package (with reduced coverage)?
YSU-OEA President Julia Gergits said the union is in “concessionary mode” and understands it will be paying more in health insurance, but the university would not specify premium costs for years two and three of the contract.
“That’s not how a contracts works,” she said. “We understand that the costs will go up, but we would like to see how much we’ll be paying.”
I would like to ask Juia Gergis this. How is the administration expected to know what the cost of the premium will be in years 2 and 3. Do you know what the cost of your house insurance will be 2 and 3 years from now? your car insurance? the cost of milk? the cost of gasoline? Is it really too much to ask of the employees that they pay 15 percent of the cost (whatever it is, whether it stays the same, gets higher or gets lower)? They are still getting a bargain by paying only 15 percent of the cost of a very good health care plan. Maybe if they don't want to pay so much for health care, they should give the employees the choice of opting for lower cost health plans that pay lesser levels of coverage.
Tressel could lead a Y-juco
formerdemliberal,
"I have found the characteristics of the vast majority of academic administrators that I have worked with involve over-inflated egos that believe they are always right, power accumulation to justify positions that often contribute little value to the education process, rewarding supporters while demeaning those that are perceived as threats, the use of cutthroat politics to further careers without supporting performance evidence, hypocrisy that emphasizes decisions that benefits their own self-interest rather than educational quality, and the use of PR manipulation of potential alumni donors whose donations perpetuate their power bases within their university colleagues."
Your comments are so true. This is how administration at YSU works. Just remember, Mr. Tressel was not only a coach at YSU but also Athletic Director and as such, played a very prominent role in the administration.
January 23, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. permalink suggest removal
YSU panel OKs 3.5% tuition increase
I agree with NoBS that it takes money to run a university and that much of the current budget problems for all public universities in Ohio is due to Kasich. However, there is much waste at YSU. They have no problem creating administrative positions which are not really needed and then paying these administrators 6 figure salaries. Then of course they need to hire assistants to help them do their new job. It's a total bureacracy. It's just disgusting. In the meantime, it's hard to get staff jobs filled and students are expected to pay more in tuition and it seems there an enless money pit to fund the Wick Ave mansion.
June 6, 2012 at 2:47 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Parking wars loom at YSU
I have to agree with Bertram. This is one of the stupidest things I've seen at YSU. The administration has been singing the song of "we have no money" for how long now. We heard it during the last contract talks with faculty and staff. But they keep hiring more administrators. Recently hired one at 6 figures to head up the computer area. This job was not needed. It had been vacant for some time and things were being well run. Now they plan to hire another one to fill a vice president job. Rumor mill has it that it was created with someone in mind. Another unnecessary position that has been vacant for quite a while. In the meantime, staff jobs that are needed go unfilled and students are expected to pick up the bill by paying for a "transportation" fee even if they don't drive on campus. Disgusting.
April 22, 2012 at 9:54 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Voter referendums are a threat to Ohio and should be reined in
I agree with fd6636. And to bgreene, public employees provide services to the taxpayers. Therefore, of course it is the taxpayers who have the burden of paying for these services. And please don't forget that public employees DO also contribute toward their retirements (10% of our salary), we do pay towards our health care (15% of premium). We are also taxpayers and therefore our tax money also pays for these services that we as well as the rest of the taxpayers benefit from.
April 10, 2012 at 9:42 a.m. permalink suggest removal
YSU might lose two labor activists
I wish both of them well. However, I agree with CompMan in one sense. Not sorry to see Dr. Russo leave as I feel he let the power of his position go to his head. In these last few years, I think he was working more to feed his own ego than to help improve labor/management relations.
March 23, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. permalink suggest removal
2 sides of Issue 2
@db
" I gotta pay my own way and I gotta pay yours too? You want healthcare & you want retirement benefits but you refuse to pay for them and demand that we pay for you. "
This is simply not true. MOST public employees do not make big salaries (the examples in this article are typical public employees). They DO pay for their pensions (10% of their salary). Most do pay for their health care, some pay on the low end but some pay 15% or more of the premium and have paid that amount for quite a whie. The abuses in the public sector are almost all at the top. The double dippng, the "pick up" of pensions, the huge salaries are at the TOP. SB5 will do NOTHING to stop these abuses. They have exempted these non-unon positons from the provisions of the bill, so these same abuses will continue. Our governor is the prime example. He and his cronies will continue to pilage the taxpayers. But he will continue to look for a scapegoat and try to blame the little guy for all the state's financial problems. Don't fall for this propoganda.
VOTE NO ON ISSUE 2
October 30, 2011 at 11:15 a.m. permalink suggest removal
YSU isn’t unique among state universities facing challenges
I agree with much of what is stated in this article. "It is difficult not to conclude that nearly half of the voting faculty has either a tenuous grasp on the economics of the day or an inflated sense of their own value in the market place." This sttement also applies to the administration. Let's see if they will be true leaders now. I wonder if they will "recognize the hard reality" pointed out in the article. Stop the wasteful spending there. The employees have done their part, now let's see the administration buckle up and do the same. There is a supposed hiring freeze going on now. I hope we will not see unnecessary high level administrative jobs being created and filled to reward people. Like those they recently tried to push through to get two new assistants for a high level administrator who apparently can't do the job he was hired to do. Stop the game playing so everyone can move forward.
October 9, 2011 at 10:55 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Talks fail to yield accord at YSU
Thanks for the clarification abcezas123. I understand your point now and can see how this is a sticking point for the faculty. I agree it is only right that any contributions faculty make toward health care premiums go toward health care and nothing else.
September 10, 2011 at 9:12 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Talks fail to yield accord at YSU
abcezas123, I would really like to understand your point of view on this. Why does anything have to be estimated? Isn't it reasonable to ask employees to pay 15% of the premium (whatever it happens to be)? If the costs skyrocket in years 2 and 3, why should the employer have to foot the entire cost of the increase? I know that the health care plan at YSU is excellent and includes vision and dental coverage and drugs with low copays and out of pocket payments. 15% seems a small amount to pay for such a top of the line health care package. I want to support the faculty and I know no one wants to give up anything they currently have, but these are hard economic times and I am having a difficult time understanding what's going on here. Seems like a bargain to me. Also, didn't the fact finder recommend a 15% employee payment and didn't the faculty vote to accept it? If faculty are unwilling to pay 15% for the top of the line plan, maybe both sides could agree to a less costly insurance package (with reduced coverage)?
September 10, 2011 at 7 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Talks fail to yield accord at YSU
YSU-OEA President Julia Gergits said the union is in “concessionary mode” and understands it will be paying more in health insurance, but the university would not specify premium costs for years two and three of the contract.
“That’s not how a contracts works,” she said. “We understand that the costs will go up, but we would like to see how much we’ll be paying.”
I would like to ask Juia Gergis this. How is the administration expected to know what the cost of the premium will be in years 2 and 3. Do you know what the cost of your house insurance will be 2 and 3 years from now? your car insurance? the cost of milk? the cost of gasoline? Is it really too much to ask of the employees that they pay 15 percent of the cost (whatever it is, whether it stays the same, gets higher or gets lower)? They are still getting a bargain by paying only 15 percent of the cost of a very good health care plan. Maybe if they don't want to pay so much for health care, they should give the employees the choice of opting for lower cost health plans that pay lesser levels of coverage.
September 10, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. permalink suggest removal