Topics
Publishers
Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
Rhino Times - 2017-06-08
Magazines / Newspapers | Government 2017-06-08 00:00:00
Page 1 of 4
  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 1

    Vol. V No. 23 Greensboro, North Carolina www.rhinotimes.com Thursday, June 8, 2017 University Top Salaries plus Under The Hammer, Uncle Orson Reviews Everything AND MORE DAVID WRAY FILES SLANDER LAWSUIT

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 2

    2 RHINO TIMES | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | www.rhinotimes.com THE WEEKLY Hammer The Weekly Hammer by John Hammer The News & Record has a long history of personal attacks on state Sen. Trudy Wade. Now the News & Observer in Raleigh has joined the party. The N&O apparently believes in the old lawyers adage: “When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the Newspapers Fighting for Inequality law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names.” Wade (R-Guilford) has two bills making their way through the General Assembly to level the playing field. Both have passed the Senate and await their fate in the House. Both make a lot of sense, so the News & Observer, instead of writing an editorial about what is wrong with the laws, wrote one attacking Wade. Newspapers – years ago when the state government was completely controlled by their friends in the Democratic Party – had a law passed that exempted newspaper delivery drivers from being considered employees. One of Wade’s laws takes away this exemption and makes newspaper delivery drivers fall under the same laws that apply to other employers in the state. If the drivers meet the criteria to be considered employees, and not independent contractors, then they will be employees. Under the current law a delivery driver can meet all the criteria for employees and still be an independent contractor because newspapers have a special exemption. Back when the special exemption was passed, and newspapers were delivered to homes largely by boys on foot or on bicycles, the exemption made sense. But when was the last time you saw a young man riding his bike packed with newspapers down the street, throwing one onto nearly every driveway? The world has changed but the law has not. The N&O evidently couldn’t think of a good reason that newspapers should be exempt from the employment laws of the state and instead attacked Wade. The other bill concerning newspapers that has passed the Senate would replace a law originally passed in the early part of the last century requiring public and legal notices to be placed in a newspaper with paid circulation. The law effectively gives paid circulation newspapers a monopoly on this type advertising, which is required by state law. Advertising via radio, billboard, television, direct mail, free publications (like this one) – no matter how many people are reached – does not qualify for public or legal notices. In today’s world the law is archaic. Much of the legal and public advertising in Guilford County is done in the Jamestown News, which has paid circulation mainly in Jamestown, one of the smaller municipalities in Guilford County, but meets the requirements, whereas advertising in free publications or anywhere that is not in a paid circulation newspaper does not. Under the current law, a city could send a notice by direct mail to every residence in the city and it wouldn’t meet the requirements for public notice. The bill sponsored by Wade would allow counties and municipalities to place public notices on their own websites to meet the requirements of the law; it also would allow counties to accept paid public and legal notices to be placed on their websites. And there is another twist. Of the revenue collected by the county for these public and legal notices, 80 percent would go to the schools to fund teacher salaries. The bill does not prohibit advertising in paid circulation newspapers. They would still meet the legal requirements for public and legal notices, but the bill does provide competition for those newspapers. It’s much like the employee law in that the bill levels the playing field. It’s no wonder the N&O didn’t attack this second bill, because, despite the fact it is taking revenue away from privately owned newspapers, it is awarding the lion’s share to the schools. The idea that more people in Guilford County have access to the information published in the Jamestown News than on the Guilford County website is absurd. In addition, paid circulation newspapers over the years have grossly overcharged for these legal and public notices because they had a state-mandated monopoly. If this bill becomes law, paid circulation newspapers will still be able to run these notices, but they will have competition. So what the bill actually does is introduce some free market principles to public and legal notice advertising. It means that to continue to publish these legally required ads, paid circulation newspapers will likely have to lower their rates to compete with county websites. Even the N&O couldn’t find much wrong witt the bill, which is why instead of writing about the problems with it, the N&O chose to attack Wade. Newspapers have a powerful lobby in Raleigh that is working hard to keep the laws favoring newspapers the way they are, but Wade has been able to get bipartisan support for the bills in the state Senate. Now it is up to the state House as to whether it wants to continue to grant special privileges to newspapers or not.

