letter to the editor

[M. Scott Cardone]

Hey guys,

Not sure if you saw the editorial in the hustler today about how great the sale of WRVU will be, but here's a response I wrote. I'll post it as soon as I have the go-ahead.

To the editor:
    I read today in the Hustler a letter by Joel Walden describing the potential benefits of the potential sale of 91.1 FM, and I was frankly shocked at the inaccuracies and poor reasoning. First, 91.1 FM will absolutely not be worth the $10 million that KTRU at Rice sold for (since KTRU was a 50,000 watt station and WRVU is a fifth of that), and that the endowment will certainly not be simply up for grabs to sponsor student projects since the point is to use the interest of the account to support VSC’s current budget. None of that matters anyway, since the fundamental idea that it is somehow acceptable to sacrificially slaughter one activity to benefit others is absolutely intolerable.
    Why not sell all the houses on frat row instead? Think of the money that could bring in, eh Joel? The frats could still organize, they just won’t have a house, so it’s no real loss to them, right? And then we extract millions from them to do whatever you want to do. Sound fair? Sound reasonable? I didn’t think so.
    Whatever money we can get for 91.1 is irrelevant; the sale is wrong, and the only reason it’s even being considered is because VSC has gotten bloated. From it’s inception until ten years ago, VSC only had one employee with student officers doing the rest of the work. Now, VSC’s fat budget includes seven full-time salaries, doing what used to be student duties and educational opportunities. Don’t forget that YOU pay those unnecessary salaries with student activity fees, and now that they fear they might lose their paychecks, you’ll sacrifice your radio station to continue to support them. VSC is not giving - it’s taking.

M. Scott Cardone
A&S ’13

--
-Scott Cardone
(513) 377-7275

[M. Scott Cardone]

Fixed some grammatical stuff and changed some wording. I think this is what I'm going to submit:

To the editor:
    I read today in the Hustler a letter by Joel Walden describing the potential benefits of the potential sale of 91.1 FM, and I was frankly shocked at the inaccuracies and poor reasoning. First, 91.1 FM will absolutely not be worth the $10 million that KTRU at Rice sold for (since KTRU was a 50,000 watt station and WRVU is a fifth of that), and the endowment will certainly not be simply up for grabs to sponsor student projects since the point is to use the interest of the account to support VSC’s current budget. None of that matters anyway, since the fundamental idea that it is somehow acceptable to sacrificially slaughter one activity to benefit others is absolutely intolerable.
    Why not sell all the houses on frat row instead? Think of the money that could bring in, eh Joel? Even though they won't have houses, frats can still organize, so it’s no real loss to them, right? And then we can extract millions from them to do whatever Joel decides is deserving. Sound fair? Sound reasonable? I didn’t think so.
    Whatever money we can get for 91.1 is irrelevant; the sale is wrong, and the only reason it’s even being considered is because VSC has gotten bloated. From it’s inception until ten years ago, VSC only had one employee with student officers doing the rest of the work. Now, VSC’s fat budget includes seven full-time salaries, doing what used to be student duties and educational opportunities. Don’t forget that YOU pay those unnecessary salaries with student activity fees, and now that they say they need more, you’ll sacrifice your radio station to continue to support them. VSC is not giving - it’s taking.

M. Scott Cardone
A&S ’13

Any suggestions before I do so?

[whea...@aol.com]

Looks good to me. 

 

Seven full-time employees!  Back in my student days (1980-1984) there was just Jim Leeson (R.I.P.; he left us not long ago), and he was part-time and probably not paid very lavishly.  Well, we probably also had an engineer for the radio station, but I don't know because I was only involved in print publications then.  (Carl Pedersen isn't listed as one of the current seven in any case.)  I don't mean any slight to any of the seven employees, but that many just cannot possibly be necessary.  I'm sure the students probably get more advice and guidance in the journalism profession than we used to, but I can't believe seven people are needed.  I will be honest and say that I am not as up on the email/Google conversation as I should be, so I may have missed some discussion of this, but I want to say that you make an important point about this bloated staff, Scott.  I hope that it will be prominently made to the University administration.

 

Just to get you students fired up about it, let me play Grandpa for a second:  What are ya?  Wimps?  In my day, we did it all!  Does the VSC board think you're a bunch of wusses?

 

Pete

Nashville Jumps  

[MARC HILL]

Good letter; In addition to the wattage difference, Houston is a MUCH bigger media market than Nashville, which certainly affects value.

