It is, I am afraid, a typical Friday afternoon story: bad news. A "choice" between losing state support for retiree healthcare and a 3% pay cut in the form of increased contributions to pensions. The choice is a ruse to avoid constitutional scrutiny. Plus, universities (and school districts) would be asked to pick up more of the tab--though the details there are unclear. The unions are naturally opposed to the plan.
Here are some early news stories: Fox ; Chicago Tribune.
I've cut off comments on this post, as I'm sick of having to read them to see if anyone has managed to be not only illiterate, mean-spirited, uninformed, baseless, and witless, but acutely offensive enough to be censored. Not to worry: I'll post something fairly soon that will provide a field day for the anonymouses. In the meantime, well, consider starting your own blog . . . Cheers, Dave.
When did Gov. Quinn become a crusader with a Divine charge? That struck me as an odd appeal to make when justifying this plan.
ReplyDeleteAh well, at least there is likely some local solidarity to be had from this politics.
Remember this is an election year so he wants to steal some of the Republican bluster by doing something they (and Michsel Madigan) would gladly do in a second. The state got us in this mess and they should not penalize those of us who will be victimized by it. Yes, there should be "some local solidarity" but I doubt whether the "blame the unions" crowd will go along with it.
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not sound good. However, is it not at least a minor improvement over the past (breathtakingly draconian) house bills? I'm just saying, if we hate everything with equal fervor, it seems to me that it might be harder for us to help effect an outcome for a long-term plan that we can stomach--or at least survive (I mean, it would be easier to dismiss our claims if there is the perception that we can't be reasoned with).
ReplyDeleteNOTE: There is an information session on pension reform led by SUAA director Linda Brookhart (May 7). SUAA is really good at explaining the proposed changes each year. I highly recommend you attend if you care at all about your retirement.
ReplyDeleteI always predicted the state (and feds) will inflate away their debts. ***NOTE THE "COLA" proposals*** Cost of living adjustment = apply annual CPI increase to salary and ADJUST salary accordingly (compound each year).
Two points:
1. Simple interest (Quinn and other proposals): no compounding. To keep pace with 3% inflation, a $60,000 retirement salary would have to grow to $120,000 (COLA) after 24 years. Under current system, it does. Under proposed plan the principal grows to $60,000 plus an annual "bonus" (so to speak) of $1,800. So each of the 24 years you are at $61,800. Translation: you have lost half your retirement to inflation. And that is assuming inflation is 3%
2. The proposals (like Quinn's) offer 3% of CPI or 1/2 of CPI _whichever is less_. So you will not get 3% CPI if that is the actual CPI rate, you will get 1.5%! Even worse, if inflation takes off in coming years and hits 8% (as example) you get 4%. So you lose to inflation _at least_ 1.5% and possibly much more each year.
Point of clarification:
DeleteWouldn't you get 3% if inflation takes off to 8% and the proposal is whichever is less of 3% or half of CPI?
Yes, you are correct. My mistake. Typing too much and hoping my screen doesn't flicker again! You would only get 3%.
DeleteAnother point of clarification:
DeleteIsn't the $1800 added each year and just not compounded? That would bring the total after 24 years to $103,200, except the $100,000 cap mentioned below would drop that down to $100,000 or about $49K in current-dollar buying power.
Yes, if they apply the simple interest as such. Anyway you cut it, though, it's a lot less -- and that's assuming you get 3% CPI when CPI is 3%. Fact is he's giving you 1.5% under that scenario. So it's only $900/year or roughly $81K rather than 120K.
DeleteAlso assumes inflation will stay low
And that this "ironclad guarantee" not to cut more really means it this time. Ha, ha.
Actually, it's even worse considering this part of Quinn's plan:
Delete"A delay of receiving a COLA until the age of 67 or five years after retirement"
When I came here I figured 30 years under money purchase formula = 80% of final average highest salary years. That would mean retirement at 62. Oops. Under Quinn's plan, I get NO interest for the first five years.
When they say the "devil is in the details," it really is in the details. Of course some or all of this may not become law now but I wouldn't bet on my pension lasting the next 15 years I have to work at SIUC.
But "think evil" and you understand how politicians can spin this to the public who a) doesn't want to pay because it was spent maximizing other votes unrelated to pensions; and b) thinks that it is "fair" that people don't get over $100K or COLA even if they do under Social Security. (Woe the man or woman who attacks that Sacred Cow!).
Reason, the libertarian magazine, actually had a piece on libertarians opposing such money grabs and effective defaults on "rule-of-law" grounds. People can only plan effectively if the government doesn't arbitrarily changes the rules on which we base life decisions. Even worse is the government that reneges on constitutional rules (though that vestige of civic virginity was broken many times in the past by both parties).
PS: My comments are based on the limited details put out by Quinn but are consistent with prior reform bills.
ReplyDeleteAnother marketing strategy is the $100,000 cap, which a lot of folks - even those hoping to retire on state pensions - think is fine because they aren't going to get $100K so why should anyone else? (Ah, the politics of envy). But then I point out that their expected $60,000 will have to grow to $120,000 over those 24 years (3% CPI) and they say "oh my, so $100K won't be what it used to be?!"
The bill passed for new hires has a $106K cap (as I recall) with no COLA adustment. Do the math. No matter how much they put in after 40 years (ages 27-67), they ain't getting squat of $100K in today's dollars. It is all a transfer to current retirees.
Let the Generational Warfare begin. . .
Correction: the cap is $106,800 but there is still no compounded interest or CPI for new hires under current law:
Deletehttp://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/legislative/SB1946.htm
Jonathan, Thanks for these economic figures but I don't think there is any need for "generational warfare".
DeleteWe are $85 billion in the red and those who have suddenly decided to retire recently (as well as their predecessors) will also be affected.
