Based upon her achievement of specific annual goals and objectives which have been mutually agreed upon in writing by Dr. Mangum and the Board, Dr. Mangum may be eligible to receive annual performance bonus not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual base salary, as provided for in subparagraph 4.0, contingent upon the availability of funds from the FAMU Foundation.At its first meeting after September 30 of each year, the Board shall take a vote on payment of a bonus which shall be proportional to the goals and objectives met and shall state the amount thereof…
Last week, the Florida State University (FSU) Board of Trustees voted to
approve a $90,000 bonus and a 7.4 percent raise for President John Thrasher.
But it appears unlikely that the FAMU BOT will approve a bonus or a raise for
Mangum.
Mangum told the BOT that FAMU didn’t have control over the
budget during the years that those operating dollars were at the university. But a number of
FAMU alumni have challenged that claim and explained why it’s wrong.
The Joint College of Engineering Governance Council is now making
the decisions on the $12.9M core operating budget. It is formed in a way that could let FSU
and the Board of Governors (BOG) chancellor simply vote together in order to
make sure that FSU gets its way on all the big budget decisions. The BOG
chancellor is the tie-breaking vote on the Joint College of Engineering
Governance Council.
A number of trustees strongly criticized the shift of the
$12.9M core COE operating budget from FAMU to FSU in their individual evaluations of
Mangum.
Faculty Senate President Bettye A. Grable wrote in her
evaluation of Mangum that: “the decision to move the [FAMU-FSU College of
Engineering’s] budget control to FSU was based on a unilateral approval without
the prior approval by the Board of Trustees and other constituents.”
Trustee Belinda Shannon also said that Mangum’s agreement to
let the $12.9M core COE operating budget leave FAMU without the support of the
BOT was a bad decision.
“I wholeheartedly applaud President Mangum’s work early in
her tenure to withstand the attack against the COE from the now sitting FSU
President. However, the gains have almost been obliterated because of the lack
of collaboration in the subsequent agreements around exchange of power re:
fiscal control and deanship. This is a prime example of an instance where Dr.
Mangum failed to enlist the participation and confidence of others in making a
key decision. Dr. Mangum needs to do a much better job of recognizing those
decisions, etc. where it is more prudent to get BOT or other important
stakeholder ‘buy-in’ before making a decision,” Shannon wrote in her evaluation
of Mangum.
Most of the FAMU BOT members gave Mangum a “Did Not Meet
Expectations” rating for four out of the ten categories on her annual
evaluation. The four categories were personal characteristics and values,
organizational management, internal relations, and board and governance
relations.
Chairman Rufus Montgomery hinted that the low ratings that
Mangum received in those categories showed that there was a big problem with her performance. He will lead the BOT
discussion on Sunday about whether to give Mangum a bonus.
“On a scale of 1 to 100, when you fail four categories, that
gives you a 60 percent,” the chairman said.