Two politicians believe university administrators should respond to a 'higher calling' rather than a higher paycheck in serving the University. State Reps. Robin Vos, R-Caledonia, and Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater, have introduced two separate bills that suggest capping state-funded administrative salaries.
Yet, public education administrators already responded to a higher calling: leadership in higher education. For this civil service, top administrators deserve competitive compensation supplied by the state, not private donors.
Vos' bill aims to cap the amount paid by taxpayers at $1 less than the governor's salary and encourages supplementation by the University Foundation or private interests. Nass' bill would permanently settle administrative salary caps in the biennial budget after July 2006, ending the Board of Regents' discretion in increasing wages.
From the representatives' perspective, taxpayers will bear the brunt of the regents' decision Feb. 10 to increase the average pay of top administrators. Vos contends that plenty of qualified educators would readily assume administrative positions at lower pay. However, Vos and Nass fail to recognize that the government holds the duty to provide the regents with sufficient funding to secure the best possible administrators, not just qualified applicants.
Instead of gauging UW salaries by those paid at other universities, Vos suggests an introspective approach. 'While it's important to compare our salaries to what other schools pay, it should not be the only deciding factor,' he said. 'It seems like if we just say that everybody is going to try to meet the midpoint, all that will happen is you will have dramatic increases in salaries and taxpayers and students are going to end up funding.'
Vos makes a good point: The marketplace for top administrators relies, in part, on salary competition. Yet both Vos and Nass' bills would limit the university's ability stay competitive. As a result, the university could miss opportunities to secure the best administrators.
As the highest paid public university official, University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman will earn a base salary of $501,458 for the 2005-'06 academic year, according to the Ann Arbor News Bureau. If the Wisconsin Legislature adopts Vos' proposal, the state will offer UW system President Kevin Reilly a state-funded salary of $131,768, nearly four times less than Coleman. Though Coleman's inflated salary should not serve as the standard, it illustrates the wage disparity that will develop if the legislature passes either Vos' or Nass' bill.
After hiring Coleman in 2002, chairman of the Michigan regents Larrie Dietch said, 'This is the most important job in public education, and it deserves to be at the top of the pay scale of public university presidents.'
High administrative salaries may stress tight state budgets, but compensation must match the arduous post administrators assume. Taxpayers must finance this burden to foster state education and prevent corruption by private interests.
A cap on administrative salaries, whether Vos or Nass-style, would require more private money to shore up the differences between UW salaries and those of its competitors. If private interests offer extensive financial endowments, they may gain increased clout in directing the University.
The state has no right to micromanage university affairs; moreover the UW deserves a secure, flexible budget that allows an active pursuit of the best administrators. The going price for top administrators might seem unconscionable for taxpayers and students, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. As for the higher calling argument: Higher wages secure the highest talent in higher education.