Whether they like it or not, they are not going to escape the economic consequences of this particular fall-out. Madigan &Co, Republicans, as well as "fiscally responsible" conservatives, are going to insist on these groups also making "sacrifices" to get the state out of the mess they have created while politicians keep their own very high pensions. The best strategy is taking the fight to the courts since Quinn's ideas clearly violate the state constitution.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that it will go the courts. What has been surprisingly lacking in the Illinois media is any discussion of the court's past rulings or its ideological composition. If any one has a link to such stories, I'd love to read them. State supreme courts render some powerful and influential decisions and don't get the attention they deserve.
As for generational warfare: there is no getting around that what has been happening - and will continue to happen even under "reforms" - is a massive transfer of money from people who are not retired to those who are currently retired. The very first thing people like Quinn say is that "current retirees will not be affected...." For some reason, even the IEA puts in BOLD that current retirees are not affected. See
http://www.ieanea.org/banner/information-on-quinns-pension-proposal/
I must admit that Quinn's clever "choose-this-or-lose-that" strategy is an artful way that might pass by the courts.
Somewhat dated (2004) but an analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court:
Deletehttp://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Reports/illinois.pdf
The "closely contested" case was won by a Republican candidate so the complexion of the court is a bit different now. Whether it makes a difference, I don't know. But we need some analysis like the above (but more recent). I'll search and post when I find it. You lawyers out there feel free to post the info. "pro bono"! LOL
PS: Inflation in the first quarter of 2012 is running at 6.6% annualized figure. The Fed's target is 2% and the first quarter alone saw 1.65% increase. The Fed ain't going to make its target.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteI think that one requirement that we (all) should insist upon for any institutionalized reduction in our pensions would be that whatever is done to us, is ALSO done to the pensions of state politicians. That is not so unreasonable and should be politically popular as well (albeit not with them!)...
I second that and the unions should make this a high priority since the polkiticians are responsible for this mess. We paid annually. They did not.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Tony!
ReplyDeletePeople in the community have a notion that we paid nothing into our pensions (true in other states, but not here!). Not only did we pay our 8.5% (SURS) but our employer didn't have to pay Social Security Tax so it is doubly inexcusable that they didn't make their matching portion! Comparing us to the private sector, the state is paying 2% above Social Security rate. If a private employer offered a pension equal to 2%, who would take it seriously as a reason to stay rather than leave for some better paying job?
I always make that point and people say "oh, I never knew the State gets a free ride on Social Security." Trust me: business types would love to be exempt and understand the cost of SSA.
Beezer, I think you are right too but I doubt an "apply it to the politicians" clause would stop this runaway train. "Apply all laws to the politicians" was part of the GOP Contract with America (1994) to restrain and reform government. Didn't do much good, did it?!
For those close to retirement (within 3-4 years), I surely hope they give at least a year after any law is passed so people can figure out what is best for them. As for the rest of us, pray for a court victory!
I think it is time that we stopped using the label "pension" as the term is highly misleading. It is time we began calling it what it really is--so people finally get it. It is "DEFERRED payment" and not a freebie that so many people think it is. we take a salary cut now so we can get paid later.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:22 a.m., I get your point but since this is likely to "go legal," I'd stick with the plain language of the Illinois state constitution. The proper words mean a lot from a legal perspective--as recent U.S. Supreme Court arguments made clear in a health care case!
ReplyDeleteSource for the following:
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
"SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an
enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"
I've been waiting for Democratic Senator Cullerton's response because he backed the constitutional guarantee for pensions last year, with a detailed constitutional analysis by his legal counsel Eric Madiar:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/phocadownload/PDF/PensionDocs/madiarrevisedpensionclausearticle.pdf
(Yes, it is long but if you haven't read it, you ought to do so)
But, alas, Cullerton feels the "choose-life-or-we-kneecap-you" proposal of Quinn's offers something "in exchange" for our continued pensions:
http://progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2012/04/23/unions-face-tough-battle-quinn-s-pension-cut-plan
Cullerton was the last bulwark against the irrepressible urge to renege in Springfield. The levee breaks and those fighting for the constitutional guarantee might have a real tough time in court. Let's hope the high State Court acts as swiftly as SCOTUS did with hearing the "ObamaCare" case.
Anyone know how the self-managed plans will fit into all of this. For various reasons I chose this plan a decade ago and I don't see a lot of talk about it in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteNot too much effect for self-managed plans. But the market won't up to the point comparing to the current traditional plan when one gets to retired. It seems we need a second job if we want to have a comfortable golden age.
ReplyDeleteA self-managed plan is like the stock exchange, namely gambling. With the U.S. Economy in the doldrums and Europe in chaos this is the last place anybody should have any certainty about. Remember, the previous occupant of the White House's plan to turn Social security into a 401K plan, not that Social Security offers any positive alternative at the moment. The unions should put pressure on Cullteron not to renage as the devious Madigan is now doing.
ReplyDeleteSUMMARY (of below):
ReplyDeleteThinner raises, higher property taxes -- those two come immediately to mind. Also you must wait until 67 and the COLA cut affects everyone. (I'll have to check if the self-managed plans had an option for an annuity with COLA? I always warned clients - when I was in finance - that they must factor inflation into their 401k plans.
****
Earlier pension proposals essentially taxed the defined-benefit plans so harshly that they would force most people to switch to self-managed plans. The state wants people on those plans although I don't see how they are going to fund retirement for people (in other states, they also had less legal protection than defined benefit plans, but this is Illinois so who the heck knows what the constitution protects even when it is clear?!).
Here is one way self-managed folks will be affected: the big savings from Quinn's plan comes from devolving the responsibility for paying the state share to the local school or the university. That's a big hit and will undoubtedly come out of any future raises we might get. We can't pass it all along through higher tuition because the politicians react venomously to that (remember "Truth in Tuition Act"?). Also, schools like SEMO are now offering lower tuition to the entire state of Illinois, as long as students get ACTs of 21. That means any one with a modicum of preparation (judged by ACT) will go to schools in Missouri or Kentucky or even further South where they offer such deals. Even with my "tuition waiver" my daughter could go to several of our competitors and save us THOUSANDS.
