Chris, everyone I knew that subscribed to the VBM (thanks for the name Allfiredup) enjoyed it & were upset when it stopped publication. I don't see why anyone would have issues with the info being published quarterly, it is public information after all. It actually was beneficial to small businesses to know who to do business with & who to stay away from, etc. Call it a public service.

Not bad pay, about what I would expect for Victoria. I'm curious if the rest of the subordinate employees make the national average? UHV is a quality institution and the pay seems fair for at least the administration that was researched. Good story, no real surprises.

VBB,

Interesting that you bring up the small paper that used to list divorces and bankruptcies and similar data. During our ethics board meeting, we discussed whether we ought to publish these items, too. We didn't settle that question, but a few asked whether all of this public information should be routinely published. How do you think readers would respond to this?

Who says the tax payer is getting a raw deal? After reviewing the VicAd's story, I'm satisfied that UHV is in line regarding their payroll. Will we find we feel the same regarding others?

In the "old" days there was the "Victoria Mirror"....in the recent past there was the "Victoria Business Magazine" that listed all the court dockets for counties in the crossroads area.

Stxguy, there used to be a paper (I believe it was quarterly) that used to list all divorces, marriages, bankruptcies, civil lawsuits & criminal charges. Unfortunately that paper is no longer in circulation. I loved that paper.

I am no witch to be hunted. I just don't see any reason for this story. Gee the President makes $225,000. I would expect the president of a university to make that kind of salary. I am going to bet that salary is comparable with that of a similar school. And if not this guy, then the next guy or gal would be paid the same.

My point was what was the point of this story? No correlation between salary and job performance was made. Heck, for a guy who's been in charge and seen enrollment top 3,000 for the first time and continue to grow maybe he and the entire staff are underpaid? To keep tuition affordable while other schools have gone through the roof concessions had to be made somewhere and it looks like staff salaries

Like I asked before, why doesn't the Advocate spend time finding out where the waste is in our taxpayer supported entities and then report on that? Isn't that what reporters do?
That would be more of an issue to taxpayers than salaries paid.

"Soul searching"? That's my first laugh of the day. The bottom line for the Advocate is exactly that...the bottom line. Any story that sells newspapers (or encourages people to go their website, since the number of "clicks" on a particular website determines advertising revenue) is what the Advocate is after.
Did the Advocate poll ONLY public sector employees? Did ONLY public sector employees voice disapproval to their publishing this information? If not, how can you say what the public employees wanted or desired? ( I included private sector employees as well in my statement that people do not want their salaries published on the front page of the paper).
I am not a public employee...I own a small business, with 5 employees. I did not want or desire this information to be published. I knew the information was available to me already...no need to splash it on the front page. I don't need to know that the clerk that waits on me at the front counter at a governmental agency makes $23,450 a year.
Why didn't the Advocate just say $XXXXX dollars are spent on salaries at UH-V? That way, people would know how much of their tax dollars are being spent on salaries. What was the purpose of breaking it down by age, gender, and how long they had been at the university? What purpose did that information serve, other than helping to identify who those individuals are???
Does this mean that ALL public information should be in the newspapers? Divorces? Civil lawsuits? Where do you draw the line?I
 I guess the Advocate Editorial Board will have to "search their souls" for answers to those questions. Ha ha ha
That's all for me today...I'm off to work so I can pay taxes so that clerk will have a salary to take home.

In this case, the VicAd apparently had a serious "soul searching", and decided that this subject merited a front page. The "want" and desire of the public employees did not carry weight over the public's right to know.

Bighorn...I disagree. Whether or not an individual is employed in the private or public sector, very few would want their salaries published on the front page of the paper (and their names as well, for those top paid).

Yes..people have a right to know that information about public employees. But the information has always been available to those who are interested. Just because its public information does not mean it has to be be published on the front page.

Huge difference, STG. Taxpayers do not pay private workers/employees. Their employers (private) know what they pay.

Bighorn...just because someone does not like having their salary displayed on the front page of the local newspaper does not automatically mean they are a public employee. I am sure there are quite a few individuals employed in the private sector who would not want their salaries published as well. Like Advocate employees, for instance?

Sounds like lots of public employees don't want the public to know what they are being paid. Or would that be, paying for?

Wow...thanks for this "public service", Gabe. Be sure and submit these stories for a journalism award. We wouldn't want you to miss out on any praise for your hard work.
What do age and gender have to do with the salaries unless it's accompanied by a comparative analysis?   The information just serves to help identify who  the individual is...despite the Advocate's holier than thou statement of not naming names.  Weasel journalism....

This sucker is so outdated I don't know what good anyone thinks it does. All I see is that lots of hard working UHV employees are grossly underpaid.

On the other hand:
Taxpayers pay these salaries and have a right to know where it is being spent.
Your kid might decide that "staying in school" has it's rewards and might someday be a college professor.
IMO the criteria of each and every job listed is not really necessary unless you want to apply and are qualified.
Given the means by which the paper reported the salarys (nameless, age, gender, race, mean wage, etc.) is fine with me.
Attacking the paper sounds defensive. Are you the witch we are hunting? If not, why the attitude?

Here's another thought.

To make this a truly relevant database the Advocate should also publish job requirements such as education level required, experiences, etc. Also, why not report on the major accomplishments of the positions.

Then the database could truly be used for comparative purposes. As it stands now, it's just a salary database, the sole purpose of which is to stir the pot.

If the Victoria Advocate truly wanted to make this information available for the public's benefit it would send reporters to the budget hearings of all the public entities in the county and let us know where all our tax
dollars are going.

When I look at how newspapers around the country and globe cover local fiscal issues, I see in depth examination of entire budgets. I see questions about spending programs that don't seem to have had much benefit or payoff.

Salaries are a small part of those reports because salaries will be paid regardless of who is in the position. Tie the performance to the person in the position and then if necessary question salary and whether or not the person should be in the position.

Advocate reporters should be at budget hearings and taking a hard look at budgetary spending (not just salaries)and start questioning why money is being spent on certain projects and if the return on that investment is warranted.

This salary thing is the equivalent of a witch hunt.

I really cannot see any benefit or reason that the VA would decide to publish salaries of the UH of V employees, other than to stir the pot. What business is the salary of these good people to the general public? The least the VA should do is to publicize the salaries of all their employees to show what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

"This is the first installment of an ongoing review of salaries paid by Victoria County entities..."
Why did the paper start with a state supported entity and not entities supported directly by Victoria City and/or County tax dollars.  It would've made much more sense to start with the City of Victoria, County of Victoria, Citizens Medical Center, VISD, Victoira College, etc, etc. and then expand to state supported entities such as UHV.  Will the paper also publish the salaries of other state entities working in Victoria such as UTMB, DPS, lotto officials, wildlife, etc.
Your efforts to hide identities was useless.  I can look at the at database and know exactly who the person is in many of the positions, especially those with only one person in the position. 
You can blame the decision to do so on the ethics committee all you want.  Pandora's box has been opened.
Let's hope the consequences aren't negative and people's lives aren't ruined by your shortsightedness and desire to sell more papers.

2007 victoria estimates

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_47...