Marc

 

From: save...@googlegroups.com [mailto:save...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of M. Scott Cardone
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:27 PM
To: save...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Save WRVU!] letter to the editor

 

Hey guys,

[Paul Lehmann]

Maybe I'm just an idiot but I don't see any such letter in today's Hustler?

Anyway, looks good.  I might also point out that Nashville is a much smaller market than Houston, though.  Also, I'm not sure how relevant the transmitter strength is - I may be completely wrong here, but isn't it the frequency and not the transmitter which is expected to be the big moneymaker?

(Also, you've got the wrong "its" in "From it's inception..." :) )

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

The more I think about this the madder I get. Does VSC really pay all
seven salaries? If so, it is insane to put the radio station up for
sale before cutting staff. Cutting staff is always a rotten trick,
but keeping all seven in place while eliminating the radio station is
ridiculous. Someone tell me if i'm getting mad based on a lack of
information.

Pete

On Oct 4, 2:36 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"

> (513) 377-7275- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mojo]

I thought I had read somewhere recently that the only full-time salaried VSC staff is Chris Carroll. Obviously more investigation needs to be done, or someone needs to post the source of the actual facts.
--> Support WRVU 91.1 FM, Nashville, TN <--

[Chris Lowry]

This is the information I had pulled off the public 990 tax returns for a different email I wrote:

OK, I have looked over the 990 filings from 2002 to 2007. I can't find 2008 and suspect 2009 has not been filed yet...

Sorry this is so ramble-y, but I am at work.

Overall, here's what I see:
2007 revenue is up 85.2% from 2002, with average annual increases of 10% or more.
Both the advertising revenue and AcFee revenues have increased annually, in proportion to one another.

Salaries/benefits: 2002 compared to 2007 shows a 127.8% increase. The largest increase was in 2005, at 44.5%
Compared to revenue, 2002 payroll was 27.8%. 2007 was 34.2%
For the record, Carroll's salary increases are all within reasonable limits, with a 20% increase over the 6 year period, roughly 3% annually.

The 990 is not very specific in regard to expenses. The only red flags I can spot:
2002 Bank Charges: 1702.00 compared to 2006: 8633.00 and then 2008: 18426.00.
Advertising EXPENSES: 2002: 3730.00, 2006:31218.00, 2008: 15775.00

The point of the story? There is no need to panic about money. I do suspect 2008/2009 revenues will be down. Recession, duh! I assume they are trying to protect the very large overhead costs that have developed by creating a financial cushion to cover their salaries/expenses

CL

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

Do you have any raw figures for salaries?

On Oct 4, 3:24 pm, "Chris Lowry" <chri...@foodbusinessrestaurants.com>
wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Paul Lehmann]

By the way, did the Hustler point out its own conflict of interest anywhere?

[M. Scott Cardone]

No, they didn't, although 4 of the 5 students on the board are current and former hustler staffers. At the e-staff meeting today though, we discussed that the VSC board students probably aren't only looking out for the Hustler, but that a different and very real problem might be that the faculty members of the board are breathing down the student members' necks. Every time Justin Tardiff talks, it sounds like Wollaeger.

[Chris Lowry]

Salaries and benefits (excluding payroll taxes) by year:

2002  161,687

2003  149,824

2004  245,188

2005  354,330

2006  383,544

2007  368,273

 

The only itemized salaries are for Carroll, with a couple of years that also itemize Fischer and Hayes.  In 07 those three totalled 196,693.00

 

Again though, the 990s are VERY vague (think tax return)  I can only assume that the figures included in "salaries and compensation" are just that.  Meanwhile any outside expenses like an engineering consultant (Carl) would likely be 1099'd and therefore not included in those figures.

 

Here's the link to the reports: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/profile/237030713#forms

 

C

[M. Scott Cardone]

It's exactly what I expected. VSC isn't looking out for student media, they're looking out for their own salaries. This endowment doesn't have anything to do with protecting media in perpetuity as their press release says; they're killing media and then taking the money to protect themselves in perpetuity. "Endow media in perpetuity" really means "we'll have paychecks forever". Assholes.

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

Hmm. This post didn't catch the first time, somehow.

This is a really important point to promulgate. I bet that when our
listeners hear about "student media," they don't imagine that there
are seven non-student staff members soaking up a large part of the
budget.

