121113payoffThe new president of Virginia Tech will pull down about $700,o00 for his first year on the job, including a base salary of a half million, $180,000 in “deferred compensation” and a $20,000 car allowance.

Of course he will earn far less than football coach Frank Beamer, who will bank $2,491,616 “before bonuses” in the coming year.  Tech, of course, argues that Beamer is paid with funds “earned” by the school’s lucrative football program and not from state tax money.

New Tech president Timothy Sands is paid from state funds and his new contract also allows for bonuses that, by themselves, could total more than the annual salary paid to most state employees.

Which raises a valid question:  Are these people worth the money?  If Tim Sands is worth $700,000 a year, why is a Floyd County school teacher’s salary valued at more than 90 percent less?

Why does Ronald D. Schmitz, chief investment officer of the Virginia Retirement Sustem, collect $670,313 a year when most state employees struggle to pay more and more into the VRS and face the increasingly-real possibility of reduced retirement earnings in the future?

As happens all too often in the increasing difference between the haves and the have nots, there are more questions than answers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 COMMENTS

  1. None of them are worth it…by the way, we went to a basketball game in Auburn’s new gym, in the new school…something that Floyd will never see. I would invite all parents to use the bathrooms upstairs in the elementary school and check out the facilities your kids use daily. It’s sad.

  2. “Worth” has no meaning in our culture. However, that Tech–or any other school–says that it’s okay because the money doesn’t come from state funds means that the school has set up a for-profit business, which a university should not be doing. And one also has to wonder about the football-related expenses incurred by the university that ARE paid through state funds: security, traffic, and support staff, and so on. What employees are worth never was necessarily tied to their compensation; that will never change, and if the “consumers” are willing to pay these salaries, so be it. But when the expense of subsidizing a for-profit business like a big-time football team within a not-for-profit organization (a state-run university) winds up costing the tax payer, there is no defense. (Much of this is just an accounting dodge anyway: shifting money from one account to another with a more-acceptable name.)

Comments are closed.