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 3

    www.rhinotimes.com | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | RHINO TIMES 3

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 4

    4 RHINO TIMES | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | www.rhinotimes.com RHINO SHORTS by John Hammer The Rhino Times First Schmoozefest of Summer is Thursday, June 22 from 6 to 8 p.m. at Kickback Jack’s at 1600 Battleground Ave. Those who sign in and wear a name tag are welcome to enjoy free hors d’oeuvres and beer and wine (while supplies last). First Tee of the Triad is holding a big golf equipment sale on Saturday, June 17 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Gillespie Golf Course at 306 E. Florida St. The sale includes gently used new clubs, bags, tees and balls at great prices. During the budget season, the various agreements between Greensboro and Guilford County usually become a matter of debate on both sides of Governmental Plaza. The City Council found out this week that Greensboro has 36 different contracts with Guilford County covering everything from animal control to libraries. One often ignored factor that Mayor Vaughan kept bringing up is that when Greensboro and Guilford County both participate in a project, the people of Greensboro pay twice – once with their Greensboro taxes and once with Guilford County taxes. I’m in 100 percent agreement with Mayor Nancy Vaughan about remaining in the Paris Accord global warming agreement with one caveat: In keeping with the theory that global warming is the biggest threat to the country, the city of Greensboro should not participate in burning fossil fuels to produce energy. The city would only operate electric vehicles charged with renewable energy and only use electricity made with renewable energy in its facilities. This would mean that on windless days the City Council would have to adjourn meetings at dusk, and on windless, cloudy days it couldn’t meet at all. It will be tough on the Greensboro Coliseum since it could only hold events during the day or on really windy nights, but we all have to do our part to keep global warming at bay. The New York Times offered a buyout to its editors last week. How many editors they were trying to shed has not been announced, but they might be better off getting rid of some people in marketing. I was a long time subscriber and stopped my subscription when The New York Times became more interested in printing liberal propaganda than the news, something they admitted – but not in those exact words – after the election. I receive constant emails giving me limited time offers to re-subscribe. I either get a limited-time-offer for 50 percent off or a limited-time-offer for 75 percent off. The time limit runs out and the next week I get another limitedtime-offer. If I have turned down the 75 percent-off offer, why would I take the 50 percent-off offer when I know if I wait a few days the 75 percent-off offer will be back? It’s like a store that has a goingout-of-business sale every couple of months; after a few years people start doubting its veracity. Tom Foolery CLEAN, SECURE, SAFE, INDOOR www.Beesafe.com on NC Highway 68 near I-40 • Loading dock available at the Battleground location Tom Foolery • All interior storage units are fully climate controlled • Sizes from 5’ x 5’ to 10’ x 30’ • Wine storage with temperature and humidity control • Wine storage units from 2’ x 2’ to 3’ x 6’ • Postal service available onsite at the Battleground location 3 GREAT LOCATIONS 1016 Battleground Avenue Greensboro, NC (336) 332-0123 4435 Jessup Grove Road Greensboro, NC (across from Proehlifi c Park) (336) 605-3202 NOW OPEN 704 Sunshine Way, Greensboro on NC Highway 68 near I-40 (336) 279-7100

