BLS

Your own words, which suggest that performance was part of this.


"I don't see how we have enough context from our vantage point to know with any degree of certainty. We don't know what she's accomplished in the role, the scope of it, or what the market would pay her otherwise.“

Yes, but I didn't say that in response to somebody saying "is this a performance bonus?"

I recognize and have acknowledged the terms of the bonus. I even provided context for how/when companies use those bonuses. So obviously I'm distinguishing between the two.

That was in response to the following:

"In my humble opinion, however, no one "deserves" a 100k bonus if anyone is getting laid off for financial reasons."

The reason performance was being discussed is in the context of whether or not her performance in her role merits the compensation package she negotiated. That posted doesn't think it's possible given the circumstances. I just stated that we have no real way of knowing how she has performed and the value she's brought, but that I don't think it's impossible to earn her salary and retention bonus.

It's unclear to me what you actually disagree with about that.

The interim President, in his letter to the editor throwing Schaffer under the bus, stated that "he saw nothing irregular" in the trustees handling of this.

It seems like the trustees have the ability to make compensation changes for certain employees, but that those changes need to be signed off on by the President. The President signed the contract.

What do you see as irregular in this?

He also said "I never would have initiated a conversation with her on this topic because I did not believe her performance was sufficiently meritorious to warrant such an incentive to stay. Had she proposed such a conversation I would have declined to do so, just as I declined to act on any number of other suggestions she made while I was interim president."

In other words, he wasn't particularly impressed with her performance.

He felt it necessary to tell his side of the story. I respect that far more than someone who simply spews the company line. Going along has gotten us into way too many messes.

Go back and read his letter to the editor. It clearly states his version of the story which is different from the narrative that the university has spun. He had every reason and right to set the record straight. Whether he signed the contract or not is immaterial - his employer, the trustees, had already agreed to grant the bonus.

https://www.athensnews.com/opinion/letters/former-interim...

This conversation is like two cats chasing each other around a barrel for eternity. As for speaking up back then, his letter makes it very clear that they had already made up their minds.

". . . the narrative claims, citing a university spokesperson, that the bonus"was also made at the direction of the OU Board of Trustees.” Allow me to provide some additional context. At the spring 2017 Trustees meeting, I was approached by two Trustees who asked to talk with me in private. They told me that the Trustees had decided to award Ms. Shaffer a retention bonus to secure her services through June 2020. They made it plain that they were seeking neither my input nor my approval because the Trustees had already decided."

I don't consider it petty finger pointing but simply defending himself by stating the facts as he recalled them. I live here and he has lived in our neighborhood for 23 years so I'm much closer to the daily conversation around this. Quite pointedly, many if not most in town are appalled by this. As for signing up to work for OU, I'd say the university has much bigger image problems and issues than this.

And the fact that the said employee also is employed directly by the board and was voted on in secret screams 100x over of an issue.

Only thing I'm appalled about, or at least puzzled by, is the apparent necessity of using quote boxes. And the reason? Because no one needs to re-read posts. . . maybe that is optics.

You're right, nobody needs to re-read posts. But the option is there if they want to. Feel free to focus yourself lower on the page.

I disagree with your basic premise.

Because only people who haven't run a capital-heavy business fail to see continuity of a CFO as a valid business reason.

Just to be very, very clear: We're talking about retaining the Chief Financial Officer of the University in the midst of the worst financial crisis the higher education industry may ever see. Business reasons don't get more valid than that.

And again, Descutner himself stated he saw nothing unusual in the board suggesting an executive's compensation, because the University by laws give them the right to do so. That right is reserved for the board and the President, but in all cases, has to be signed off on by the President.

The President's signature is on this document. If you want to believe the board steamrolled him and forced the decision on him, so be it. But that doesn't negate the very obvious business need you're attempting to gloss over, and once you stop glossing over that, what you're left with is a board of trustees that suggested a comp plan designed to retain the Chief Financial Officer of the University that was signed off on by a lame-duck President who had no actual power.

And that comp plan kicked in 5 months into the biggest financial crisis the higher education industry's ever seen, and 5 months after said CFO took a 10% pay cut. In other words, there may well have been reason to start looking for jobs, were it not for said retention bonus. Or our CFO may have left in January, and we could have been mid-search when Covid hit.

Optics aside, the retention bonus served its purpose perfectly and couldn't have been better timed. We need a CFO right now and it's a good thing to have one that's familiar with the university's operating budget. Organizations with a billion dollar annual spend don't want to be switching horses mid-crisis.

So yeah, consider me non-plussed about this whole thing. And excuse me for thinking the folks so upset about this are missing the forrest for the trees.

We gave Frank Solich a 275,000 retention bonus for completing the 5 year contract he signed in 2008. He definitely earned that bonus, on top of already being the University's highest paid employee. Without him, would we have had a 43-24 record in an also-ran league that's not eligible for a national championship and doesn't attract fan interest?