Property taxes will also rise because local k-12 school districts haven't been paying into teacher pensions (that one kind of boggles my mind because I don't recall it being the practice back East).
Thinner raises, higher property taxes -- those two come immediately to mind. Also you must wait until 67 and the COLA cut affects everyone.
Union leaders should consider to reduce the membership due for it members now.
ReplyDeleteI thnk for the SMP--self managed plan-- for each year you work you get 5% of medical paid, hence after 20 yrs you get all benefits....something like that
ReplyDeleteSomething like that for health insurance, but more complicated...
Delete* You have put all of your SMP money into an annuity when you retire to qualify for insurance. http://www.surs.com/pdfs/forms/InsInf_SMP.pdf
* Some people who were in SURS in July 1997 can get the full insurance with less than 20 years. http://www.surs.com/video/Ins/Insurance.html
* The state health insurance is the secondary payer if you qualify for Medicare. http://www.surs.com/video/Ins/Insurance.html
* As Jonathan Bean notes below, all of this is based on current state law. The legislature could change these "privileges" under the law.
I think Anonymous 8:12 is referring to medical benefits only when he/she says "you get all benefits" looking forward with health insurance in retirement.
ReplyDeleteAh, but there is Quinn's gambit: medical insurance for retiree is a _privilege_ and not covered by the state constitution, thus we "entice" you into lowering your pension benefit by threatening to take away your retiree health care.
He says the same thing about COLA adjustments - not covered by constitution, just a "privilege." I'm looking for history of so-called COLA increases. Here's the thing that might help Quinn's legal argument: the 3% COLA is not tired to any measure of CPI or other inflation index. It is a number assigned by the legislature (as I recall). SSA COLA goes up and down each year by tenths of a point because it is tied to CPI. Not so the 3%. That always worried me because it suggested what the legislature can give, it can take away (besides, inflation seems to be heading higher than 3% but it's still by law stuck at . . . 3%)
When people say x, y, or z is a "privilege" it normally means they can tell you what to do or take something from you - to cover the cost of the "privilege," of course. I wish I were less privileged!
I tracked down the TRS legislative history of COLA increases (I'm fairly sure SURS follows the same history). See
ReplyDeletehttp://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/03/cola-cost-of-living-adjustment-is-it.html
I tracked down this for confirmation:
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/general/history.pdf
So "Cost of Living" has been fixed since 1978, just as I recall. Not good. Obviously CPI has been higher and a bit lower than 3% over the intervening 34 years!
As Mr. Bean pointed out early on in these exchanges, Linda Brookhart, executive director of the State Universities Annuitants Association, will be here on campus at 7:00 p.m. on May 7, 2012, Ballroom B of the Student Center. She will be talking about what has happened in the legislature during this session that has a direct effect on your pension and benefits. We (the SIUC chapter of the annuitants association) are sponsoring this in order to inform current employees (civil service, a/p, and faculty) about what has gone on. May 6 is the final date for introducing new bills, so Linda will have the latest news on what has happened. She is one of the most informed people in the state when it comes to these issues. We urge you to come to this meeting and to encourage others. There may not be simple and direct answers (it's an election year), but this is going to be one of the best sources of information for everyone.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how many faculty are expected to retire from siuc before July this year? How many people from other categories? So it looks like there is going to be a mass exodus--many people retiring and fleeing to other states to take up other jobs....How many of the faculty lines will be replaced by tenure track hires? Probably none. This is a sinking ship!
ReplyDeleteLooking backward, the chancellor reported at the March Faculty Senate meeting, "The institution is down approximately 505 full-time equivalent positions from a few years ago (415 staff out of a base of 2,929; 89 faculty positions have not been replaced out of a base of 1,140). A majority of those are in the recent year, as people have left, and restructuring/realignment, as well as not hiring, has occurred. Most of the positions are in the civil service area (labor, trades, clerical), but A/P and faculty positions are vacant as well."
DeleteAccording to my sources in the FA, the university administration is predicting a net drop in bargaining unit (tenured and tenure track) faculty of less than 5% for the coming year (from about 660 to about 635).
I'm skeptical of that percentage. In my corner of the university, we are losing about 1/6th of the FA bargaining unit faculty this summer and don't expect to see any of them replaced in the next year. My acquaintances in other departments are reporting similar numbers. I'd be curious to see what others beyond my circle of acquaintances can report on the losses from their departments.
The 635 figure reported to the FA happens to coincide exactly with the number of Faculty required to meet the 26:1 student: Faculty ratio, assuming constant enrollment ("Faculty" here is the term of art for FA bargaining unit faculty--essentially T/TT faculty). A cynic might guess that it was designed to do precisely that--meet the ratio--rather than as an realistic estimate. But we should also, more charitably, note that no one knows how many will retire until the retirements come through.
DeleteIf the wave of retirements all expect happens, we'll face two challenges:
1. Whether the administration will actually honor the contract by launching searches, or fudge, perhaps pleading fiscal emergency;
2. What sorts of profs we'll search for. Math and English, for example, would seem to be departments a respectable university ought to staff adequately, but I don't know if they qualify as the sort of "high-yield" hires the admin is looking for--at least once one gets beyond a bare minimum to teach college algebra and English Comp. The new centralized hiring plan means that the Chancellor makes the final decision on all hires (a trend that actually predates the incumbent, and Sam Goldman similarly seized this power under the "hiring freeze").
The weighting between research and teaching will also be something to watch--in the current climate, with performance based funding (where performance means "degrees per dollar spent"), there will be considerable pressure to hire teachers who will help us turn out degrees. This pressure doesn't originate with our administration, but one would hope that an enlightened administration would recognize other priorities as well.
With senior chairs retiring, we have people like Dave stepping in as "management" (sorry Dave!). Do they bring the number down too? FA count, they would, right?
DeleteI've run into people since April 1 who finally made up their minds. I'm very doubtful of the 5% cut.