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 5

    www.rhinotimes.com | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | RHINO TIMES 5 table of CONTENTS 2 WEEKLY HAMMER BY JOHN HAMMER 6 DAVID WRAY FILES ANOTHER LAWSUIT BY JOHN HAMMER 8 COUNTY WANTS DIVORCE FROM MENTAL HEALTH SHOTGUN WEDDING BY SCOTT D. YOST 10 TOP SALARIES FROM GSO’S STATE UNIVERSITIES 11 SPEAKERS ATTACK CITY COUNCIL FOR BEING IMPOLITE BY JOHN HAMMER 12 BUDGET GIVES SCHOOLS $194M BY SCOTT D. YOST 14 HARDER TO INSPECT RESTAURANTS, SO FEWER INSPECTED BY SCOTT D. YOST 15 UNCLE ORSON BY ORSON SCOTT CARD 23 YOST COLUMN BY SCOTT D. YOST 25 ASK CAROLYN ... BY CAROLYN WOODRUFF 35 UNDER THE HAMMER BY JOHN HAMMER 4 RHINO SHORTS 7 SUDOKU 14, 27 PUZZLE ANSWERS 17 REAL ESTATE 18 NYT CROSSWORD 19 CHILDREN’S SCHEDULE 21 THE SOUND OF THE BEEP 28 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Cover: Mayor’s Cup at Lake Townsend on Saturday. Photo by Sandy Groover. More photos page 30 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF John Hammer managing editor ELAINE HAMMER county editor SCOTT D. YOST PUBLISHER Roy Carroll GENERAL MANAGER Joann Zollo creative director ANTHONY COUNCIL advertising consultants DONNA GOODWIN contributing editor ORSON SCOTT CARD 216 West Market Street, Greensboro NC 27401 P.O. Box 9023, Greensboro NC 27429 | (336) 763-4170 (336) 763-2585 fax | sales@rhinotimes.com | www.rhinotimes.com

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 6

    6 RHINO TIMES | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | www.rhinotimes.com David Wray Files Slander Lawsuit, This Time It’s Personal by John Hammer Former Greensboro Police Chief David Wray filed a slander lawsuit against Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan and City Attorney Tom Carruthers last week. This lawsuit seems to be the result of the city forgetting why it refused to pay Wray’s legal fees, which is not as strange as it sounds. According to the lawsuit, filed by Wray’s attorney Ken Keller of Carruthers & Roth, when City Attorney Tom Carruthers was asked why the city was not paying Wray’s legal fees, Carruthers was quoted in the June 11, 2016 News & Record as saying that “four city managers have taken the position that David Wray’s actions were malicious.” The lawsuit also states that Vaughan was quoted in a N&R article on June 20, 2016 stating that “the city ‘felt there was maliciousness behind’ David Wray’s actions.” When Vaughan was asked why she used the word maliciousness, she said, “that is the word that the city attorney used and that is in the statute.” She said, “The way Tom [Carruthers] laid it out was that what Wray did was beyond the scope of his authority.” She added, “I am not a lawyer. I rely on the legal advice of our city attorney.” She noted that in her quote, where she used maliciousness, she was attempting to state the position of the city as she understood it at the time, and that both malicious behavior and outside the scope of his authority are part of the same policy. After Carruthers made the statement about malice, Councilmember Tony Wilkins asked for a record of the four city managers alleging malice or maliciousness, and no written record of why Wray’s attorney’s fees were not paid could be found, even after the city staff searched the closed session minutes of City Council meetings. According to the city policy, it is up to the city manager to determine if the legal fees of a city employee will be paid, and the city can choose not to pay if the actions were not associated with their job or if they acted in a malicious, corrupt, fraudulent or oppressive manner. It appears that what happened in this case is that neither Carruthers nor Vaughan knew exactly why the city was not paying Wray’s legal fees and assumed that if fell under the clause about behavior. Carruthers was quoted in the July 26, 2016 Rhino Times as saying that he was trying to use shorthand for the city policy and used a “poor choice of words.” Wray has a lawsuit against the city challenging the city’s refusal to pay his legal expenses for lawsuits resulting from actions while he was police chief. That lawsuit is currently before the North Carolina Supreme Court for a ruling. Greensboro has a policy dating back to 1980 to pay the legal expenses of all city employees who are sued as a result of their actions as employees. Numerous city employees were sued in the rash of lawsuits that were precipitated by Wray’s forced resignation as police chief, including former City Manager Mitch Johnson, who was fired by the City Council on March 3, 2009. The city has paid the legal fees or reached an agreement with all of them except Wray. When the city refused to pay Wray’s $220,000 legal fees resulting from those lawsuits, Wray sued the city. Greensboro has now spent over $500,000 defending itself against Wray’s initial lawsuit now before the state Supreme Court. In its defense, the city has not argued that Wray was acting maliciously or outside the scope of his office. The city’s argument is that Wray can’t sue Greensboro because Greensboro has Nancy Vaughan Tom Carruthers David Wray governmental immunity. The Superior Court ruled in Greensboro’s favor that Wray could not sue the city. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling in Wray’s favor that Greensboro did not have governmental immunity in this case. The arguments were made before the North Carolina Supreme Court in May and a decision is expected sometime this summer. If Wray wins his appeal that means Greensboro will have to go to court and explain the rational for not following the city policy and paying Wray’s legal bills. Since the city has reported that there is no written record of why Wray’s legal fees were not paid, that might not be easy. After Carruthers and Vaughan made their comments about “malice” being the reason that Wray’s legal bills were not paid, Wilkins, by a vote of the City Council, received the authority to look at Wray’s personnel file. Wilkins said he could not discuss the contents of the file but did say that the file showed that Wray had had an “exemplary” career with the Greensboro Police Department and there was nothing in the file to indicate any charges that he had ever acted with malice. The original decision not to pay Wray’s legal expenses was made by (continued on next page)

