Here’s something that should make you angry.
I’m sure you all remember Hamid Shirvani. He had a short and tumultuous reign as Chancellor of the North Dakota University System. He was hired on March 13 of 2012 and, after drawing the ire of a few politically powerful university presidents, was placed on administrative leave pending his resignation on July 14, 2013.
Altogether Shirvani served the state of North Dakota for 489 days. Yet, he’s actually been on the state’s payroll more than twice that amount of time. In fact, Shirvani is still on the state’s payroll.
He will be collecting over $350,000 per year in salary until June 30, 2015, as well as full state health benefits. He has even received two raises in the interim.
That’s right, this chancellor who was basically fired from his position got a 4 percent raise on July 1 of 2013, and a 3 percent raise on July 1, 2014. He has even received contributions to his retirement account throughout this time in the amount of 11.5 percent of his salary.
Meanwhile, throughout that time, Shirvani has been free to seek out additional remuneration for his services elsewhere.
That’s the definition of a golden parachute.
Whether you were glad to see Shirvani go or felt he should go, it’s clear that severance package was excessive.
So it’s not surprising that during the 2015 session lawmakers sought to limit these sort of sweetheart deals. Section 7 of HB1003, the university system budget, required that the university folks follow the same law for severance packages that the rest of the state’s departments must follow (see 54-14-04.3 of the Century Code).
In other words, no more golden parachutes.
Except, earlier this week Gov. Jack Dalrymple vetoed the prohibition on golden parachutes, writing in his constitutionally required explanation to lawmakers that the language put “undue restrictions” on the university system.
The amendment “prohibits the consideration of any negotiated severance package and deletes an existing portion of the Century Code that provides for fixing terms of officers, which strongly implies that any multi-year contract will not be allowable,” Dalrymple wrote. He further claimed that the state constitution, in capping the contract terms for chancellors to no more than three years at a time, provides “clear permissive language for multiyear [sic] contracts.”
Again, the amendment merely required that the university system apply an existing statute governing severance packages to university system employees, and that statute merely prohibits severance packages for employees who quit or resign voluntarily or who are terminated for “good cause.”
Claiming that this violates the state constitution’s permissive language allowing multi-year contracts for chancellors is silly. Perhaps something you’d write in a veto explanation letter you’re not really expecting very many people to read.
I suspect what Dalrymple is really protecting is the sort of lavish and excessive contract guarantees that have become the norm in higher education. The governor hints at this when he wrote in his veto letter that the amendment would have “likely discouraged well qualified applicants” for university system positions.
Perhaps that’s true. Keep in mind that newly-hired Chancellor Mark Hagerott is making $372,000 per year, a 6.2 percent increase over even Shirvani’s lush contract and more than what Dalrymple, Lt. Governor Drew Wrigley and Secretary of State Al Jaeger draw in yearly salary combined.
“You get what you pay for” is a maxim that’s generally true, but in the world of higher education, where administrative bloat and runaway budgets have become de rigeur, is a spending spree on costly bureaucrats really what’s needed?
Are we to believe that the only way to recruit competent leaders for the universities in North Dakota is through rich contract guarantees? That doesn’t speak highly for the priorities guiding the higher education industry these days.
After North Dakota taxpayers got burned on Shirvani’s contract, should the governor be dismissing reforms for golden parachutes so cavalierly?
The state deserves a better explanation for Dalrymple’s veto than the weak soup he provided the Legislature, but given the governor’s pattern of turning a blind eye to the university system’s problems, we shouldn’t hold our breath.