A week ago or so I talked to a former WRVU DJ who is in the media
business. His opinion was that this sale was going to happen so that
particular people could take home a lot of money. I found it hard to
see how that was going to happen, but now I see how he might have been
right, in a sense. If the station is sold, there'll be plenty of
money for salaries and none of the seven will likely have to worry.
On the other hand, the organization's assets and reasons for existing
will be considerably reduced.

Pete

On Oct 4, 5:03 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"

[M. Scott Cardone]

The sad part about all of it is that we clearly don't need them to operate, especially if they sell our license. VSC is trying to put everything on the internet, and soon they'll be soaking up our activity fees to simply run a website. We don't need to pay four hundred thousand dollars worth of salaries to run a website - we just need an internet connection.

We don't need seven employees - we ran all of the same activities (newspapers, WRVU, and more recently VTV) for years with only one employee. Maybe we needed a second to help ease the pressure, etc., but I can't believe that we need seven.

VSC has stonewalled us so far on making their finances public, as Wollaeger agreed to do in our meeting two weeks ago, but something is amiss. Renting Sarratt costs 50 a year; RVU costs 15 a year, VTV can't cost much more than that since it's a purely online station, but lets assume even 100 a year for them, so that puts us at $175,000 a year. If salaries are $400,000, that brings the tab to $575,000, which is significantly short of the $900,000 yearly budget. That would mean that to print our newspapers, we spend between 3 and 4 hundred thousand every year? I have a hard time believing that. There's gotta be money going somewhere that we don't know about.

If the Hustler is VSC's cash cow and a big source of revenue through print, I can see why it's not on the chopping block, but why not fire like 5 employees, leaving Chris Carroll and then one guy to manage the yearbook and the ads in the Hustler? We'll still make enough ad revenue since there'll be one guy whose job it is to tend to that, and then the students can pick up all the duties that we fulfilled before we had employees other than Chris Carroll. That would save us a whopping $300,000 a year, by my estimates.... No need to sell anything...

The other thing worth mentioning is that looking at those tax returns, it doesn't look like revenues are declining, it just looks like they're hiring people faster than revenue is climbing. This year was probably off due to the recession (just like every other business in the world), but the basic problem is VSC's fiscal irresponsibility. While it's nice to hire people, no business can responsibly hire people beyond and take on expense that it can't cover. It's just unreasonable. Even if we were understaffed in the past, we stayed afloat. The new challenges aren't the declining value of radio or print; since apparently the Hustler still makes money and WRVU is still worth enough that someone is willing to buy it in the midst of the biggest recession most of us have ever seen. The new financial challenges that Wollaeger is talking about come from a bloated organization trying to line its employees' pockets at the expense of the organizations that VSC is supposed to be protecting.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pete of Nashville Jumps <whea...@aol.com> wrote:

This is a very important point to promulgate.  I wonder if we can
somehow find out the current salaries--current information would have
more punch.

I feel sure that when WRVU listeners hear about "student media," they
are not imagining that seven non-student staff members are soaking up

a large part of the budget.

Pete

On Oct 4, 5:03 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"

[Chris Lowry]

Guys, this is what we, the Alumni, have been pushing as our point.  Our letter to the Administration this morning highlighted these issues nicely.

 

Scott, you guys are doing great.  Just don't lose focus.  Yours is to generate a student movement.  The pressure's on you, as that is probably the only thing that can save your station.  Regardless of that outcome, I will be fighting to examine and dissect the current VSC structure for quite some time, I imagine...

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

The tax returns are all from before the financial crisis, so they
wouldn't show the revenue decreases Mark talks about. Of course, we
still don't know exactly how much the revenue has decreased.

Pete

On Oct 4, 5:21 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[christo...@mac.com]

Or put one of the seven on the street to sell underwriting support and create a cash cow out of RVU. Underused in the revenue it could generate.

Chris
The Future of Jazz

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: "M. Scott Cardone" <michael....@vanderbilt.edu>

Sender: save...@googlegroups.com

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:21:44 -0500

To: <save...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: save...@googlegroups.com

[M. Scott Cardone]

I don't know how possible it is to make a cash cow out of WRVU since we can't have ads due to our non-profit FCC status. I think the point is that the Hustler is the only organization with the potential for income for VSC, which is why they seem to love it so much more than the rest.