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 7

    wray (continued from previous page) Johnson who was then city manager. Johnson locked Wray out of his office on Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 and then forced Wray to resign on Monday, Jan. 9. At the time, Johnson and the City Council said that they expected the investigation of the Police Department while Wray was police chief to result in serious criminal charges against Wray and some of his command staff. Despite lengthy investigations, no charges were ever filed against Wray or anyone on his command staff. But the forced resignation did result in a flurry of lawsuits against Greensboro, Wray, Johnson and others. In those lawsuits Greensboro defended the actions of Wray in court repeatedly. Several suits were based on the “black book,” which the city argued in court was the result of rumor but didn’t actually exist. The black book was supposed to contain the photo of every black Greensboro police officer and shown to a wide variety of people in an attempt to bring allegations against black police officers. It seems the truth is that this case between Wray and the City of Greensboro has become like a family feud, where after several generations people feuding don’t even know how the feud got started. Evidently neither Carruthers nor Vaughan actually knew why Wray’s legal fees were not being paid. Carruthers, as he said, tried to use shorthand for the city policy when he used the term “malice” in giving the reason why the city had refused to pay the legal fees, but it turned out he was summarizing the wrong part of the policy. The part of the policy that, according to the current city stance, does apply is a bunch of legal language stating the city will pay the legal fees “when resulting from any act done or omission made, or any act allegedly done or omission allegedly made, in the scope and course of their employment or duty as employees or officers of the City.” The portion of the policy that was being shorthanded by Carruthers and then repeated by Vaughan based on Carruthers statement is, “except and unless it is determined that an officer or employee (1) acted or failed to act because of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice, or (2) acted or failed to act in a wanton or oppressive manner.” According to the slander statutes, a person has to know that the slanderous statement is false or have shown reckless disregard for the facts, www.rhinotimes.com | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | RHINO TIMES 7 meaning that they should have known that it was false. The lawsuit alleges that since Carruthers was the city attorney and had been an assistant city attorney before that, and since Vaughan as mayor, and as a councilmember before that during the time the city has been involved in the lawsuit, they should have known the reason that Wray’s legal fees were not being paid and knew, or should have known, that there was never an accusation of malice or corruption. However, it may be difficult to prove that either Carruthers or Vaughan knew or should have known the reason for not paying the legal fees. As noted, there is no written record of why the legal fees were not being paid. The lawsuit before the state Supreme Court is not being argued on the merits of the case, but on whether the city’s claim of governmental immunity is correct or not. The Wray lawsuit could have been discussed numerous times in detail without anyone ever mentioning the reason that Johnson decided not to pay Wray’s legal fees, because the case in the courts now has nothing to do with the validity of that decision but with Wray’s legal right to sue. Hyper-Sudoku The New York Times

