Thursday, April 15, 2010

Good ol' boy salaries "a small slice of the pie"

Whenever the outrage over administrative exorbitance reaches a boiling point, one of them is sure to articulate their only defense; the exorbitance is only a small piece of the pie; ending it altogether would make little difference from a fiscal stand point.

Case in point; top heavy and expensive administrations in education and in state government.

This morning, Blogger Monahan reports, link, that

"old time politico and UNM Board of regents President Raymond Sanchez (says) eliminating the veeps "is not going to be that large of an impact."
Yesterday, the Journal reported, link, that APS School Board President Marty Esquivel argued;
"... a pay cut for top administrators would be "symbolic" and would not save enough money to make a difference.
"I'm very sensitive to the perception that we've got to cut administration. But in all honesty there's not that much to cut," he said. "I think we have to be realistic. If we cut a few $100,000 salaries by 5 percent, what's that going to accomplish?"
Gubernatorial appointments enjoy the same defense; eliminate them all and there will be no perceived benefit.

From one narrow perspective, their arguement is valid; cutting administrative exorbitance would go largely unperceived by the rank and file. Proportionally, the amount of cash involved is small.

That isn't the only perspective. There is another. It is from the perspective of those who genuinely struggle to make ends meet. From their perspective, excessive numbers of administrative slots created and maintained by and for the good ol' boys is a source of umbrage, the addition of insult to injury.

As a matter of principle, leadership is manifest through example. Before asking subordinates to tighten their belts, leaders must tighten their own.

There is no reason to trust people like UNM Board of Regents President Raymond Sanchez, UNM President David Schmidly, APS School Board President Marty Esquivel, and APS Supt Winston Brooks when they assure us that their belts are tight.

We are entitled to an independent corroboration of the truth.

They all steadfastly refuse to allow independent reviews of their administrative overhead. You have to wonder, why? Except that an honest and impartial review would reveal that they haven't tightened their own belts very much at all. It would point to the excesses they create and maintain still, for each other.

Even if it is only a (relatively) small piece of the pie.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

There's an old saying: "Thick as thieves"