Lynn Wloszek

True leaders lead by example.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm said she would do just that when she recently offered to reduce her own $177,000 salary if state employees would take cuts in their salaries.

The next day, Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate in the Michigan Legislature said they planned to do the same, in lieu of the ever tightening budget crises.

But here at CMU, where University President Michael Rao, who makes $43,500 more per year than our own governor, that is not the case.

It’s not even an option.

It is written into Rao’s Employment Agreement that the “President’s salary shall be reviewed annually and his annual salary may be increased but not decreased at the discretion of the Board (of Trustees).”

So even though his own salary can’t be cut, Rao already has made cuts across the board once this year, and a second cut to departments was announced prior to spring break.

Rao’s executive office will make some minor cuts, such as turning down the thermostat and using e-mail instead of paper for correspondence. One could wager a guess though, that these minor cost saving choices would not even add up to one of Rao’s bi-weekly paychecks of $8,884.61.

How can CMU students and faculty expect someone who makes close to a quarter of a million dollars a year — lives in a charming home on Forest Lane for free, pays no utilities, has to do no upkeep to the house or lawn, a chef to cook business meals, is allowed up to $10,000 a year for new furnishings in the house, has full benefits, a free car with fuel, repairs and insurance paid for, and travels on business for free — to know what is best for people to live without?

When Granholm told the Detroit Free Press on Feb. 19 after a budget presentation at the Detroit Economic Club, that “I think there is a lot of fat in universities and colleges,” I don’t think she meant library acquisitions and the Counseling Center, which were cut from the budget.

When CMU students return next fall — that is if they are financially able to — they will walk into classes with a bloated student-to-teacher ratio, and will most likely be paying more for that class, since tuition is probably going to have to be raised.

And while Rao does not want to raise tuition, the position he is faced with unfortunately may leave him with no choice, which makes it all the more difficult to look back on the pay raise Rao received from the trustees several months ago.

On Dec. 5, 2002, the CMU Board of Trustees agreed to give Rao a 4.8 percent raise, which amounts to an additional $10,500 a year.

The rationale for the raise at the time from the trustees and university officials was in part because Rao’s salary is less than the salary of several university presidents in Michigan as well as universities in the Mid-American Conference.

So what?

The basis of a great university is not determined by how close its president’s salary is to equaling the NBA league minimum.

When our university president makes more a year than the vice president of the United States, there should be no complaining from anyone that Rao isn’t making enough money. Especially from anyone on a college campus in Michigan, where all schools are suffering.

Continuing to raise the salary of our president during tough economic times is bad policy, and when it comes time to do it again this year, hopefully the trustees quickly will move to the next item on their agenda and not even give it a second thought.

With mounting financial concerns on students and faculty alike, another presidential raise is the last thing anyone should be considering. A decrease in pay, or the development of financial assistance for students affected by the budget crises, borne out of a portion of Rao’s salary would be a better consideration.

That’s what a true leader would do.

Life Assistant News Editor Chris Gautz can be reached for comment via e-mail
at ane1@cm-life.com.

E-mail the author: defaultuser