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 8

    8 RHINO TIMES | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | www.rhinotimes.com Guilford County Wants Divorce From Mental Health Shotgun Wedding by Scott D. Yost Officials in Guilford County are fed up with the current state of mental health services and aren’t going to take it anymore. The county is now exploring all legal options for a potential pullout from its state mandated participation in Sandhills Center Inc. – a ninecounty mental health administrative entity. County leaders want to bring control of mental health services back to Guilford County, where it was before Jan. 1, 2013. Chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners Jeff Phillips said this week that, if getting out of the current situation requires a change in state law, then so be it. He said, however, that a change in current law may not be needed, that the county has options for taking more control even under the current Sandhillsrun structure and that current conditions warrant the county’s strong consideration of any and all options for regaining its control of mental health services. Every major service that Guilford County currently provides citizens is based in Guilford County except one – mental health. Somewhat unbelievably, that critical function is run out of West End, North Carolina – a small unincorporated community in Moore County that’s over an hour’s drive due south. County officials have never before even hinted publicly at an attempted escape from the state mandated system that put Guilford County’s services under Sandhills years ago, but at a special, Wednesday, May 31 committee meeting of Guilford County commissioners, representatives of affected departments and other county staff discussed ways that Guilford County might get out of the current arrangement or work around it. The conversation at the meeting made it crystal clear that, behind the scenes, those talks had been moving along briskly in this direction. “We have discussed, at length, the notion – I think without a lot of metrics thus far,” Phillips said of breaking away from Sandhills. “Though I think we’re starting to make some headway in taking mental health services and behavioral health services back as a county, versus what we have today.” Phillips, who’s been a volunteer in programs that address homelessness and mental health issues, added, “We’ve got to be more proactive and their needs to be more accountability. It worked better before. We don’t have a choice; we must move in some manner – I think in a different and hopefully better direction.” Like many at the meeting who advocated pulling out of Sandhills or making other moves to gain more local control, Phillips stated that this was in no way an indictment of Sandhills. He said it was instead a result of the systematic forced removal of local control of mental health services from a large county and a transfer of that power to a nine-county collective where Guilford County had very limited say. The county is funding its mental health services to the tune of about $10 million every year, but due to the current management structure the county has limited power over how that money is used. Phillips said there were a lot of Photo by Scott D. Yost Former Guilford County mental health director Billie Martin Pierce uses visual aids to make her point about mental health coverage in the media. people doing great work, including those at Sandhills, but he added, “To say the system is broken is an understatement.” He said the process would be complex and the first step was for Guilford County to understand its (continued on next page)

