Administrators must set the example at YSU

Administrators must set the example at YSU
EDITOR:
I would like to respond to Bertram de Souza's column of Dec. 8, "Has Reality Dawned at YSU." As a 20-year classified employee of YSU, I resent being included with the president and his top administrators as receiving an "exorbitant" increase in pay. Also, I would like to note that President Sweet did not tell the trustees to give us anything. Over the course of the summer our union was fighting tooth and nail in very difficult contract negotiations. All our union leaders heard were threats about give backs and cut backs in health care. We fully expected to go on strike -- and why? For sure not because we expected "exorbitant" pay increases.
All we wanted was to keep our health care and basically cover cost of living increases. Ultimately, this is about what we got.
Mr. de Souza lists Dr. Sweet's annual compensation package at $325,520 and he has been here less than 3 years.(Editor's note: That figure was miscalculated. It should have read $260,720.) After 20 years, I earn about one-tenth this amount and am my own sole support. There are many other people here who earn approximately what I do and out of this amount support children, elderly parents and even a few husbands. Would it please Mr. de Souza to see people like us apply for public assistance, food stamps, etc? Would that benefit our area?
Is it the average YSU employee's fault that we have seen increases in administration and cut backs in faculty and staff positions? The June 27 Jambar reported that YSU faculty has decreased by 23 percent since 1991 while administration has increased by 31.3 percent since 1993. The Board of Trustees seemed content to let this happen. If they are now truly concerned about the situation, this is where they should focus. If anyone has to give back, let the highest paid go first and set the example for the rest of us.
LENA FABRIZIO
Youngstown
Make incumbents pay for unequal treatment
EDITOR:
I recently learned that my Social Security cost-of-living increase will be 1.4 percent. This will give me the grand total of $168 per year more spending power. How does this compare with the 3.5 percent ($5,000) the congressmen gave themselves?
I can't compare everything because many items I consider luxuries beyond my reach are common fare for the elite. I don't buy much filet or lobster! However the bread I buy has gone from 99 & cent; to $1.29. Milk is up from $1.69 to $1.99. Margarine, 99 & cent; to $1.29. Ground beef, 99 & cent; to $1.59. These prices are when on sale. Everything else has gone up at least as much percentage wise. Some things like medication are much higher.
We need to vote no on all tax increases no matter how much they are needed until every civil servant elected, union, or appointed are held to the same standards as the taxpayers who fill the bottomless trough from which all government bodies draw.
The solution is simple. Until the Congress rescinds the raise it gave itself, tell all incumbents they will not get another vote. Tell them to put all their huge pension plans in with Social Security and let them live like the people who pay their salary.
We also need to take the word career out of politics. Incumbents tend to become disconnected from the working class who are taxed to poverty paying for their lose spending habits. Nearly all public employees are grossly over paid. Their benefits and pension plans are not even close to equitable with the common people. Every pay check that comes from the taxpayer trough should be adjusted to reflect the community norm.
None of these things will ever happen because the voters don't care enough. This was evident by election 2002.
ROBERT HUSTED
New Springfield
AMA got what it wanted in Ohio, now what?
EDITOR:
Re: Ohio State Medical Association's Tort Reform Success
For shame! The Ohio State Medical Association's tort reform success in the General Assembly is about complete. Yet another victory can be scored by the American Medical Association's national leader Dr. Donald Palmisano. This bonesetter-become-attorney, Dr. Palmisano is the voice of more than 500,000 physicians and surgeons.
By his recent triumph in Ohio (and earlier in Pennsylvania), Dr. Palmisano has signaled to physicians and patients alike that no tactic is too sordid nor twist of debate too meretricious to satisfy that inept splintmeister's lust for power and his vocational conceit. Public esteem and goodwill toward physicians will be further eroded by Dr. Palmisano's short-sighted gains, because several important questions remain unanswered.
Dr. Palmisano has encouraged physicians to hold their patients' complaints hostage to his political wishes, to publicly threaten evacuation (Presumably to "physician-friendly" states) should legislatures fail to comply, and to "strike" in all but name should his demands not be met. Aren't these transparently extortionate bullyboy tactics a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Hippocratic oath? Should conscientious Valley physicians be expected to follow the thuggish party line dictated from the AMA's Chicago Fuhrerhauptquartier? Is Dr. Palmisano really a doctor?
Dr. Palmisano has encouraged physicians and legislators to falsely believe that their well-being is synonymous with the health of the nation. Tell that, Dr. Palmisano, to the 100 million Americans you've exiled from the promise of scientific medicine.
Dr. Palmisano told physicians, legislators, and the public the sky would fall should tort reform not be approved. It's been approved; the sky didn't fall. So, Dr. Palmisano, what fresh outrages will you conjure should there arise new threats, as you view them, to physicians' incomes and social perquisites?
Dr. Palmisano's leadership of the AMA is reason enough for Ohio legislators to expand the authority to practice given to physicians' assistants and nurse-practitioners.
JACK LABUSCH
Niles