By now, many students have heard about the Sep. 2 meeting held by the Board of Regents. In a teleconference call, the UW System Board of Regents and their fearless leader, Board president Katharine Lyall, attempted to "adjust" salary ranges of UW System chancellors. In plain English, that means they would have raised the salaries of most, if not all, of the chancellors at four-year universities in the UW System.

Fortunately, these pay increases have been delayed--hopefully for the foreseeable future. According to the Associated Press, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager determined that the Regents' stealth teleconference was in violation of the law. Governor Jim Doyle also reprimanded the Board's recklessness. Lautenschlager convinced them to revoke the decision they'd made at that meeting, buying the rest of us some time to make sure that outcome remains permanent.

Virtually every student and faculty member in Wisconsin is aware of the sizable increases in student tuition along with the cuts in state UW System funding. Apparently, these tuition increases and budget cuts (thank you, Governor Doyle) are necessary in order to stabilize the state's $3.2 million deficit (thank you, former Governors Thompson and McCallum). So if money is so tight these days, why should the chancellors receive a pay raise?

Apologists for the Board's original decision will claim that salary ranges for the chancellors must be increased to keep the chancellors' positions competitive. According to John Stott, a state legal fiscal analyst, chancellor positions at UW-Milwaukee and UW-Stevens Point still need to be filled; interim chancellors have currently been running these universities. And after all, as defenders of the Regents will point out, the salary increases would only have totaled about $98,000 (as reported by the Associated Press). A mere drop in the bucket, right?

So we need to keep the chancellors' positions "competitive," hmm? What does that mean, exactly? Are the current UW chancellors going to vacate their positions if they don't receive pay increases? Well, let them. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified UW administrators or other candidates who'd be more than willing to be hired or promoted into chancellors' positions at the current salary rates. Regardless of the salary amount, are we supposed to believe that such bad decisions would be made when hiring replacements for present or future chancellors? If that's the case, then new people need to be doing the hiring.

While Lyall and the Regents deserve criticism for their actions, there is an even more pressing reason as to why these pay increases are a bad idea: the state can't afford it. $98,000 might seem like a tiny blip in the budget. But if the situation is so dire that cash-strapped students must be further gouged of our incomes, and faculty positions must be slashed along with department budgets, then people who already make six figures each year (such as, oh, say, the chancellors) don't need to be given more of the state's limited funds. If anything, the UW faculties should be receiving pay increases. Yet that isn't realistic, given the fiscal crisis our state faces. So of course, the logical answer is to give even more money to administrators who already make enough to support 3 or 4 working-class families for a year.

Oh, but wait! According to Stott, the chancellors' salaries are paid mostly by tuition revenue and general purpose revenue. For those who aren't aware, "general purpose revenue" essentially means tax dollars. So the state won't have to worry about dipping into its wallet, since enrolled students and Wisconsin taxpayers will be the ones funding any pay increases for chancellors.

Aw, I feel so honored.

Am I the only one who thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that our university resources are drained while we simultaneously pay higher tuition and get less in return? On top of that, someone thinks we should shell out additional money for administrative pay raises?

So with that, I would like to issue a public challenge to Katharine Lyall and the Board of Regents. I would like to ask them to take the initiative by cutting the chancellors' current salaries by 5%-10%. Lyall should learn the importance of a dollar herself. As Spectator reporter Andrew Dowd reported on Oct. 16, Lyall now receives upwards of $300,000 as her own salary.

Since, as Governor Doyle has expressed, we all must share in the burden of the state's budget problems, I believe it is only fair that the UW chancellors and Regents also share in that joy. As chronicled by Wispolitics.com and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dane County Executive and former gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Falk cut her own pay by 5% when her county's budget needed to be balanced. It would be quite heartening if the UW Regents would follow Falk's example.

I want to commend Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager for not letting Lyall and the Regents get away with their, um… 'not over'-handedness. I hope to see Lautenschlager run for Governor or U.S. Senator in 2010 or 2012, if circumstances ever facilitate such an opportunity.

I encourage everyone who's reading this to write to Katharine Lyall and persuade her to accept my challenge. Please send her a polite yet assertive letter at the following address:

Katharine Lyall
1720 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Dr.
Madison, WI 53706

Pass this information along to your friends and professors, and ask them to do the same. If enough of us voice our views, perhaps there will be some administrative cuts within the UW System for a change.