[Chris Lowry]

Scott, your non-commercial status allows for paid sponsorships, or grants.  Without going into detail, you are allowed to sell a "this hour has been brought to you by..." and provide the info about the sponsor in a non-qualitative way.  Like what you hear on NPR...

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

What has been made so far, in our letters and propaganda, of the VSC
expenses that are eating up their budget, such as the seven staff
members we've been talking about, the internal publication (is it
still TunnelVision?), the Student Media Hall of Fame and related
functions (I assume that takes some money), etc.? It seems like VSC
really is becoming quite the bureaucracy, with some overhead costs
that have little to do with producing the publications and
broadcasts. Chris is a big name in the student media advisor world--
how much money is going toward his travel and his non-Vanderbilt
professional work? Don't these things need to be emphasized? And
when is the last time that Wollaeger was prodded on giving us
information on VSC's finances? Do we have recourse to get them one
way or another because of the non-profit status?

Pete

On Oct 4, 7:26 pm, Chris Lowry <chri...@foodbusinessrestaurants.com>
wrote:

> Scott, your non-commercial status allows for paid sponsorships, or grants.
> Without going into detail, you are allowed to sell a "this hour has been
> brought to you by..." and provide the info about the sponsor in a
> non-qualitative way.  Like what you hear on NPR...
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM, M. Scott Cardone <
>
>
>
> michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> > I don't know how possible it is to make a cash cow out of WRVU since we
> > can't have ads due to our non-profit FCC status. I think the point is that
> > the Hustler is the only organization with the potential for income for VSC,
> > which is why they seem to love it so much more than the rest.
>

> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:33 PM, <christophot...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Or put one of the seven on the street to sell underwriting support and
> >> create a cash cow out of RVU. Underused in the revenue it could generate.
>
> >> Chris
> >> The Future of Jazz
>
> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From: *"M. Scott Cardone" <michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu>
> >>  *Sender: *save...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Date: *Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:21:44 -0500
> >>  *To: *<save...@googlegroups.com>
> >> *ReplyTo: *save...@googlegroups.com
> >>   *Subject: *Re: [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor

> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pete of Nashville Jumps <wheat...@aol.com

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Drew]

I love the passion and impressive nature of the organization to protest for WRVU so far.
Only one thing I'd like to add, is that while I don't personally know too much about their
actual positions/payscales within VSC or even their feelings on this current insane and
shortsighted decision to try to sell the station, I'd just like to make sure everyone does know
how much work Jim Hayes and Carl do for the station, they're always there to address
questions and at least try (and usually better than try) to fix problems we may have very
quickly and keep it up and running. At least they deserve our thanks for that.
Try as I might though, I can't come up with any good points for the rest of VSC though.
Carroll and Wollagaer almost seem like bumbling movie villians at this point, and those
students must be blind and deaf to their surroundings, or easy succeptible to board
pressure if they are supporting the move to sell WRVU.
If it's the latter, well, we need to pressure them more to come over to our side.

Drew
Loud Love

---

From: Pete of Nashville Jumps <whea...@aol.com>
To: Save WRVU! <save...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 9:20:11 AM

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

The Oct. 4 letter signed by 50 or so WRVU alumni does address some of
these important points, pretty convincingly.

[M. Scott Cardone]

I agree with you that Carl and Jim are valuable employees, but my question is not whether or not its nice to have guys like that around. This is not an issue of whether the current employees are good ones but instead of whether or not VSC was irresponsible in hiring them, which is a different question altogether. I mean no disrespect to Jim or Carl when I say that while they're services are valuable, a company cannot responsibly hire more people than it can afford. If revenues were up by 85%, benefits and salaries should not have gone up by more than that, but instead they outpaced revenue and went up by 127%. This is a case of VSC's irresponsible business practices that WRVU is now being asked to pay for. Even if with only one employee VSC was short-staffed, it doesn't matter - you simply can't hire people that you can't afford to pay. No business can operate on the principle of "hire everyone we'd like to hire and we'll figure it out later" because what happens later is something like this - in order for everyone to keep their job, VSC now has to sell WRVU, (which would probably render Carl's services entirely useless, and Jim's at least partially). If the choice is keep the seven employees or keep WRVU, the choice should be clear to everyone - keep a $5 million asset or keep an employee who's job used to be done for free and who we can probably get along without (even though they'll probably be missed)? The services that VSC is supposed to protect and provide should supercede any individual employee. 