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 9

    www.rhinotimes.com | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | RHINO TIMES 9 health (continued from previous page) alternatives. “I know it’s premature to suggest emphatically that that’s what we’re going to do,” Phillips said of pulling out of Sandhills. Commissioner Alan Perdue, who served as director of Guilford County Emergency Services for decades before retiring from that job and becoming a commissioner in 2014, said such an important move would take a lot of work. Perdue said the next step is for Guilford County Manager Marty Lawing and his staff to determine the county’s options. Perdue cited several different ways in which being part of the Sandhills system was problematic. For instance, he said, transporting addicts to a Sandhills clinic in Asheboro rather than in Guilford County was a burden on county staff and others. “Asheboro doesn’t sound like it’s that far away, but when you’re sending ambulances and GPD [Greensboro Police Department] and High Point PD and Guilford County sheriff’s officers, who are already short staffed, to Asheboro, that impacts operational efficiency and increases our budget. That ‘one size fits all’ mentality that often gets shoved down our throat doesn’t work.” Like others in the room, Perdue said he meant “no disrespect to Sandhills.” Guilford County Emergency Services Director Jim Albright also said the current situation was unacceptable and said that something needs to be done. “If you go around the room, are we happy where it is today? No,” he said. “The ‘how do we get there’ is the super complex part. Can we? What are the options that Raleigh allows for us, and then what do we do if they don’t allow divestiture. Where do we go from there and how do we make it more effective?” Like Perdue, Albright cited many shortfalls in the county’s current arrangements when it comes to dealing with mental health patients. He said many people get out of the jail system only to end up right back on the county’s hands. Albright said the patient may get therapy and medication but, then, once released from that initial treatment service, he or she may not know where to go. That transition period is the downfall, Albright said. “So when they don’t know where to go,” he said, “particularly when it’s cold and wet, etc., they end up calling 911, we pick them up and they end up at Wesley Long [Hospital].” Until 2013, Guilford County had a county-run mental health department called the Guilford Center that oversaw mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse services for county residents. A change in state law forced Guilford County – and other counties across the state – to merge those services in order to create efficiencies through economies of scale. By law, all counties except the two largest – Mecklenburg and Wake counties – had to join mental health collectives, and Guilford County, after more than a year of negotiations, finally chose Sandhills to be its shotgun wedding partner. One very interesting aspect of the current situation is that, before the initial legislation requiring consolidations passed years ago, a simple phone call from county officials to state legislators would have saved Guilford County from the forced merger. If the county had just asked, state legislators certainly would have allowed Guilford County an exemption. At the time, it apparently never occurred to anyone in Guilford County government – including the commissioners – that the state would be willing to make a minor adjustment in the legislation. The state allowed an exemption for the two largest counties and all it would have taken to exempt Guilford County is slightly lowering the population exemption requirement to allow self-determination for the three largest counties rather than the two largest. Several state legislators said, after the law was in place, that if Guilford County had made that request, they would have been fine with it. Current county leaders are now trying to pick up the ball that was dropped by the county years ago. The May 31 committee meeting had a surprising guest that further illustrated the seriousness of Guilford County’s effort to set mental health services free. The committee brought in longtime former Guilford Center Director Billie Martin Pierce to get her advice on the way things were and the way to get back there. Pierce retired from the director’s job six years ago citing the massive consolidation and its harm to the mental health system as the main reason for her departure. Pierce said this week that, though she’d never met Lawing, she got a call recently from the county manager asking if she would meet with the committee. Since the state’s forced consolidation, Guilford County – and many other counties across the state – have, just as Pierce predicted, seen an increase in mental health problems and had more mental patients ending up in the jails. There’s also been an increase in complaints from local mental health care providers about the way services are administered and the obvious deterioration in those services, which seems to be the key reason Guilford County is now ready to revolt against the status quo. Guilford County officials didn’t like the merger idea when it began about a decade ago, but, though the initial legislation carved out an exception for the state’s two most populous counties, it didn’t extend that choice to Guilford County, the third largest county in the state. (Both Mecklenburg County and Wake County eventually entered into mental health collectives, making the state’s counties 100 for 100 in that regard.) At the meeting, Phillips pointed out that, now, unlike five years ago, Guilford County has in excess of a half million residents – which was the cutoff point for allowing exemptions. He said Guilford County may have more latitude now that it is over that population threshold. Guilford County Attorney Mark Payne said this week that he was in the early stages of researching the legal possibilities for the county regarding these discussions. Commissioner Kay Cashion, who serves as the county’s liaison to Sandhills, and who sits on that board, said at the committee meeting, “I would love for us to have a building that says ‘Guilford County Mental Health/ Behavioral Health Substance Abuse Services,’ where you would know where to go. You take them in that door and they get whatever they get there. I don’t know if we can do it again. I don’t know if we can unwrap this or not.” Phillips said a county the size and scope of Guilford County ought to have a significant influence on state legislators. Albright said, “You know, it was complicated back in the day; I’m not going to say it was easy and it worked perfectly every time – but there was accountability.” He said that accountability was there because Pierce reported to a local board. Pierce seemed invigorated by the (continued on page 13)

