University shouldn’t be boot camp for higher-education brass

Maybe I should wait to write this column after the second Sunday of July. The annual reunion for the descendants of Frank and Effie Schuster will have occurred. Surely, much wit, wisdom and advice will be dispensed at this annual event. However, deadlines and work schedules do not allow for such a luxury. The question I would like to ask a couple of wizened uncles is simple: How does the market adjust high-profile salaries?

Obviously, raises are a piece of cake, but what about cuts in pay for public officials? Take for instance a recent exodus of University of Missouri administrative elites who are leaving for greener pastures. Chancellor Brady Deaton noted in a recent radio interview that retaining and recruiting bright researchers, administrators and instructors is essential to the future of our university. We all know a strong university is important to a strong economy. But let’s step back for a moment. The most easily identifiable reason for a person to leave a position is better pay and, presumably, better employment.

We cannot fault people for making choices to improve their positions.

However, an institution such as the university relies on the longevity of its instructors, administrators and researchers. Just as complacency is an archenemy of an institution, so too is high turnover. We do not want to be a boot camp for the higher education community or a floor mat on the stairs of success. Do we pay these folks more? Do we increase resources? How are resources increased? Raise taxes? Raise tuition? Increase private and public grants? My contention is that these wells are already being pumped at full throttle.

With middle-class wages stagnant, raising taxes significantly seems hardly plausible. Equally, tuition has risen steadily enough to trigger a “caps” debate. With full-time development offices regularly beating the bushes for endowments, grants and gifts, it seems we are doing well on this front. So, where are additional resources available? Waste reduction, reorganization for efficiency and program evaluation should be examined. Further, we should remove institutional barriers that require inbred leadership.

Additionally, maybe our recruitment focus should change. The best person for a position may not be the most accomplished person in that particular field. Maybe we should stop searching for the best person to fill the job and instead look for someone who can do the job. Choosing from a limited of pool of “uniquely qualified candidates” only exasperates excessive salary inflation.

Our university needs to think outside the box. The recent look outside of academia for a new president is reason for a cautious optimism. The ever-rising salaries in upper-level management cannot be sustained. It is bad for public relations. It widens the chasms of division when unity has never been so important. A big-picture thinker is imperative. A person committed to Missouri is imperative. I have a hard time believing that this person can be found by using a consultant conducting a nationwide search. The new president of the university, along with many other positions, should be filled from within the state. Loyalty and commitment to our statewide community are more likely to be found at home than abroad. This breaks the cycle of candidates auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder. A lower wage can be posted with the job description and the successful applicant may also receive a substantial raise from a current position. Everybody wins. Wages are adjusted to fit market conditions.

If the successful candidate has a built-in focus on statewide attitudes toward higher education, the university takes a less blue-ribbon approach and becomes more grassroots in its focus.

By the way, in case you are wondering: yes, I would be interested in the job of president of the University of Missouri. I am more than willing to help slow the salary rocket at University Hall.