This would be like if I wanted to open a pizza shop and wanted to give jobs to everyone who wanted one, so I hired more people than I could afford, and then had to sell my pizza oven to continue paying them.... What's the point? We'd be selling the station to keep the sound engineers.... It doesn't make any sense at all.

[christo...@mac.com]

Pretty sure fcc requires an engineer to be on payroll.

Chris

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: "M. Scott Cardone" <michael....@vanderbilt.edu>

Sender: save...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:51:47 -0500

To: <save...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: save...@googlegroups.com

[Justin St. P. Walsh]

In the '90's a freelance engineer was paid about $10,000/year to make sure everything was functional.� Ask Jamie Noble for details...

JW

On 10/5/2010 3:54 PM, christo...@mac.com wrote:

Pretty sure fcc requires an engineer to be on payroll.

Chris

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: "M. Scott Cardone" <michael....@vanderbilt.edu>

Sender: save...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:51:47 -0500

To: <save...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: save...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor

I agree with you that Carl and Jim are valuable employees, but my question is not whether or not its nice to have guys like that around. This is not an issue of whether the current employees are good ones but instead of whether or not VSC was irresponsible in hiring them, which is a different question altogether. I mean no disrespect to Jim or Carl when I say that while they're services are valuable, a company cannot responsibly hire more people than it can afford. If revenues were up by 85%, benefits and salaries should not have gone up by more than that, but instead they outpaced revenue and went up by 127%. This is a case of VSC's irresponsible business practices that WRVU is now being asked to pay for. Even if with only one employee VSC was short-staffed, it doesn't matter - you simply can't hire people that you can't afford to pay. No business can operate on the principle of "hire everyone we'd like to hire and we'll figure it out later" because what happens later is something like this - in order for everyone to keep their job, VSC now has to sell WRVU, (which would probably render Carl's services entirely useless, and Jim's at least partially). If the choice is keep the seven employees or keep WRVU, the choice should be clear to everyone - keep a $5 million asset or keep an employee who's job used to be done for free and who we can probably get along without (even though they'll probably be missed)? The services that VSC is supposed to protect and provide should supercede any individual employee.�

functions (I assume that takes some money), etc.?� It seems like VSC

really is becoming quite the bureaucracy, with some overhead costs
that have little to do with producing the publications and

broadcasts.� Chris is a big name in the student media advisor world--

how much money is going toward his travel and his non-Vanderbilt

professional work?� Don't these things need to be emphasized?� And

when is the last time that Wollaeger was prodded on giving us

information on VSC's finances?� Do we have recourse to get them one

way or another because of the non-profit status?

Pete

On Oct 4, 7:26�pm, Chris Lowry <chri...@foodbusinessrestaurants.com>

wrote:
> Scott, your non-commercial status allows for paid sponsorships, or grants.
> Without going into detail, you are allowed to sell a "this hour has been
> brought to you by..." and provide the info about the sponsor in a

> non-qualitative way. �Like what you hear on NPR...

>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM, M. Scott Cardone <
>
>
>
> michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> > I don't know how possible it is to make a cash cow out of WRVU since we
> > can't have ads due to our non-profit FCC status. I think the point is that
> > the Hustler is the only organization with the potential for income for VSC,
> > which is why they seem to love it so much more than the rest.
>
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:33 PM, <christophot...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Or put one of the seven on the street to sell underwriting support and
> >> create a cash cow out of RVU. Underused in the revenue it could generate.
>
> >> Chris
> >> The Future of Jazz
>
> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From: *"M. Scott Cardone" <michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu>

> >> �*Sender: *save...@googlegroups.com

> >> *Date: *Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:21:44 -0500

> >> �*To: *<save...@googlegroups.com>
> >> *ReplyTo: *save...@googlegroups.com
> >> � *Subject: *Re: [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor

> >>> This is a very important point to promulgate. �I wonder if we can

> >>> somehow find out the current salaries--current information would have
> >>> more punch.
>
> >>> I feel sure that when WRVU listeners hear about "student media," they
> >>> are not imagining that seven non-student staff members are soaking up
> >>> a large part of the budget.
>
> >>> Pete
>
> >>> On Oct 4, 5:03 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"
> >>> <michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> >>> > It's exactly what I expected. VSC isn't looking out for student media,
> >>> > they're looking out for their own salaries. This endowment doesn't have
> >>> > anything to do with protecting media in perpetuity as their press
> >>> release
> >>> > says; they're killing media and then taking the money to protect
> >>> themselves
> >>> > in perpetuity. "Endow media in perpetuity" really means "we'll have
> >>> > paychecks forever". Assholes.
>
> >>> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Chris Lowry <
>
> >>> > chri...@foodbusinessrestaurants.com> wrote:
> >>> > > Salaries and benefits (excluding payroll taxes) by year:

