At last night’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, the board acted to reject Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s recommendation that he be granted a $20,000 raise and a retroactive cost of living adjustment.A year ago, many in the district were surprised when the board voted to give Mathur—who has received three faculty votes of “no confidence” during his career as an administrator within the district, including a 93.5% vote just two years ago—a salary increase that amounted to over a quarter of a million dollars, when medical benefits and perks are included.
The unpopular Mathur, whose actions have instigated expensive litigation against the district over the years, and who once sued the district, is among the highest paid CEOs in the California community college system.
Item 28 on last night’s agenda was “Academic Personnel Actions,” recommended by the Chancellor, which included “additional compensation” for the Chancellor.
An attached exhibit described the recommended “compensation revision” as follows:
(1) Dr. Mathur will receive a cost of living adjustment…to his base salary for the fiscal year 2006/07, based on the State of California 2006/07 budget as approved by the Governor;
(2) the District will pay Dr. Mathur for all his accrued but unused vacation days above 48 days; and
(3) Dr. Mathur will receive a salary equity adjustment of $20,000 for 2004-05, with all of these items effective July 1, 2006
When trustees emerged from the closed session that precedes the open board session, rumors flew that trustees was angered by Mathur’s “compensation” request. Then, when item 28 came up during the open meeting, board president David Lang announced that parts of section H of 28—the section dealing with Mathur’s “compensation”—would be “pulled.”
Specifically, items (1) and (3) of Mathur’s compensation recommendation were pulled, leaving only (2), which concerns paying Mathur for his unused vacation days.
Apparently, the board had decided not even to consider Mathur’s proposed raise.
Even Mathur’s remaining “unused vacation days” request proved controversial. Trustee Nancy Padberg argued that the district should be consistent in observing an “if you don’t use it, you lose it" policy.
Nancy Padberg and Marcia Milchiker were the sole trustees to vote against Mathur’s requested payment for unused vacation days.
6 comments:
Finally - some common sense, even if it is late, temporary and incomplete.
Why the sudden falling out of love with your irresitable Chancellor? What gives?
Not so fast, bystander. The first rule of academic politics - never, ever, believe what you see and hear is in fact reality.
That Mathur recommended that he receive a raise and a retroactive COLA is real enough. As is Lang's excising those elements from the agenda item.
Can there really be any doubt as to what these facts mean?
Nobody's suggesting that Mathur's on his way out. Near as i can tell, he ain't goin' nowhere.
Let me get this straight. The guy is making a quarter million dollars a year, and then he asks for a retroactive raise?
WADDA JERK
Is it true that other colleges of our size offer their Senate officers more reassigned time than Saddleback? Did Cosgrove's research indicate that over 86% of those colleges recognize the work their Senates do? And we work in one of the richest districts in the state?
Is it true that other colleges of our size offer their Senate officers more reassigned time than Saddleback? Did Cosgrove's research indicate that over 86% of those colleges recognize the work their Senates do? And we work in one of the richest districts in the state?
Post a Comment