No way to justify golden parachutes

"UH to defend severances before House committee," the headline in Monday's edition of The Daily Cougar read.

"Defend." How can anyone in his right mind defend the expenditure of more than half a million dollars that should be going to fund absolutely necessary academic issues, such as classes and professors' salaries, but instead is getting the UH System Board of Regents absolutely nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- literally "empty space" in return?

Rube Goldberg would be proud of the regents. He could probably sell them one of his expensive inventions that looked interesting and intricate, but in actuality did nothing.

The board was so pleased with the services of former UH System Chancellor Alexander Schilt that it decided to pay him for not one year, but two years -- for doing nothing.

Schilt now can afford to eat in the finest restaurants in New Orleans, where he now lives, with the $186,759 he'll receive for 1996, and the $140,069 he'll pocket in 1997.

That's not bad. We can't think of anyone who would quibble with making $326,828 in return for two years of opening a monthly envelope full of money. Not even Donald Trump has figured out how to make money by doing nothing.

Besides the ridiculous golden parachutes awarded to Schilt, former UH President James H. Pickering and former UH Provost Henry T. Trueba, no one at the System office has mentioned two upcoming golden parachutes.

The board is currently involved in negotiations regarding golden parachutes for former UH System Vice Chancellors Dell Felder and Ed Whalen, who were both forced to resign earlier this year.

With dwindling enrollment, instructor and class shortages, buildings on the UH campus alone that need over $74 million of repairs, how can anyone defend the golden parachute expenditures?

The only thing good -- if "good" is the word to use about a flagrant waste of taxpayers' and students' money -- is that even though Schilt is eligible to come back to UH in 1998 as a tenured professor with a yearly salary of $140,069, he won't have to because he'll be rich.

Besides, Schilt's experience as a classroom teacher was so minor and occurred so many years ago that UH students would most likely sue him and the university for incompetence shortly after the semester begins.

If that didn't happen, his colleagues in the teaching profession would probably march on E. Cullen to protest the fact that Schilt was taking home around three times as much pay as professors who really are qualified and competent instructors.

The Board of Regents' financial aid program for former senior administrators is on the wrong end of the pay scale. Financial "aid" for employees who resign, or who are forced to resign (spell that "terminated"), should go to employees on the lower rungs of the ladder, the ones whose bank accounts will be empty just a few months after they find themselves unemployed.

It should not go to someone who has been raking in a six-figure income for several years.

No way to justify golden parachutes

"UH to defend severances before House committee," the headline in Monday's edition of The Daily Cougar read.

"Defend." How can anyone in his right mind defend the expenditure of more than half a million dollars that should be going to fund absolutely necessary academic issues, such as classes and professors' salaries, but instead is getting the UH System Board of Regents absolutely nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- literally "empty space" in return?

Rube Goldberg would be proud of the regents. He could probably sell them one of his expensive inventions that looked interesting and intricate, but in actuality did nothing.

The board was so pleased with the services of former UH System Chancellor Alexander Schilt that it decided to pay him for not one year, but two years -- for doing nothing.

Schilt now can afford to eat in the finest restaurants in New Orleans, where he now lives, with the $186,759 he'll receive for 1996, and the $140,069 he'll pocket in 1997.

That's not bad. We can't think of anyone who would quibble with making $326,828 in return for two years of opening a monthly envelope full of money. Not even Donald Trump has figured out how to make money by doing nothing.

Besides the ridiculous golden parachutes awarded to Schilt, former UH President James H. Pickering and former UH Provost Henry T. Trueba, no one at the System office has mentioned two upcoming golden parachutes.

The board is currently involved in negotiations regarding golden parachutes for former UH System Vice Chancellors Dell Felder and Ed Whalen, who were both forced to resign earlier this year.

With dwindling enrollment, instructor and class shortages, buildings on the UH campus alone that need over $74 million of repairs, how can anyone defend the golden parachute expenditures?

The only thing good -- if "good" is the word to use about a flagrant waste of taxpayers' and students' money -- is that even though Schilt is eligible to come back to UH in 1998 as a tenured professor with a yearly salary of $140,069, he won't have to because he'll be rich.

Besides, Schilt's experience as a classroom teacher was so minor and occurred so many years ago that UH students would most likely sue him and the university for incompetence shortly after the semester begins.

If that didn't happen, his colleagues in the teaching profession would probably march on E. Cullen to protest the fact that Schilt was taking home around three times as much pay as professors who really are qualified and competent instructors.

The Board of Regents' financial aid program for former senior administrators is on the wrong end of the pay scale. Financial "aid" for employees who resign, or who are forced to resign (spell that "terminated"), should go to employees on the lower rungs of the ladder, the ones whose bank accounts will be empty just a few months after they find themselves unemployed.

It should not go to someone who has been raking in a six-figure income for several years.