> >>> > > 2002 �161,687
> >>> > > 2003 �149,824
> >>> > > 2004 �245,188
> >>> > > 2005 �354,330
> >>> > > 2006 �383,544
> >>> > > 2007 �368,273

>
> >>> > > The only itemized salaries are for Carroll, with a couple of years

> >>> > > that also itemize Fischer and Hayes. �In 07 those three totalled
> >>> 196,693.00
>
> >>> > > Again though, the 990s are VERY vague (think tax return) �I can only

> >>> assume
> >>> > > that the figures included in "salaries and compensation" are just
> >>> that.
> >>> > > Meanwhile any outside expenses like an engineering consultant (Carl)
> >>> would
> >>> > > likely be 1099'd and therefore not included in those figures.
>
> >>> > > Here's the link to the reports:
> >>> > >http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/profile/237030713#forms
>
> >>> > > C
>
> >>> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Pete of Nashville Jumps <
> >>> wheat...@aol.com>wrote:
>
> >>> > >> Do you have any raw figures for salaries?
>
> >>> > >> On Oct 4, 3:24 pm, "Chris Lowry" <
> >>> chri...@foodbusinessrestaurants.com>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >> > This is the information I had pulled off the public 990 tax
> >>> returns for
> >>> > >> a different email I wrote:
>

> >>> > >> > OK, I have looked over the 990 filings from 2002 to 2007. �I can't

> >>> find
> >>> > >> 2008 and suspect 2009 has not been filed yet...
>
> >>> > >> > Sorry this is so ramble-y, but I am at work.
>
> >>> > >> > Overall, here's what I see:
> >>> > >> > 2007 revenue is up 85.2% from 2002, with average annual increases
> >>> of 10%
> >>> > >> or more.
> >>> > >> > Both the advertising revenue and AcFee revenues have increased
> >>> annually,
> >>> > >> in proportion to one another.
>
> >>> > >> > Salaries/benefits: 2002 compared to 2007 shows a 127.8% increase.

> >>> �The

> >>> > >> largest increase was in 2005, at 44.5%

> >>> > >> > Compared to revenue, 2002 payroll was 27.8%. �2007 was 34.2%

> >>> > >> > For the record, Carroll's salary increases are all within
> >>> reasonable
> >>> > >> limits, with a 20% increase over the 6 year period, roughly 3%
> >>> annually.
>

> >>> > >> > The 990 is not very specific in regard to expenses. �The only red

> >>> flags
> >>> > >> I can spot:
> >>> > >> > 2002 Bank Charges: 1702.00 compared to 2006: 8633.00 and then
> >>> 2008:
> >>> > >> 18426.00.
> >>> > >> > Advertising EXPENSES: 2002: 3730.00, 2006:31218.00, 2008: 15775.00
>

> >>> > >> > The point of the story? �There is no need to panic about money. �I
> >>> do
> >>> > >> suspect 2008/2009 revenues will be down. �Recession, duh! �I assume

> >>> they are
> >>> > >> trying to protect the very large overhead costs that have developed
> >>> by
> >>> > >> creating a financial cushion to cover their salaries/expenses
>
> >>> > >> > CL
>
> >>> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > >> > From: save...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> >>> save...@googlegroups.com] On
> >>> > >> Behalf Of Mojo
> >>> > >> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:12 PM
> >>> > >> > To: save...@googlegroups.com
> >>> > >> > Subject: Re: [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor
>
> >>> > >> > I thought I had read somewhere recently that the only full-time
> >>> salaried
> >>> > >> VSC staff is Chris Carroll. Obviously more investigation needs to be
> >>> done,
> >>> > >> or someone needs to post the source of the actual facts.
> >>> > >> > --> Support WRVU 91.1 FM, Nashville, TN <--
>
> >>> > >> > -----Original Message-----

> >>> > >> �> From: Pete of Nashville Jumps <wheat...@aol.com>

> >>> > >> > Sender: save...@googlegroups.com
> >>> > >> > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:54:22
> >>> > >> > To: Save WRVU!<save...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> > >> > Reply-To: save...@googlegroups.com
> >>> > >> > Subject: [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor
>

> >>> > >> > The more I think about this the madder I get. �Does VSC really pay
> >>> all
> >>> > >> > seven salaries? �If so, it is insane to put the radio station up
> >>> for
> >>> > >> > sale before cutting staff. �Cutting staff is always a rotten

> >>> trick,
> >>> > >> > but keeping all seven in place while eliminating the radio station
> >>> is

> >>> > >> > ridiculous. �Someone tell me if i'm getting mad based on a lack of

> >>> > >> > information.
>
> >>> > >> > Pete
>
> >>> > >> > On Oct 4, 2:36 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"
> >>> > >> > <michael.s.card...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> >>> > >> > > Fixed some grammatical stuff and changed some wording. I think
> >>> this is
> >>> > >> what
> >>> > >> > > I'm going to submit:
>
> >>> > >> > > To the editor:

> >>> > >> > > � � I read today in the Hustler a letter by Joel Walden

> >>> describing the
> >>> > >> > > potential benefits of the potential sale of 91.1 FM, and I was
> >>> frankly
> >>> > >> > > shocked at the
>
> ...
>

> read more �- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

--
-Scott Cardone
(513) 377-7275

-- 
Justin St. P. Walsh, RPA
Assistant professor
School of Art
123 Art Building
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Phone: +1.225.333.0346
Fax: +1.225.578.5424

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

Carl is not one of the seven full-time paid employees on the VSC
staff. He is in addition to those. I feel about him the way Drew
does. He is pretty reliable and I have never had any doubts about his
intentions in anything.

Pete

On Oct 5, 3:51 pm, "M. Scott Cardone"

> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Pete of Nashville Jumps <wheat...@aol.com>
>
> > *To:* Save WRVU! <save...@googlegroups.com>
> > *Sent:* Tue, October 5, 2010 9:20:11 AM
>
> > *Subject:* [Save WRVU!] Re: letter to the editor

[Dustin Swysgood]

I think the station would be in shambles if it were not for Carl. Not sure why he's being put in a bad light.

[Pete of Nashville Jumps]

I think Scott was just saying that if VSC can't afford a staff member,
they shouldn't have that staff member, whether he's a good person or
not. But Carl is not a full-time staff member and is probably not
paid like one, and he is in fact essential to WRVU, so he really
shouldn't be a focus of discussion about overstaffing.

On Oct 5, 4:04 pm, Dustin Swysgood <dustin.swysg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the station would be in shambles if it were not for Carl. Not sure
> why he's being put in a bad light.

[M. Scott Cardone]

I don't think anyone is putting Carl in a bad light... I think the issue is whether or not VSC has irresponsibly hired too many people. It doesn't really have anything to do with Carl whatsoever. I'm discussing the seven full time employees in general. What about Paige, or Jeff? I mean you have to admit, for forty years students filled the roles of 6 of those 7 employees. I'm not knocking Carl at all; I'm just saying the reason VSC is saying they need money is that they've irresponsibly hired too many people. Whether or not they're great employees, you can't hire more people than you can afford. That may or may not be Carl, just as it may or many not be any of the other employees that VSC clearly can't afford to have. Keep Carl, fire some others, I don't know, but the point isn't that any individual person isn't a good employee but that VSC can't afford to have them all at once.

[Chris Lowry]

Carl’s “salary” is not included in the salaries and compensation of the VSC 990.  His small amount of pay is listed as a separate expense.  He is required, but only serves as a consultant.

 

C

[M. Scott Cardone]

Exactly, Pete. Thanks. Carl isn't one of those 7 full time employees either, as shown on the 990s that we looked at. He'd be on a 1099, and so he's separate from the salaries and benefits that have gotten out of control. It's all tied up together though - the point is that VSC has turned into an enormous bureaucracy with all the wasted funding of any bureaucracy. Their budget is bloated and fat and that's why they want to sell us - they're wasting money. Not on Carl, but definitely on some employees and probably on a bunch of other crap. Why do you think they haven't made their finances public like Wollaeger promised to do two weeks ago? It's because their budget will look exactly as bad as we think it will look, or maybe worse, and it'll arm us with plenty of reasons why they need to make budget cuts before deciding to give up and sell everything.