There sure is a shortage of secretaries in my college! We don't have one, others don't and the secretary in a neighboring department is also retiring (she decided April 1).
You know things are desperate when characters like me enter management (yes, it is true, I've been elected chair of foreign languages, and seem to have administrative approval as well). Rather more seriously, civil service lines are vanishing at a far faster rate than any other level of position on campus. CoLA departments now seem to average 1.5 positions; this is actually the result of a rear-guard action by our dean, who fought off an effort to reduce most departments to 1.0. Unfortunately the civil service workers who get "split" in this way get caught in the middle. For a comparison, consider how many joint faculty appointments we have, despite all the talk about the value of interdisciplinary work. We've never been able to figure out how to tenure faculty in two departments, but now, overnight, civil service workers are evaluated in two departments, have to clear vacation with two bosses, and can only be promoted if both departments manage to secure (all but impossible) promotions. Expect a rather healthy rate of retirement among split civil service workers (though most are presumably fairly junior, their seniors having held on to the unitary positions).
DeleteWho is to do the work now that we have many fewer civil service staff? Centralization is presumably the official answer, inasmuch as there is one; perhaps we are to hope that technology will help as well. I don't hold out great hope for either, but we will see. Obviously the days of faculty employing secretarial typing pools are long gone (if they ever existed at SIU), but civil service workers do important and valuable work today. I fear that much of it will either not get done or will fall to faculty who ought to be doing teaching and research instead.
Another factor, though I've yet to experience it personally, must be higher burdens for chairs. Whose salaries are being cut (by losing a month's worth of pay). So, hey, welcome to your new position as chair, with one month less salary and a 25% cut in your civil service staffing. It almost makes remaining a mere faculty peon look good.
Is the cut in chair salary (loss of 1 (+?) month) official?
DeleteI haven't seen some formal policy but have heard about enough cases to be pretty sure that this is what's going on--and has been going on for a year or two. It apparently impacts not only new chairs but continuing chairs, some of whom have, I've heard, quit. While I don't fully understand the details, the cut from 12 to 11 may be particularly steep, as it impacts vacation; my understanding is that back in the day chairs not only got 12 months but accrued vacation time on top of that.
DeleteDon't tell anyone I said this, but one would have to compare peers to see whether our chair salaries are fair or not (at 11 or 12 or however many months, on top of whatever administrative raise is standard). There's also the matter of workload re teaching, which may vary--I just heard a story about a chair who quit after years working without any teaching reduction in a college where other chairs had their teaching load cut in half.
Of course, if the administration can save money by cutting chairs a month or two of salary, one might suggest further administrative pay cuts at higher levels in the bureaucracy . . .
I've recently seen that several FA leaders (or strong supporters ) are becoming Admins. It is quite interesting. They sell FA and walk away. How those followers feel? You don't think that you are just a toy played by these people?
DeleteI do not understand why chairs of departments need to be paid 12 months salary. IN most departments there are hardly any courses taught at all over the summer. Chairs get paid 12 months salary and plus they get to take a whole month's vacation. So basically they are getting paid for 13 months during the year! Chair positions have become increasingly politicized. In many cases, people who wind up being chairs are the buddies of the Dean and or other top administrators. I think the selection of chair should be on a rotational basis. Most people who end up being chairs and/or upper level administrators are not researchers and in several cases are not even good teachers. They become chairs basically because they want a big hike in their salary. This has always been the case esp. at siuc. The FA is also highly politicized and there are people there as well who sit on the fence and do the administrators' bidding. I am not surprised that people who were once active in the FA end up becoming administrators themselves. One recent case was that of the MCMA Dean! And I hear that soon some others from the FA will be following in his footsteps. At some universities,Chairs are also considered members of the bargaining unit as it is essentially an academic leadership position. But not at SIUC. I wonder why!
DeleteDave Johnson said: "You know things are desperate when characters like me enter management (yes, it is true, I've been elected chair of foreign languages, and seem to have administrative approval as well)."
DeleteWas there ever a doubt that the administrators would withhold their approval of Dave Johnson as chair? YOu must be kidding--not after all that fence sitting!
Don't believe FA leaders anymore. Act as your own, not a follower!
DeleteThose sell FA and cash their shares to become Admins are typical midgets!
DeleteIt is clear from the above postings by Dave Johnson that he views chairs of departments as mere "managers" and the people they "manage" as "lowly faculty peons" (check out JOhnson's characterization of faculty in his posting above! In this he is no different from most if not all administrators at SIUC. In all the time that I have been at siuc, this is baffling! That the position of chair of a department is not viewed as one of ACADEMIC leadership but a mere managerial position. Become a manager and get a pay hike!
Deleteso now that Dave Johnson is chair he is making a case for a pay hike (12 months salary) instead of 11 months salary for chair administrators? Last year he was for a pay hike for faculty; now it is a pay hike for administrators! that's a quick turnaround! I guess it doesn't pay to be selfless!
Delete"Don't tell anyone I said this, but one would have to compare peers to see whether our chair salaries are fair or not (at 11 or 12 or however many months, on top of whatever administrative raise is standard)."
DeleteThat's Dave's case for raises for chairs.
Last year was mostly about tenure and financial transparency, not pay hikes.
Haven't SIUC chairs traditionally been paid for 12 months? Wouldn't an argument to retain them at 12 months be an argument against a pay cut rather than for a pay hike?
DeleteWhat kind of standard should be for a person who runs for department chair? Is the faculty vote the only criterion?
DeleteIs it a correct approach?
Who are these people who are being appointed as Admenacetraitors? At my university, the "buddy" system is well entrenched. Loyal Friends of the bosses are asked to apply for these jobs even when they are clearly not qualified. Some people are out of the loop while a few others know how the system works. They please their bosses to climb up the managerial ladder. But soon they all come tumbling down or move elsewhere in search of another spot at the top. What do they know about academics? They are just working to promote themselves no matter what. There are faculty lines that are not being filled at my university. But who cares? as long as we have able administrators in place!
