University budget cuts expose disturbing priorities (part 2)

Editors' Note: This is part two of a two-part series. The first installment was printed last week under the same title.

Clearly, the financial situation at the University of South Alabama is dire. Along with the $18 million cut in expected state funding, one to two percent of the money allocated may not even be coming. It is clear that some cuts had to be made, and where these cuts are coming says a great deal about their priorities. With more students, and thus more tuition money, coming to the University this year, the people who accommodate these students -- faculty and staff -- have been made to do more work for the same pay, or less considering inflation. Further, there are even fewer employees to handle the increased amount of work, as many positions are not being refilled once someone leaves. Although layoffs are not on the table, it seems employee compensation would be a last resort for any cuts if it were a grave priority. Equally as revealing as where they did cut, though, is where they are spending money. When resources are scarce, where money does go can be just as significant as where it does not. First of all, amid the talks of gloom and doom, financial woes and all other manner of catastrophes, the administration is proudly showing off its brand new toy: the football program. The total budget for the program this year is about $2.5 million, according to the Due Diligence Report to the board of trustees. Administration officials do not even plan on using the $1 million surplus in the football account right now. Whenever anyone mentions the football money, the administration speaks self-righteously about not using student fees for any other purpose than what the students wanted. Leaving alone whether or not the student body actually approved the fee increase, the defense is blatantly hypocritical. In an interview with the Press-Register Nov. 7, 2007, President Moulton said that the University subsidizes the athletic budget by about $6.4 million yearly. Apparently, it's alright to take money from the general fund, which is meant to go toward education and other necessary functions of a university, and put it into athletics. Money intended for athletics, however, is evidently sacred. Why can money travel one way, yet not the other? Not only that, but even after they knew about the cuts in state funding, the administration increased the budget for football by hiring the coaches up front, instead of phasing it out as planned, according to the vice president of financial affairs. Although it has by now become a common refrain, we can once again see that, when push comes to shove, athletics seems to trump education. Furthermore, another monstrous expense comes in compensation for executives of the University. The same people who are asking the faculty and staff to make sacrifices for the financial troubles are living on exorbitant incomes. The Press-Register reported on Nov. 18 that President Moulton reels in an extraordinary $570,000 in total compensation per year, including $470,000 in salary and $100,000 for his house and transportation. Not only is this outrageous for any person, but compared to other college presidents, it's also pretty high. Bloomberg reports that the median salary for public research universities in the U.S. was $427,000 at the same time when Moulton was paid $470,000. Only about one-third of public university presidents receive over $500,000 in total compensation, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. To put this number in further perspective, the president of Ole Miss, who handles over 17,000 students, receives $446,000 in total compensation. Southern Miss President Martha Dunagin Saunders receives $363,000 per year, in total, and they serve over 16,000. Even at somewhat comparable institutions, the heads do not get paid as much as Moulton. Additionally, it becomes even more ridiculous when compared to the rest of the payroll. For the over 2,800 employees of the University (not including hospital and student workers), the public relations department reports the total salary at $173 million, making the average salary somewhere around $61,000 per year. Moulton gets paid almost eight times that amount. Indeed, the president and six of his vice presidents (the other two are not in the salary book), received $2.1 million last fiscal year, according to the salary book in the library. These seven people made up over 1 percent of the total combined salary for the University last fiscal year and got paid altogether 35 times the average employee salary. The entire history department, of around 30 people, got paid under $2 million in salary in the same time period. How can they justify this? While asking for sacrifice and harder work from their faculty and staff, upper administration officials are taking home outrageously high amounts of money. Maybe they can participate in the new 36-hour workweek program and renounce 10 percent of their salary, as they expect many of their employees to do. Although individual salaries cannot be cut, allocating that much money to that few seems to reveal that their priorities lie somewhere close to their pocketbooks. The point on athletics trumping academics is further reinforced by their salaries. Coach Ronnie Arrow, of men's basketball, makes around $210,000 per year, compared to around $100,000 at his previous job. The football coach, Joey Jones, makes $275,000 in salary, while he made around $150,000 in total compensation at BSC. The overwhelming majority of professors here make less than $100,000, and even deans of colleges do not make over $200,000. In this time of clear crisis, the administration has demanded sacrifice from its employees: more work for less pay. While doing this, they are spending lavishly both on their new football program and their own salaries. Further, they even refuse to spend the surplus money in the football account that isn't even required for football now. What does this say about their priorities?

Two corrections for last week: Total faculty pay was erroneously reported to have increased by $200,000 this year. It has been cut by about 2 percent from last year's figure. Also, history faculty library budgets actually decreased from somewhere over $1,000 last year to a little over $50 this year.