yeah, but it doesn't mean that they can't act on it now from a financial standpoint. i.e., trim costs this year to increase their operating budget for next year.

most peoples pay is pretty set at this point, you can't just cut someones pay rate cause your afraid next year there won't be enough money. you just make them work harder and sell more advertisements which is the main source of income and cut out some sections.

I agree, some sections could be taken out but of course once that section is taken out people on campus will bitch. Selling ads is not easy. It just takes a lot of time and effort.

Oh, and the Section Editors get paid ~$125 every two weeks and the Business Manager, Managing Editor, and EIC get even more.

The Stuco President doesn't get that much, and then that's just a stipend to cover personal money spent on StuCo related activities (which they don't get until towards the end of their term, if memory serves me correctly).

Know the actual numbers before talking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bailey, Keith [mailto:Keith.Bailey@Williams.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:50 PM
To: news@therolladailynews.com
Cc: Midha, Ashok; Carney III, John F.
Subject: Attention Steve Sowers

Steve: I have been following the dialogue that is building around Chancellor Carney’s proposed name change for UMR and was in Rolla teaching last week and had a chance to discuss my perspective with the Engineering faculty at their monthly meeting and there was a suggestion I submit a letter to the editor for your consideration. This is it.

To the Editor:

As a 1964 graduate of the last class to carry the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy designation on our diploma I have been watching with interest as the discussion has unfolded around Chancellor’s suggestion that UMR consider adopting a name that is more descriptive of its educational mission. Since my graduation I have maintained an active engagement with the University including continuously serving on its Board of Trustees since it was formed by Chancellor Park and I chaired that group for two years as well. There has not been a time that I can recall that the Trustees have not been interested in seeing the University adopt a name that is both more descriptive and also one which is distinctive and the current group of Trustees unanimously supported the Chancellor’s proposal when it was made.

As I have reflected back on the now 40 plus years since my graduation I remember what a visceral negative reaction many of the alumni and current students had to the original name change. While no one disputed that being Missouri’s “School of Mines and Metallurgy” was no longer completely descriptive of the academic offerings there was no question the uniqueness was a point of pride. The “Mines” was very different from the five state teachers colleges that made up the rest of the MIAA and everyone knew it was THE engineering school in Missouri. To then be lumped into one of four hyphenated and undifferentiated (by name) campuses seemed to be a loss of identity.

Obviously the world didn’t come to an end and the UMR continued to attract high quality students and provide them with an equally high quality education. But among the alumni of my vintage there is still a sense of loss, not of the specific name but rather of the distinctiveness that the University enjoyed while we were here and which we believe it still merits. Among the UMR graduates on the Trustees there is a sense of gain that could be achieved if a new descriptive and distinctive name were adopted.

A question one might ask is why is a name important? Isn’t the real measure of a University the quality of its students and faculty? And that is certainly correct but it stops short of considering the benefits a new name could bring to those two very fundamental measures of quality.

There are at least three reasons I believe that weigh strongly in favor of a name change.

In the area of student recruitment in the age of the Internet having a descriptive name is of value. A descriptive name will certainly ensure that more potential students identify our University as a viable choice and having chaired the board of a similar sized private university in Oklahoma I know that increasing enrollment by 100 students at the margin has a significant impact on the university’s economy. It can often mean the difference in your ability to provide faculty raises or not or to maintain faculty staffing levels, both key factors in attracting and retaining high quality faculty.

Second because a significant portion of our resources still come through state appropriations I think having a descriptive name, one that clearly highlights our University’s role as Missouri’s premier technological institution will better focus the discussion and result in a higher probability that adequate resources will come our way. Being an undifferentiated by name and hyphenated campus it is far too easy to have the other campuses argue that “fairness” dictates that everyone be treated equally. The reality is that a technological university, because of the nature of its academic content, requires a higher per student expenditure rate. To that end it only seems logical that having a descriptive name would serve as constant reminder to the Curators, the legislators and the executive branch that our University is different and that it is the one where limited state resources designed to further Missouri’s technological capacity should be concentrated.

The last major reason is the ability to use the name change as a catalyst for the capital campaign that is currently in its quiet phase. Truman State is a good example in Missouri where a name change was used as a catalyst which enabled a previously undifferentiated college to create a unique identity and to also improve its academic quality and develop more resources. While our academic standards are already high I have no doubt a name change of the sort being proposed would serve us very well in our capital campaign.

So while emotion, pro and con, will always play a role in the sort of proposal that is before the University today I think the objective benefits in terms of student recruitment, public sector support and private sector fund raising make a new descriptive and distinctive name for our University an idea whose time has come.