DeleteThe English Department is in dire straits. We are losing a distinguished Shakespeare scholar (no news about her replacement!) and have already lost faculty in Medieval Studies, Anglo-Saxon literature, Continental and post-colonial literature. In one way I can not blame those rushing to retire, if they can afford to do so, since these are "scary times" as a retired administrator said to me last Wednesday. But there is no guarantee that present and past retirees may be safe despite what anyone says. With an $85 billion deficit and savage plans instituted by Democrats Quinn and Madigan, nobody is safe and our past retirees may be asked to bear their share of "sacrifices" by highly paid officials often having three pensions! With Democrats such as Blago, Madigan, Poshard,and Quinn who needs Republicans as enemies!
ReplyDeleteAlso, in answer to Anon. 2:20, departing faculty will probably not be replaced by tenure track hires and this looks like an ideal opportunity to bring in DL via the back door. The missing positions in various departments will obviously lead to the dismantling of many graduate programs since students are very unlikely to attend any university which lacks a comprehensive and quality program in the academic sense of the word (note I'm deliberately not using the world "excellent" due to its current perversion).
Math also is in dire straits. We are losing 6 bargaining unit Faculty: 5 retiring, and 1 resigning. The predicted loss of only 25 bargaining unit Faculty from 660 to 635 looks very suspicious.
ReplyDeleteI bet it will be 50 at least.
Math faculty always confuse themselves as well as others. Forget it.
DeleteThere is no academic leadership in this department (the chair obviously not). Take a look the department website.
DeleteWow! Their chair even has lees number of publications than some of assistant professors. What a joke there!
DeleteAnon. (11:19):
DeleteWhat are we supposed to notice in the department Website? The Lipman Hearne approved template it uses? The two Distinguished Scholars? The Distinguished Teacher?
Or maybe we're supposed to notice that hardly anyone would want to be chair after the dean pulled faculty lines for other departments and then tried to force the last chair to fire NTTs when the department found ways to save money that wouldn't have involved laying anyone off? Oops, that's not on the website!
This is a typical FA statement. Just go ahead to count the number of publications for each faculty member. Let the fact speak!
DeleteI bet paranoid is one of the members who has fewest number of publications.
DeleteWell. paranoid may be the president of FA. Sounds very familiar.
DeleteJudy,
DeleteAs soon as I wrote something about the math department, I expected someone would say that.
Nope, I have better-looking hair than Randy Hughes.
Anon. (7:47),
While you're at it, how about disparaging some departments too? I bet paranoid's research is in one of those worthless areas like...
The Math department should change the name to Department of Math Education and all math faculty members are required to teach four courses per semester since they are not doing research and refuse to apply grants.
DeleteSarcasm:
DeleteEspecially that current chair who "refused" to bring in over $100,000 in grant money last summer.
Those are math education. Please take a close look.
DeleteThere is little research component inside. It is hardly called ''research''.
DeleteThe original statement was, "They are not doing research and refuse to apply grants."
DeleteAnonymous did not qualify that the grants had to be research grants.
In the link I supplied, immediately before the chair's grant, there's a $43K grant for another faculty member in math that looks like a research grant to me.
For an entire department that refuses to apply, they must be working some magic to get two grants without applying.
What evidence do you have that they (as a department, not particular faculty in the department) are not doing research? Are all those publications from the assistant professors teaching publications?
And why is grant getting in math an issue? Are the English faculty and the history faculty expected to get grants?
DeleteWhile we're disparaging departments there's a joke, "The chair of the physics department goes to the provost for the annual budget review. 'I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we have a lot of exciting things going on in the department - some potential Noble-prize winning stuff. The bad news is we need a new particle accelerator which will cost $10M.'
The Provost is shocked. 'That is a lot of money. It is incredible to me how different departments need different things. Why can't you be more like the math department? They only want Paper, Pencils and wastebaskets. And the philosophy department doesn't even want the wastebaskets...' "
With apologies to the philosophers out there!
I had served on the College of Science Promotion Committee several years ago. We did have a case submitted by the math department that we were told that the applicant refused to apply grant, and the department essentially ignored this fact in their discussion. A senior from the math department keep telling me that since the contract does not require to apply grant, why we need to do it. Do you need witnesses?
DeleteJust for the record: plenty of faculty in Math have research grants: Spector, Xu, Xiao, Mohammed, and some more ongoing, or maybe just finished: Ban, Bhattacharya, Hundley, Calvert.
Deletealso teaching grants: Wright, Budzban (interim chair, more than $500,000 ongoing), grants for various outreach programs: Pericak-Spector.
After the retirees this June, the above will be about half the remaining Dept. Which isn't bad at all. And they also publish plenty of research papers, and also math ed papers.
So.....all you negative anons (I wonder if you ever passed calculus?).....please leave the Math Dept alone, until you get your facts straight!
The original assertion was that the department refused to apply for grants, not that one person refused.
DeleteNow the assertion is that the department refused to require a person to apply in the promotion and tenure process. You don't need witnesses for that, as that's a much weaker assertion, and I'll trust you on that. I will ask, though, doesn't this imply, as documented above, that there are people in the department applying for and getting grants, even though no one in the department is requiring them to do it?
Again, I ask, why is grant getting in a low-equipment discipline like math even an issue? Are the mathematicians using up that much paper and wearing out that many pencils and wastebaskets?
If a department even does not require effort, then the department leadership has a problem. Are you going to tell your Dean that your department ONLY needs pencils and papers, NOT other things, including the travel money, assistantship? Go ahead to do it. There are some basic responsibility for each faculty members no matter what disciple you are in. A basic effort, if it is good for the university, then it deems to be necessary. Here, again, I am not saying you need to get a big grant. But at least a minimum effort is expected. Look at our peers, I bet not many would say effort is not required for tenure and promotion. As a professional (or a chair), you should understand it.
DeleteBasic effort is producing solid research (and teaching and service) in a particular field, based on the standards of that field.
