Signpost (Weber, Utah), 1974-02-221
|Previous||1 of 12||Next|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Loading content ...
r 32c sjse ssar - u u r WSC administrators defend salary policy The $191,000 rumored to be money appropriated for faculty and staff raises, raises which they never saw, is in fact money for a savings account, according to the Weber State College administration.The administrators, called to explain the salary situation to the faculty and staff in a mass meeting Wednesday, assured the faculty that the money, which was obtained through increased enrollments and frugal spending, must be put into a contingency fund in order to comply with the State Legislature statement of intent.The faculty was shown a series of figures, indicating that WSC employes need an eight percent cost of living raise and a 17 percent raise in order to bring their salaries in line with the salaries in comparable institutions, a total increase of 25 percent. The college requested a 21.22 percent increase in appropriations for faculty salaries, according to Benion Tueller, chairman of the faculty salary committee. "We won't know how much money can be allotted for salary raises in 1974-75 until we receive the legislature statement of intent, which will indicate how the legislature expects the college to spend the money," said Tueller. Much flexibility "I hope the intent will give us as much flexibility as possible so we can have more control over who gets more money," President Joseph Bishop commented.Tueller said as he tried to identify salary problems, he was faced with inconsistent data. "Many of the percentages and figures I found were unclear or inconsistent with other data. We need to have a consistent data source," he stated. He also suggested that the administration make available to the salary committee total budget figures so the committee can make meaningful recommendations on salary raises. Continuing, he said, "We also . 1 -fjm&z'lm ,j FACULTY MEMBERS at Weber State College questioned President Joseph Bishop and his assistants at a mass meeting called to discuss alary discrepancies for faculty members. The meeting was held in the FAC Little Theatre Wednesday, Feb. 20. (Photo by Fred Barta) Students question candidates seeking 'Signpost' editorship The selection of next year's Signpost editor came a step nearer reality as the two applicants were questioned by students and Media Board members in an open forum Wednesday. Dave Midget, current news and wire editor of the Signpost, and Brad Carver, managing editor of Focus, the LDS institute newspaper, began the session by giving a background of their journalism experience. Midget began by telling the group he had worked on the Signpost staff for the past two years, one year as a political reporter and one year in his present position. Carver noted that he had been involved in journalism for 11 years but said that didn't necessarily mean a person was a responsible journalist. He too, worked one year as a political reporter for the Signpost before assuming his present position. Carver stated that as editor, he would attempt to extend the use of the wire service, making it more relative to the student, and strive for a more effective arrangement of lay-out and headline style. Midget responded, saying the Signpost would continue to improve under his direction and that most of the changes would be style changes. He would, however, feature articles such as weather news, ski reports and a student forum in addition to the national and international news coverage. Responding to a question concerning his statement last week about conforming to the wishes of the studentbody, Carver said that he had been unclear. He said he would not bend to every complaint, but complaints that were made had to represent the opinions of a majority of the students before action was taken. Midget said he would first answer to himself as this is where his first responsibility would lie. WSC Studentbody President Read Hellewell noted that the Signpost had a monopoly on campus and wondered how the candidates would handle that situation. Midget and Carver agreed that all groups had a right to coverage, but no one group should dominate the newspaper. They also agreed that a newspaper can favor a situation without dominating the paper, and the place for such views was the editorial page. Neither felt that the balance of the newspaper would suffer. A EDITOR CANDIDATES Dave Midget (left) and Brad Carver (second from left) listen to question being asked by ASWSC Financial Vice President, Ron Ray (second from right), during open meeting. Other interested students, including present SIGNPOST Editor, Bonnie Cantwell (next to Ray) listen. (Photo by Fred Barta ) need to know what is available in terms of funds which might be directed from some other source, if we can justify it." "After looking at all the "igures, I don't feel there has -een, in any way, misappropriated funds from the administration," stated Tueller. Several members of the staff, apparently unsatisfied, believe the legislative intent, no matter what it directs the college to do, is not really law and therefore the president of the college really does have control over salary raises. One member of the faculty claimed Governor Calvin Ramp-ton stated three times in his presence with witnesses that neither the State Higher Board, now the Board of Regents, nor anyone can control how the money appropriated for the college will be spent except for the president of the college. The legislative intent is not law, and therefore the administration could have given the faculty raises. Dr. Jean White, associate professor of political science, said the intent is law and "if you have violated it, I'd hate to be in your shoes when you ask the legislature for money next year." Dr. James Foulger, business vice president, said, "The Board of Regents won't let us violate the legislative intent. Spending must be approved, or money won't be released to the college . " When presented with this, a faculty member stated, "If the intent is law, why then does Utah State make a science out of violating the intent and always come out better than us in appropriations?"The administrators were questioned as to many aspects of the spending of last year. Once faculty member suggested that perhaps this frugality which gave the college a surplus of $191,000 at the end of last year, was in fact frugality at the expense of the faculty's salaries. For 1972-73, Jerald Storey, vice president for academic affairs, indicated faculty salary and benefits exceeded an intended seven percent. Most of this money was, instead of being put into salary increases, invested into increased salary benefits, such as disability insurance, surance, heaitn insurance life in- and retirement. Sixty-five thousand dollars of the total increase of $313,267 spent for salary improvement was actually added into the faculty paychecks. The administration was asked to show figures indicating how faculty increases compared with administration salary increases for 1973. Another faculty member suggested that Bishop was stockpiling administrators. Storey replied that he did not have with him a comparison of administrator and faculty salaries, but he would get one if the faculty wanted one. Bishop said he has shuffled around administrators, but not increased the number. "We have 20 as compared to last year's 21 administration positions." he stated. Cost of living Other members of the faculty suggested that perhaps this savings account, which is for emergencies, could be used for faculty salary increases. "Why can't we consider the cost of living an emergency," was asked, to which no administrator responded. Another faculty member suggested that some of the college's new programs or "pet" programs could be done away with, releasing more money for faculty salaries. Bishop in his final remarks stated that it is the state process for college money appropriations which causes many of the problems for institution funding. He says the present system makes enemies out of all the university presidents in the state, and he has suggested a change in the funding procedure. He further pleaded with the staff to work together. After one member of the faculty suggested that perhaps they need an organization to represent their needs and interests such as the UEA, Bishop said,' "I think-that this would only divide us further."He said, "Unfortunately it is now too late for faculty members or anyone to influence the legislative intent." He asked faculty members, if they have questions concerning salaries, to talk with him about it rather than perpetuating rumors.
|Title||Signpost (Weber, Utah), 1974-02-22, Vol. 33, No. 34|
|Creator||Weber State College|
|Contributors||Associated Students of Weber College|
|Description||Weber's current student newspaper, the Signpost, first appeared on September 29, 1937. For two years prior to that time, campus news was disseminated via announcements posted on a bulletin board known as the "Signpost". As a result, the masthead of the first issue of the paper itself featured a rudimentary wooden sign with the title spelled out in rustic-looking letters. Over the years the paper has been published continuously, though the look, size and style has changed several times.|
|Subject||College student newspapers and periodicals; Weber State College|
|Publisher Digital||Stewart Library, Weber State University|
|Source||University Archives LD5893.W55 S5, Stewart Library, Weber State University|
|Rights Management||Public Domain. Courtesy of University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University.|