Home

Board Statement from Vice President Nov 2011

• 
• 

Details

Published on Saturday, 03 December 2011 22:21

Written by Joshua Ashworth

Hits: 254

My name is Lori Rotterman, I am Vice-President of the Dayton Metro Library Staff Association, and it is in that capacity which I speak to you today.

 

It was with outrage and dismay that I heard the Board’s decision at your last meeting concerning the raise and bonus being offered to the Executive Director. While this is in no way an indication of how I feel personally about the director or his performance, I feel the board was remiss in their duty when they awarded him a raise and a bonus which were triple what our bargaining unit members received.

Knowing how much you like to receive graphs from the director illustrating financial situations, I have prepared a couple for you today. On the first page, I have shown the changes in income received by the director and the union over the last four bargaining cycles, with union figures being shown in green and the director in red. The cycles run from July of each year through June of the following year, based on the contract dates.

 

• In 2008, we negotiated for a 3% raise in the first year, a 3% raise in the second year, and a re-opener for the third year, and Mr. Kambitsch was given 5%. While we were not necessarily happy with this amount, it was pretty much business as usual and did not generate much comment.
• In 2009, due to the severe reductions in the state budget and the fact that the levy campaign had not yet taken place, we agreed to give up the 3% we had previously negotiated for that year, and to give up 60 hours of furlough, which amounted to a 2.9% reduction in pay for that year. The director gave up his previously awarded 5% raise for one year. When you look at the first two time periods of this graph, it shows shared sacrifice being made by all. At that time, members of the board praised the process and said that this agreement was a “gift to the Library” and that “everyone stepped up to the plate”. In addition, during this year both the union treasury and many individual union members donated money and time toward the levy campaign.
• In 2010, after the successful levy campaign, we were only able to negotiate to a 1% raise and a 0.5% lump sum, and that required bringing a mediator into the negotiations. The board also gave the director the same 1% raise, but with a 1.5% lump sum based on scoring highly on the HAPLR ratings. What was unmentioned was the fact that the 5% which he had given up for one year was returned, bring his total increase in income for that year to 7.5%.
• Finally, in 2011, we were only able to negotiate a one year contract, rather than the usual three years, and we again required the use of a mediator to eventually reach agreement on a 1% raise and a 0.5% lump sum. The Board then granted the director a 3% raise and a 1.5% lump sum, tripling what our members got.

 

The second page translates those percentage figures into actual dollar amounts. It shows the annual income of our lowest paid bargaining unit member in yellow, the highest paid in blue, and the median in green. This would be the point at which half of our members earn less and half earn more. These figures reflect a full-time employee, since obviously someone working part time would earn less. The director’s earnings are shown in red.

 

As you can see, the three lines representing union members have remained basically flat over this time frame, while the director’s has risen rather dramatically. As indicated below the graph, our incomes have risen from 1.7% to 3%, while the director’s has risen 7.9%. In dollars, our incomes have gone up between $600 and $1100 per year, which does not begin to cover the increases in health insurance premiums and increases in the cost of gas, food, etc. The director’s income, however, has gone up by almost $12,000.

 

We feel that we made the sacrifices which were asked of us in 2009, and yet have not been in any way rewarded for those efforts after the levy passage. The fact that a mediator had to be called in the past two years for us to even receive meager raises indicates that this board and/or the director feel that we do not deserve to get adequate compensation for our work. In fact, the initial offer from the library in each of those years was for 0% raises. The reduced staffing levels associated with shrinking the workforce mean that everyone has to work harder and perform more tasks in order to accomplish the duties of those positions which are being left vacant or abolished.

 

The fact that the director received larger lump sums than we did the past two years based on the library scoring well on the national rankings is particularly galling to our members, because we all know that the reasons for scoring that highly are due to the hard work and efforts of everyone in this system. The various statistics which those ratings are based on can only be accomplished by the entire staff, and yet we do not get rewarded for that effort, only the director.

 

We are not privy to the director’s performance evaluations, and do not know the criteria upon which he is receiving such high marks from the board.

 

One of our members has suggested that the director is being rewarded with larger raises because he was able to negotiate low raises with us and keep payroll costs low.

 

Another member made the following comment: “I'm not going to vilify Tim for taking a raise that any of us would take if offered. The Board is a different story - they're completely out of touch to give Tim a bonus and a raise that's 3x staff's raise. I guess they don't understand how it demoralizes the employees and makes us feel devalued.”

 

I urge you as a board to consider the effects of your decisions on the morale of your employees. While these are difficult financial times, and there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the future, we as individuals are facing the same economic conditions that the Library as a whole is facing. Asking us to continue to sacrifice each year in anticipation of shortfalls in the future is not a model that can be sustained indefinitely.

• < Prev
• Next >