DeleteIn some fields, especially those that require expensive equipment or experiments, grant getting is part of that basic effort. In other fields it is not.
As a professional (or a chair), you should understand that not every department is exactly the same in how this is defined.
I am not in your field. However, according to the American Mathematical Society,''Towards Excellence:
DeleteLeading a Mathematics Department in the 21st Century", it states:
"External Funding. Many university departments, especially in the sciences, are judged in large part by their ability to generate external funding. While administrators know that the external funding for mathematics research is far below that in the sciences, total funding and the percent of mathematics faculty with
external funding are still important to administrators and to mathematics departments. Moreover, substantial external funding does exist in applied mathematics
and mathematics education. Deans are much more likely to commit university funds to research or educational initiatives when there is evidence that their support
will help secure funds from some outside source.
Beyond funds for faculty summer salaries, computers, and graduate assistant stipends, external support can play a vital role in the quality of departmental life.''
You do realize that the key recommendation of that (1999) report was to emphasize the importance of undergraduate education in research-oriented, doctorate-granting math departments, right? (If you're the same anonymous who was so dismissive of math education grants, your source is inconsistent with your previous comment.) Perhaps the math department is willing to let its assistant professors advance with strong research, no grants, and excellent teaching because of a choice to follow that recommendation.
DeleteOr maybe the department sees a problem here when comparing math to other departments in the College of Science, "Mathematics department chairs often find it difficult to defend their research program, in part because of comparisons to other science disciplines. Physicists, biologists, engineers, etc., tend to publish many more papers than mathematicians and attract much larger external funding. They can fund more graduate students and postdocs than almost all mathematics departments."
Or maybe the role that external support "can" play for a department doesn't equate to a role it "must" play for every faculty member.
The Math department at SIU is FA's headquarter. This department only wants three things: (1) more resource; (2) less work as much as possible; (3) more power on promotion. The research activity in this department won't grow in the near future if the current leadership maintains its position.
DeleteWhen this department boasts outstanding of teaching, more and more evidences show some faculty members are not serious teachers. We certainly will collect this evidence to present to their chair sooner or later.
I suggest the chair to do some survey for current math 335 students. They will tell you the true story. Trust me.
DeleteThe discussions of T&P committees are supposed to be confidential. Whatever your politics, it is not appropriate to discuss such matters on a public blog.
DeleteAno7:00PM says:
Deleteaccording to the American Mathematical Society,''Towards Excellence:
Leading a Mathematics Department in the 21st Century", it states:
"External Funding. Many university departments, especially in the sciences, are judged in large part by their ability to generate external funding. While administrators know that the external funding for mathematics research is far below that in the sciences, total funding and the percent of mathematics faculty with external funding are still important to administrators and to mathematics departments. Moreover, substantial external funding does exist in applied mathematics
and mathematics education. Deans are much more likely to commit university funds to research or educational initiatives when there is evidence that their support
will help secure funds from some outside source.
Beyond funds for faculty summer salaries, computers, and graduate assistant stipends, external support can play a vital role in the quality of departmental life.''
It is a very convinced point. Obviously, paranoid is one of the math faculty members. He/she may argue that ''excellent'' does not appear in the contract, why they need to do an excellent job?
Math people at SIUC do not live in the American Mathematical Society. They live in the FA Society.
Deleteparanoid question ''And why is grant getting in math an issue?''
DeleteAnswer from American Mathematical Society: ''total funding and the percent of mathematics faculty with external funding are still important to administrators and to mathematics departments.... Beyond funds for faculty summer salaries, computers, and graduate assistant stipends, external support can play a vital role in the quality of departmental life''.
paranoid question claims ''Basic effort is producing solid research (and teaching and service) in a particular field, based on the standards of that field.''
What kind of standards are you talking about? "external support can play a vital role in the quality of departmental life.'' is not considered to be a good criterion?
The leadership of the math department should be replaced. It is good enough for our College of Science.
DeleteI had an e-mail sent by a person from math department (now it is the chair) to the faculty of College of Science, dated on Wed, 16 Sep 2009:
DeleteDear Colleagues of the College of Science:
I am writing this letter......
1)In 2008, the Dean overturned a strong department vote for tenure in Mathematics because the candidate did not have any grant funding......
I served in the College committee, this candidate only tried once with his advisor in his entire probation period (six years), but the department (including the current chair) considered that it is good enough. At that time the committee vote is 0:7(negative).
I had the letter too. It is interesting to see in the end of the letter:
Delete``..., we have simply asked for a meeting with the Provost to discuss the matter. Please allow me to appeal to you, as your colleague, that you not do anything that might jeopardize our ability to get a fair hearing. Our claims are legitimate and the grievances are real....''
Sounds like an FA letter, right?
paranoid claims ``As a professional (or a chair), you should understand that not every department is exactly the same in how this is defined.''
DeleteThis is clearly defined by the American Mathematical Society, but it seems that paranoid is not aware of it.
What a world he/she lives in?
The math department dose not agree with the American Mathematical Society's opinion. This society is bureaucracy and is not transparency. They did not consult FA at SIU before they make this statement. This is a typical top-to down management. Our claim is legitimate and grievance is real. This unfortunate situation deserves and demands the attention of the Provost.
DeleteAccording to the American Mathematical Society's official statement on the topic of grants, not according to a report for chairs on how to get more money out of deans:
Delete"When compared to other fields of science and engineering, opportunities for external funding in mathematical sciences are very limited. The vast majority of mathematicians receiving Federal support have just one, single investigator, NSF grant. These grants typically provide salary support for one, or two summer months, and some funds for travel. Almost no support is available for course release time, and there is limited support for graduate students, post-docs or equipment. Many well respected, productive mathematicians receive little or no external support for their research."
http://www.ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/CultureStmnt08.pdf
Does being difficult===no effort??
DeleteAnon 12.20: thanks for the SMP info, and thanks Jonathan for your detailed and informative analysis of the situation. I intend to go to the meeting on Monday May 7 evening to get more updates. See you all there!
ReplyDeletehttp://suaa.org/ - latest news is Madigan has introduced a bill to get rid of the 5% reduction of health premiums for years served. Up to now that meant your retiree health benefits were 100% paid after 20 years service. This bill would give CMS the power to determine.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this has to be negotiated with the unions come June 30th (when the current CMS contract expires).
Death by a thousand cuts, as they say. . .
Thanks Jonathon,
Deleteonly 20 cuts needed here, then we will be down to o% coverage!
Dave Johnson now is administrator. He should not in charge of this blog anymore due to his position. Is there any volunteer?
ReplyDeleteAre you interested? You do seem to be spending a good deal of time on the blog.
DeleteInteresting, the double bind here. Leaving aside that this blog denies any formal association with the union (although the owner acknowledges his involvement with the FA), the terse anonymous criticism perpetuates that which it would criticize. Namely, if the principle criticism of the FA and its members is that they create a divisive and combative atmosphere on campus, then shouldn't members' willingness to do the work of base level administration reveal the lie of that? Who really seems invested in a reductive and combative climate on this campus, Anons?
DeleteIt's not really worth elaborating. The peppered potshots across this particular thread (one that addresses a topic we probably are all in agreement about, no less!) reveal a provocateur whose purpose is primarily to sow dissent. Most faculty do not enter into campus leadership (administrative and otherwise) for personal gain. They do so because they care about the institution and know that its health depends upon the labor of all of us. I do not think that anonymous snipers can say the same, at least not with the terse word-count they allow themselves to spit their venom.
Congratulations, Dave, on your election to chair in your department. Where it counts, you are clearly respected by your colleagues and peers. Your willingness to provide a venue for those less collegial and with far less to contribute to a professional conversation says much about your integrity, which is demonstrably greater in quality and quantity than theirs.
Now, grab an umbrella -- I forecast more spit and sputter from anonymous clouds of poison rain. This, after all, is the climate THEY create.
Jonathan Bean is a perfect person to be in charge of this blog. He basically offer us many information without imposing his opinion to viewers.
DeleteJonathan Bean has a blog of his own which is linked in the options to your left. I am sure he welcomes your conversation there...and here.
DeleteDave Johnson was not appointed to run this blog. He and a colleague created it. And you (and others, including myself) flocked to it.
You actually do Dave a great honor by assuming he is no longer qualified to "be in charge of" an unofficial, non-University-sanctioned Web log that he started on his own time. Sure, it's a backhanded compliment (a forehanded insult?) that totally misses the mark of what a blog actually is, but I'm sure he doesn't begrudge the praise.
About my SIU and Illinois-related blog, FreeU: any one is free to contribute their own submissions, either under their own name or pseudonym (but I am the gatekeeper and reserve the right to refuse posting something that includes gratuitous ad hominem attacks and the like. However, I will post any viewpoint out there on Illinois, higher ed. So feel free to contribute.
DeleteIt's been slow blogging time for me but summer and the current legislative session will get me flowing again. Normally, though, I reserve most of my best blogging for public policy issues over at my think tank's blog).
Johnny Gray, it looks like you have established yourself as Dave Johnson's self appointed (?) spokesperson. Dave Johnson was the spokesperson for the FA--but now he has opted to take on his "managerial role"--so he can't be the spokesperson for the FA. Now that someone is suggesting that Dave relinquish the blog he has created "with a colleague" (incidentally the colleague does have a name--Namdar), you are speaking up again on his behalf.
DeleteDave started the blog long before he became FA spokesperson, and to make it clear that this blog is not an official FA blog, Dave stepped away from it (well, yeah, not completely) while he was spokesperson (http://siucfaculty.blogspot.com/2011/10/deo-volente-transition.html).
DeleteDave Johnson hasn't been spokesperson for the FA for months, well before he "opted to take on his 'managerial role'."
Dave was "shedding" his spokesperson role in November (http://siucfaculty.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-initial-thoughts-on-strike.html), and he referred to the position of FA spokesperson in the past tense by December (http://siucfaculty.blogspot.com/2011/12/chancellor-cheng-de-and-freedom-of.html).
Wow! this is fine tuning! But the point I made was not really about the timeline-what happened when. The point was why Johnny Gray has appointed himself as spokesperson for Dave.
DeleteI hereby appoint as my personal spokesperson anyone willing to defend me from anonymous attacks.
DeleteHeaven knows, I'm willing to defend myself, but, like most people, I can use all the help I can get. Is defending someone--some Anonymous or other, me, Rita Cheng, Glen Poshard (distinguished company, that) so reprehensible that it raises suspicion of some ulterior motive?
For those curious, the informal position of "FA spokesperson" lapsed with the strike, though I continued to get, and answer, press inquiries for some time thereafter. I'm currently still Chair of the FA's Departmental Representatives Council--but that body will not meet again until the fall. Whenever exactly the AP contract kicks in (chairs, thanks to Walter Wendler, are classified that way), I'll no longer be an "active" member of the FA (i.e., one eligible to vote or serve in FA offices), though I'll continue to pay dues (at the 50% "reserve status" rate).
Dave Johnson acts like FA spokesperson very day even though he claims he is not. He is selling public interests and gaining his own benefit. It is very unfortunate for a department to have this type of person as a leader.
DeleteI couldn't understand how a Dean can appoint a midget to be a department chair? Does SIUC run out of good people and full professor?
DeleteWhat do you mean by "midget" here?
DeleteDave's over 5'5", so you don't mean the word literally. Without an adjective in front of the word midget, who knows what you mean?
Anon. (8 PM):
DeleteIf you think Dave is, Blago-style, selling public interest for his own benefit, the site you want is here: http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlinereport.htm
If your accusation is less nefarious, please describe what public interest he is selling and how he's selling it.
So far, the less nefarious accusation against Dave has been that he wasn't sufficiently vitriolic against the university administration, and that willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt was all part of a master plan to become an administrator. The documentation of what Dave said is sitting right in front of us. The sheer quantity of Dave's criticism of the university administration makes the less nefarious accusation hard to buy.
Dave Johnson was/has been/continues to be the spokesperson for the FA, will soon be chair of his department, and I heard he was also ready to step up and be president of the faculty senate as well. Dave Johnson is all things to everyone at the same time! That is a good strategy for staying on top.
DeleteWatching a professional 'clown' is fun, though everyone needs to pay the ticket eventually. It is a high level performance. Congratulation! Dave.
DeleteFor me and others who are metaphor-impaired...
DeleteWhat is the ticket that is to be paid?
What is the illusion of the performance, and how is that illusion different from reality?
As long as we are playing "blast from the past," yeah, I took a hand at moderating this blog back before and during the strike. I have no illusions that anyone is calling for a return performance.
DeleteAnd I'm not volunteering, either.
Since the slippery logic of Dave's anonymous critics has oozed past their original assertion (gaining no purchase, apparently) and found something completely unrelated to stick to, it's time to move on.
I doubt Dave will have as much time to blog given his busy future. Maybe one of his critics could start a blog of his/her own to fill the void. May I suggest calling it "Sour Grapes"?
Jonny Gray seems to be the body guard of Dave Johnson. He jumps in everywhere to defense him.
DeleteAre you paparazzi or an assassin, jumping in everywhere to shoot Dave?
DeleteYou made me feel good. I am just too busy to say something about Dave. But here there are so many people who did it. If you are not happy, please join Jonny Gray as another 'body guard' of Dave. I bet your team won't grow.
DeleteFor an army of "many people," you certainly are unified, both in name (Anonymous) and in writing style (under three sentences per post, innuendo rather than direct attack, and at least one word misused in nearly every post).
DeleteWhere do you have your drill sessions?
If Dave's becoming Chair means that he'll be "too busy" to blog at the same rate as in the past (according to his "self-appointed spokesperson" Jonny) we must all heave a big sigh of relief! Jonny Gray had better take over this blog, in that case.
DeleteJonny Gray are paparazzi or an assassin, jumping in everywhere to shoot others who don't praise Dave or Jonny himself. This is why I don't like some union people. They are anti-democracy. When there is a disagreement of opinions, please look at Jonny Gray's responses and reactions (throughout this blogs), and you know what I mean.
DeleteI looked. I don't see it. Paparazzi take photographs. Assassins are anonymous until caught. And Jonny Gray makes cogent and sometimes long-winded arguments. I see care in his posts and actual humor. I see witless anonymous posts that don't respond to the actual point of the discussion.
DeleteIf anyone is anti-democracy here, it is the person flinging that charge.
FSN should resume its effort and make a continuation to decertify the union.
ReplyDeleteI have withdrew my membership today.
DeleteWithdraw from FSN or FA?!
DeleteFSN still exists?
DeleteFA is disappearing too.
DeleteIf the top-to-down claimed by Dave Johnson were true, how Dave can become a department chair? Many people just got a pay cut due to the strike, now Dave has got promoted by a big pay increase by at least 20-30%??
ReplyDeleteTo Dave Johnson: ''You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.''
ReplyDeleteDave Johnson obviously knew all along while he was spokesperson for the FA what was coming--a big pay hike--for him! Now he talks with his administrator's hat on! Dave Johnson is not unique in this at SIUC--think about all the people who over the past two years were rewarded in this way--Directors' Chairs, etc etc!
DeleteThere were other FA spokesmen who got fat administrative raises like mine thanks to their opposing the administration? Damn, I thought I'd started something new.
DeleteI agree that this is well planed by Dave.
Deleteahem, I believe its `planned', not `planed', thats something you do in a woodwork shop............
DeleteAnd my carpentry skills are deplorable. When it comes to Machiavellian moves to secure a fat paycheck, by contrast, I am a real ace. There's simply no better way to move up the administrative ranks than criticizing the administration.
DeleteNO, Dave didn't really criticize the administration. Mostly he was sitting on the fence and even went out of his way to shower praise on the administration and at the same time seeming to criticize them. This is not new. He has done this previously. And is at it again. He is just using a tool to get ahead (like many others whose ambition is to rise up in administration).
DeleteDave's raise is at the expanse of others' cut!
DeleteThe system is supposed to be that old chairs go back to regular faculty pay when they step down, so no one's pay, aside from that of the new and former chairs, should be affected by a change in chair. Wouldn't that make the others' singular?
DeleteThe end of the semester is at hand and the faculty in-fighting is picking up. I need to find a comfortable chair and bag of popcorn...this is getting to be quite entertaining.
ReplyDeleteBTW, some of us here were recently introduced to Godwin's Law. Now may be the time to call your attention to Sayre's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
Some FA leaders used to be the boys who cry wolf. They are actually wolf but in order to get Admins' job (so that they can get better pay), they now pretend they are sheep in front of provost. The provost needs to be careful since they can bite you anytime.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe fable loving Anons reach the same conclusion as the the fox did about grapes?
DeleteSeriously, argument by children's literature is so much fun. Oh please, tell the one about the scorpion and the frog next. Or maybe the one about the hungry wolf and the well fed dog? And by all means, with all your yapping, don't forget the dog in the manger.
Dave did a good job of criticizing the admin during the strike, its a tough role to play because you can't criticize too much, everybody knows that you must keep doors open for the negotiations to continue. Check out his `tourist' video about SIUC, its good fun, and very critical. The room in Faner which figures prominently in it is still there, its looks like it hasn't been painted for 40+ years...which gives you an idea about where on the ladder classroom renovation is according to the current admins...
ReplyDeletehttp://siucfaculty.blogspot.com/2011/07/campus-tour.html
DeleteDave has always tended to support Deans' and administrators plans years before he became a temporary spokesperson for the FA.
Deletehttp://languages.siu.edu/classics/DMJ/Me/recountingsouthern.html
Deletehttp://languages.siu.edu/classics/DMJ/Me/content.html