Fritz Efaw wrote:
> I'm forwarding a copy of an e'memorandum I sent you last Thursday, which
> I think you may have overlooked, judging from one you posted yesterday.

Yes, my inbox is still recovering from the avalanche of messages accumulated
over Spring Break.  I found that message buried somewhere in it, but only
*after* I sent my message.  I do thank you for posting it and regret that I
didn't find it until after the fact.  It doesn't change any of the points I
made, though it would have saved me the time I spent searching for the fiscal
note on the state legislature web site.

> The figures I quoted were from UTK information that I believe was
> provided by Sylvia Davis at the behest of Rep. Harry Tindell.  If you
> have questions about the details you may want to direct them to Ms Davis.

If I had time, I would, but even sending this message is taking me away from
other things I should be doing.  I would argue that since you are the one
pushing the faculty and staff to endorse these bills, it is your responsibility
to find out all the pertinent facts and make them known.  I've done as much as I
have the time and energy to do, and this isn't my "baby" ....

> I'm not sure about this, but I think the disparity in the numbers you
> refer to may represent the difference between the cost to the employer
> (UT) and the taxable income of the employee.  This difference would
> include, for example, employer FICA contributions and certain fringe
> benefits such as a portion of health insurance.

That is my supposition as well, and it's *not* insignificant.  If I recall
correctly, the employer contribution to ORP is around 10-11% of base salary.
The employer contribution to FICA/Medicare is another 7.65%.  I'm not sure how
health insurance or other contributions would be affected, if at all.  But even
only considering ORP/FICA/Medicare, you are looking at roughly 18% or more in
additional costs due to a raise, beyond just the increase in salary paid to the
employee.  That takes that $31.2M figure (given in the bills' fiscal note) up to
around $37M, maybe more.

I find it difficult to believe our state officials could just "miss" those extra
few millions of real cost.  (I'm neither Einstein nor an economist, but it seems
obvious to me that one must account for benefit increases and not just salary
increases in computing the true cost of the proposal, and they have not done
this.  I know I am probably oversimplifying in my estimate in the previous
paragraph, but at least I am *attempting* to account for the extra costs.)  And
I *still* don't know whether your figures for the cost of percentage raises
account for just the salary increase, or salary plus benefits.  Maybe you can
get in touch with Ms. Davis and forward her response so we can actually have a
true "apples vs. apples" comparison.  Remember, you are the one trying to
convince people to support this....

> I'm never quite sure when your attention to trivial detail is intended
> as a misdirection and when it is the result of failure to understand
> broader concepts.

I'm never quite sure whether to be insulted or merely mildly amused by your
statements such as the above.

First of all, attention to detail is part of my nature.  It's why I pursued a
career in computer engineering.  You don't make computer hardware and/or
software work without paying attention to details.  You can't just wave your
hands over it and make it work; it actually has to *physically* work, down to
the last detail.  Miss one detail and the system malfunctions ... money is lost
... in some cases, people are harmed.  As far as "trivial" is concerned, I don't
think several, or several tens of (if we consider the raise vs. no raise
scenario), millions of student and taxpayer dollars are trivial.

Secondly, and more importantly, I don't *do* misdirection.  With me, what you
see is what you get.  If I agree with you, I'll agree as cogently as possible,
and if I disagree, I will always do my best to back up my opinion with reasoning
and any facts that are available.  And, for what it's worth, I think I
understand the "broader concepts" as well as most people on this campus.

I don't think I have ever posted a message to any of these fora, or directly to
you, in which I have questioned your integrity or intelligence.  I may sharply
disagree with your conclusions on some issues ... for example the desirability
of unionizing our campus ... but I recognize that your statements advocate a
point of view sincerely held, and I respect them as such even when I think they
are just plain wrong.

I think reasonable people should be able to disagree without accusing each other
of nefarious motives or practices such as "misdirection" (an unfounded
accusation you have leveled at me before).  I recall similar personal remarks
from you last fall, directed at Andy Novobilski and the SimCenter faculty, to
the effect that they were "riding the wagon rather than pulling it."  If you
disagree with me, fine; bare your intellectual knuckles and let's go at it.  But
it seems to me that calling names and making ad hominem attacks is a tactic
generally employed by the side that is *losing* an argument.  Those whose logic
speaks for itself generally have no need to resort to such measures.

Please, for the sake of collegiality and civility, attack if you will my facts,
figures, or logic, but don't accuse me or anyone else of being less than
aboveboard in our motives.  Besides being rude, it doesn't contribute to a
productive discussion.

And as far as concerns my responding to only part of your arguments rather than
everything you say ... I simply don't have enough hours in the day to respond to
*everything* you or anyone else says.  As I have stated before, I try to respond
to your most cogent points (or, in many cases, those that I find most in need of
rebuttal).  If I'm missing what you consider to be your major points, well,
maybe I *am* dense after all.  Or maybe, just maybe, you could be a little
clearer in making your points.  I'm willing to submit that question to the court
of RAVEN opinion :)

Best,

Joe

P.S.  Speaking of not responding to all the points made by the other side, I
notice that you didn't address my debunking of your statement that "a 1% pay
increase for those top 157 administrators would probably cost MORE than $1200
across-the-board for everybody else."  Nor did you address my statement that it
is unreasonable to expect a percentage raise on top of a flat raise, though you
have claimed that they are not mutually exclusive.  Nor my concern about a flat
raise as opposed to a more desirable (in my opinion) merit-based raise.  (As a
faculty, we've been whining for years that EDO is worthless because we never get
merit raises, and yet when we finally consider asking those in charge for a
raise, we ask for an across-the-board raise?!)  So, may I assume that these are
all points conceded?  Or did you just not have the time to address them?  JD

--
"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson