Message garbled

Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Sep 22, 2008

Kansas universities are being asked to cut back to deal with a looming state budget shortfall.

A slumping economy and increases in energy costs and food prices are making it harder for many college students and their parents to afford tuition, which has risen at an astronomical rate in recent years.

Amid this economic turmoil, should the presidents of the state's six universities -- already some of the most richly compensated people on the state payroll -- get raises?

It doesn't quite add up to us, but the Kansas Board of Regents thought so.

On Thursday, the board approved 2.5 percent pay increases for the university leaders. The Associated Press reported that the presidents' new salaries are as follows:

- Robert Hemenway, University of Kansas, $267,177.

- John Wefald, Kansas State University, $255,298.

- Don Beggs, Wichita State, $233,391.

- Ed Hammond, Fort Hays State, $202,593.

- Tom Bryant, Pittsburg State, $202,593.

- Mike Lane, Emporia State, $202,540.

And that's only part of the compensation picture for the presidents, who can also receive funding from private sources. The board set caps on total earnings ranging from $340,352 for Hemenway to $213,200 for Lane.

Now, nobody here is suggesting the university presidents don't deserve to be paid well. They most certainly do.

Hemenway, for example, leads an institution with a budget of $1 billion-plus and hundreds of employees. It makes sense he would earn corporate pay, as is the case with his counterparts.

It's also worth noting that all state employees received a 2.5 percent pay increase this year.

But at a time when the economic slowdown has forced belt- tightening among numerous public and private organizations, the raises won't help higher education officials convince the public they're doing all they can to trim costs.

The timing of the raises also seems odd.

At KU, officials recently suggested the university was cutting back to the point it would silence a signature steam whistle that signalled the end of classes. Shutting down the whistle would have saved $3,000.

But the state can still afford to pad the presidents' salaries?

Granted, holding the line on the salaries of six university leaders isn't going to solve a projected state budget deficit of $300 million by next July.

But taxpayers and those who pay tuition to the institutions are hurting these days, and it's imperative that universities help them by keeping costs to a minimum wherever possible.

Adding to the significant salaries of the leaders of those institutions suggests higher education officials aren't getting that message.