  • Add to bookmarks Add to subscriptions Share
    Page 10

    10 RHINO TIMES | Thursday, June 8, 2017 | www.rhinotimes.com Top Salaries from GSO’s State Universities by John Hammer Every year when we publish the City of Greensboro, Guilford County and Guilford County Schools salaries we get calls and letters saying that we should include the two state universities in Greensboro. This year we are doing some of that. We are publishing the top 100 salaries for both the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and North Carolina Agriculture and Technology State University. From these salaries it appears the folks with government jobs making the big bucks work for the university system. UNCG Chancellor Frank Gilliam is paid $381,000, which is nearly $100,000 more than the highest paid employee on the city, county and schools lists, which is Matt Brown at $288,000. In fact, the top four on the UNCG list all make more than Brown. Dean James Ryan at $363,000, Provost and Vice Chancellor Dana Dunn at $311,000, and Dean McRae Banks at $295,000. (For a comparison, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is paid $141,000.) On the NC A&T list, Harold Martin at $365,000 is pretty close to Gilliam and far above anyone on the previously published lists of government employees in Greensboro. But the next closest salary is that of Head Football Coach Rod Broadway at $299,000. It’s worth noting that also, unlike the employees on the city, county and schools lists, both chancellors receive free housing. After the football coach, the next highest paid employee on the NC A&T list is Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Whitehead at $266,000. The drop off after the chancellor at NC A&T is much greater than at UNCG, which seems odd until you consider that UNCG, with over 19,000 students is nearly twice as large as NC A&T with over 11,000. So it makes sense for the top employees to be paid less, but it does raise the question as to why the chancellors are paid nearly the same. When you consider that Superintendent of Schools Sharon Contreras is paid $250,000 to run a 72,000 student school system, City Manager Jim Westmoreland is paid $206,000 to run a city of over 280,000 and County Manager Marty Lawing is paid $197,000 to run a county of over 500,000, university salaries are far higher than other government salaries in Greensboro. We have only printed the top 100 salaries at both UNCG and NC A&T, but number 100 on the salary list at UNCG is $131,700 and at A&T is $119,600. Greensboro is unique in the state in that it has two separate state universities and both were founded based on past discrimination. UNCG was created to provide a state school of higher education for women, and for decades was known as the Woman’s College of North Carolina. In the 1940s, Woman’s College was the largest college for women in the country. NC A&T was founded because black students were not allowed to attend whi te colleges and universities in the state system until the 1950s. A&T is currently the largest historically black university in the country. NC A&T SU Martin, Harold Chancellor $365,400 Broadway, Rod Head Football Coach $299,290 Whitehead, Joe Provost/Vice Chanc $266,438 Sigmon, Kenneth VC Dev/Univ Relations $253,750 Mcewen, Beryl Dean, College Econ $248,675 Coger-Simmons, R Dean, Engineering $231,515 Burks, Barry Lee Vice Chanc Research $214,317 Pompey, Robert Vice Chancellor Bus $203,000 Pierce, Melody VC Student Affairs $194,958 Kelkar, Ajit Professor/Chair $194,834 Waldrup, John General Counsel $190,982 Sarin, Sanjiv Dean/Vice Provost $190,686 Thompson, Alton Exec Director $185,000 Hilton, Earl Director Athletics $182,700 Ahmidouch, A. Professor/Chair $181,629 Campbell, Lenora Dean Col Health $177,500 Graham, Anthony Dean College Educ $176,739 Jones Johnson, G Dean Col Arts $175,000 James, Kevin Assoc Prof/Chair $174,565 Fort, Edward Professor $173,691 Alexander, Cyrus Devel Officer, Sr $172,550 Knisley, Stephen Professor/Chair $172,550 Smith, Ericka