As I read Dan Webb's e-mail to me concerning this "Likely" raise for
administrators (e-mail below), as I expected,  I can see that 3 of the 9
received pay adjustments on February and not April. (bet they received a
good pay check)  According to Dan, they all did however receive pay raises
in August so we can take the "likely" out.  I still do not understand why
when asked, Chancellor Stacy- 3 times said "no" that no one received pay
raises?  So the last paragraph from Dan "There has been no effort to deceive
or Obfuscate (whatever that means) with respect to these increases" doesn't
make such sense to me.

I still haven't figured out why the vote is taking place? Make no sense to
me.   Thanks to all of you for responding.  Those asking for the governor's
e-mail - [log in to unmask]

Donna

Working for a fair, equitable and competitive pay


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Daniel H. Webb [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Monday, September 08, 2003 11:45 AM
To:     'Donna Adams'
Cc:     Marvin Ernst (E-mail); Debra Anderson (E-mail); Julia Cronin
(E-mail); Debbie Parker (E-mail); Richard Brown (E-mail)
Subject:        RE: [UTCSTAFF] VOICING CONCERNS/INVITED TO NEXT MEETING

Donna,

To respond to your question, "Could this LIKELY raise be retro back to April
1?"

None of the nine received additional compensation until the August pay
period. Our office did not receive PIFs for these transactions until
8/20/03,  at which time the transactions were entered into IRIS.

However, three of the nine did receive pay adjustments in August retroactive
to February 24, 2003. This was the date on which reorganization took place
in Business, Operations, and Info Technology Division. Responsibility for
Payroll and Safety/Risk Management was assumed by Dan Webb; responsibility
for Arena, Fine Arts Center, Entertainment Venues and Mocs Card Operations
was assumed by Vanasia Parks. Webb and Parks received monthly increases of
$208.33 retroactive to date of assumption of additional responsibilities
effective date of reorganization. Jim Pulliam also received retroactive
increase of $304.77/mo. to reorganization date. This was an equity
adjustment to bring his salary to 73.8% of median salary for Safety Officers
at Universities comparable to UTC in terms of  institutional type, budget,
student population. (Minimum target for all staff salaries is 80%).

There has been no effort to deceive or obfuscate with respect to these
retroactive increases. They were in fact stipulated in writing at the time
of reorganization and budgeted, but were not entered into IRIS until after
budget was finalized and enrollment figures were known.

I hope this answers your question.

Thanks,
Dan



Daniel H. Webb
Director, Office of Human Resources
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Dept. 3603
615 McCallie Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
Phone: 423-425-4729
FAX:    423-425-4574

"Cognoscetis veritatem et veritas vos liberabit."



-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Donna Adams
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 5:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] VOICING CONCERNS/INVITED TO NEXT MEETING


Reading Verbie Provost's e-mail - she has many good points.  According to
the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Friday, September 5,  "Richard Brown said
the nine administrators (likely) received part of the raise on their last
paycheck."  How do you LIKELY do this?  Could this LIKELY raise be retro
back to April 1?  I would like that question answered -  please on Raven.
According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the administrators that
recently received a raise are:  Vanasia Parks from $65,872 to $70,872, Dan
Webb, from $63,689 to $67,189, Jim Pulliam, $38,497 to $42,154, Cindee
Pulliam, $52,530 to $56,530, Janet Spraker, $52,530 to $56,530, Doug Silver,
$54,891 to $59,891, Chuck Cantrell, $6,200 to $67,014, Jonathan Looney,
$57,399 to $60,482 and Yancy Freeman, $55,203 to $60,482.

Also, Provost Friedl was very much taken by surprise when asked by the
Chancellor about his plans to spend the "extra" money now available for the
academic division - when Richard Brown had already displayed a plan for
spending that money.  Why?

I frankly do not understand the rationale in defending the raises -  I'm
glad that Verbie does.

I would not be surprised if the Budget Committee voted on giving those
raises simply because the decision has already been made for those
administrators to receive those raises and in fact received part of their
raise on their last paycheck - it is also my understanding that only one
person on that committee is non-exempt (12 members)  Correct me if I am
wrong.  I have been asked several times  who is on this Budget Committee?
Maybe Marvin Ernst can answer that question?

I did barely hear Chancellor Stacy talk about his new administrative
assistant with the $30,000 raise and how it took people by surprise?  The
position didn't take everyone by surprise, the salary did.   According to
the Chattanooga Times Free Press, "Administrators two weeks ago hired Missy
Crutchfield as an assistant for Chancellor Bill Stacy at an annual salary of
$83,900."  Who are these "Administrators" and  how and why did they come to
the rationale of such a pay raise knowing the crunch we are in?

Being the peon staff person that I am, my common sense would tell me that
the goal of this university is to educate - first and foremost -  after
that, the goal of each person should be to make this the best educational
institution we can, and each of us to be able to make a decent salary, (not
just administrators).  We each work here because obviously we like working
here (especially staff) but as far as I could tell in this meeting, STAFF is
about the last thing on the list of people to receive raises.  Unlike the
person that thanked the Chancellor for the picnic, and the person that
wanted recognition, the reason that I work is so I can make a decent salary
to provide for my family. If I wanted recognition, I would write a novel.  I
am not trying to be flippant, but this may be one of the reasons that the
staff is in such shape as far as salary.  We have sat back for years, going
to picnics, waiting for recognition, voting to give others raises when in
fact we are probably the ones that need it the most. In the newspaper a few
years ago there was an article stating that UTC secretaries were the poorest
paid in the city.  That should have told us something back then.  We cannot
keep janitors, maintenance people are working hard, and policemen and others
are there when we need them. We are just not paid anything.

The two facilities planning men who came to the meeting and were told by the
head of their department they would be getting raises two years ago, should
be getting raises.  The Chancellor says "no".  Who should know more than the
department head in each department those persons that should have raises?
We have the worse system in the world when it comes to deciding who and how
staff gets a raise.  (another issue)  There are so many issues that the UTC
staff should take on, but as I said before, if we are satisfied with a
picnic and some recognition then we are going to keep these salaries
forever.  Frankly, in my opinion, I believe the Faculty should get the pay
raises before the Administrators.  After-all, they are our educators.
(Nothing against these administrators, but this is the truth).

As Verbie Prevost said in her e-mail, we need to get all the issues out in
the open and discuss them frankly, fully and calmly.  I am inclined to
believe that many of our staff feels intimidated when it comes to speaking
out  -  maybe it is hard to speak out when your supervisor is in an
administrative position.  No matter what our position is, or their position
is,  we have the right and should be able to speak out without problems from
anyone. If there is a problem - just e-mail the Chancellor.  No one should
be kept from speaking out or be intimated when it comes to an open session.

I am told the next University Wide Question and Answer Session will be
Thursday, September 11 at 3:00.  I am not sure about the location.  Inform
all staff that you see to be at this meeting. This is an open meeting, we
can all attend.

Thanks, Matthew Greenwell for speaking out.

Donna Adams