VC HR $172,550 Ferguson, Fred Professor/Chair $171,523 Jenkins, Gregory Vice Provost $171,454 Owens-Jackson, L Ass Dean/Ass Prof $171,300 Ram, B Assc Dean/Engin $169,505 Smith-Jackson, T Professor/Chair $169,421 Graves, Joseph Assoc Dean/Prof $168,433 Jackson, Henry Asst VC/DoIT $166,650 Pride, Nicole Chief of Staff $162,654 Wagner, David Phys Dir Student Hlth $162,400 Coleman, Vicki Dean Library Svcs $162,140 Hymon-Parker, S Assoc Dean $162,075 Robinson, Ernest Women’s Bskbl Coach $162,040 Sankar, J Professor $161,798 Udoka, Silvanus Assoc Prof/Chair $160,267 Huscroft, Joseph Assoc Prof/Chair $160,000 Liang, Chyi Lyi Distinguished Prof $160,000 Byrd, Goldie Professor/Dir $159,135 Dozier, Gerry Professor/Chair $158,340 Gloster, Clay Assoc Dean Grad Stu $158,100 Williams, Leonard Dir/Cent-Exc PostHarv $157,325 Ward, Terry Assoc Professor $156,815 Jost, Muktha Vice Prov Strat Plan $155,395 Hart, Erin Hill Assoc Vice Provost $155,295 Williams, Vereda Assoc Prof/Chair $153,391 Lyons, Lorenza Exec Admin $148,782 Perkins, Andrew Assoc VC Facilities $143,010 Fennell, Ralph Exec Director $142,688 Snyder, Lisa Professor/Chair $142,100 Kelly, John Assoc Prof/Chair $141,083 Homaifar, A Professor $139,959 Bond, Mitzi Assoc VC Research $139,171 Dale, Rosalind Admin/Asso Dean $139,050 Luster Teasley, S Assoc Prof/Chair $138,845 Giddings, Valerie Assoc Prof/Chair $138,827 Bikdash, Marwan Chair, Comp Sci $137,213 Cundall, Michael Assoc Pf/Dir Honors $136,604 Mcbride, Maranda Dir Trans Inst $133,980 Williams, Marc Assoc VC/Dean $133,980 (continued on page 13) Gilliam, Franklin Chancellor $380,625 Ryan, James Dean $363,213 Dunn, Dana Provost/Vice Chanc $310,590 Banks, McRae Dean $294,475 Zink, Janis Vice Chancellor $277,095 Maimone, Charles Vice Chancellor $259,456 Boyette, Joel Senior Vice Provost $243,274 Kiss, John Dean/Professor $230,000 Brown, William Associate Dean $226,196 Palvia, Prashant Distinguished Prof $221,077 Johnston, Timothy Professor $219,899 Boles, James Professor/Dept Head $219,007 Remsburg, Robin Professor/Dean $218,477 Alexander, Peter Dean $213,790 Hooper, Celia Dean $213,790 Shelton, Terri Res VC/Econ/Dist Prof $210,436 Bray, Jeremy Professor/Head $208,356 Penfi eld, Randall Dean/Professor $208,200 Blakemore, Jerry General Counsel $205,000 Welsh, Dianne Distinguished Prof $204,153 Winkler, Daniel Prof/Interim Dept Head $202,884 Heath, Donna Interim Vice Chancellor $200,400 Brady, Linda Professor $196,050 Terry, Bryan Vice Chancellor $195,220 Callahan, Cheryl Vice Chancellor $195,004 Record, Kimberly Director $192,850 Shafer, Jeffrey Assoc Vice Chancellor $190,000 Miller, Warren Head Coach $186,760 Rhew, Steven Assoc Vice Chancellor $181,252 Link, Albert Distinguished Prof $180,284 Hendrickson, C. Medical Director $180,000 Fine, Mark Professor/Dept Chair $175,558 Wallace, Debra Associate Dean $175,425 Davidson, Kristine Assoc Vice Chancellor $175,000 Faeth, Stanley Professor/Assoc Dean $174,743 Gargeya, V. Professor/Dept Head $174,565 Burke, Kelly Vice Provost $173,040 Herr, Daniel Professor/Chair $172,829 Eddy, James Dean/Professor $171,272 Lovelady, Cheryl Assoc Dean/Professor $170,461 Moone, Michelle Assoc Vice Chancellor $168,500 Thornton, Gloria Director $166,362 Shivaji, R. Professor/Dept Head $164,970 Buttner, Eleanor Professor $163,767 Crowe, Kathryn Interim Dean $162,218 Jenkens, Alton Associate Dean $162,079 Acquaah, Moses Professor/Dept Head $159,968 Quintal, Jorge Assoc Vice Chancellor $159,287 Calkins, Susan Excellence Professor $159,006 Demo, David Associate Dean $158,594 Huang, Dayong Associate Professor $154,854 Zhou, Zhanxiang Professor/Co-Director $154,077 Meints, Jenna Assistant Professor $153,940 Gyampah, Kwasi Professor $153,611 Lulseged, Ayalew Assoc Professor $153,371 An, Heng Assistant Professor $151,799 Iyer, Venkataraman Professor $150,228 Nova, Craig Distinguished Prof $150,084 Hoffart, Nancy Distinguished Prof $150,000 Sunda, Kristine Executive Director $150,000 Tate, Stephen Professor/Dept Head $149,440

Page 1 of 4

Please wait