Timing is so important in so many matters, and this certainly is the case concerning the Kansas Board of Regents’ approval of a 20 percent tuition increase for Kansas University students at the same time it announced the earnings of KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway would increase by 24 percent. Tacked onto this situation is the fact that most KU faculty salaries are far behind those at peer universities and a just-released study reports state funding for KU and Kansas State University ranks next to last in the Big 12 Conference.

The public was hit with all of this information within a 24-hour period. It may be good timing in the eyes of some, but it certainly raises many concerns and contradictions in the eyes of far more.

At the center of the question is what kind of universities do Kansans want? Do they want run-of-the-mill institutions with average-to-mediocre teachers and facilities, or do they want schools that are recognized as being among the best?

There’s no question that these are difficult economic times for the large majority of Kansans. This includes the families of KU students and the students themselves. It also includes Kansas taxpayers, who pay a sizable percentage of the cost of operating KU, KSU and the other regents institutions.

Right or wrong, justified or not, Kansas legislators have not provided state funding at the level requested by university leaders and regents members. Previous plans approved by legislators to increase faculty salaries over a certain time frame have started with much ballyhoo but were abandoned within a short time. University officials, faculty members and students have learned to be extremely skeptical of any grand-sounding schemes of support from state legislators and government executives.

Thus, university officials have had to seek approval from the regents to initiate programs to increase funding for the schools. Hence, the sizable rise in tuition. It is interesting to note the majority of students support these increases because they believe the additional funds will help improve the excellence of their university experience.

However, the 15 to 20 percent jumps in tuition cannot go on forever without the strong possibility that increasing numbers of students and their families will say they just can’t afford to attend KU or KSU.

It is essential that school administrators have the vision and courage to try to build KU into a truly outstanding university. Chancellor Hemenway seeks to have KU ranked among the nation’s top 25 state-aided schools. Kansans have to ask themselves if they can afford the cost of achieving this goal.

On the other hand, what is the “cost” to Kansas and its young people, as well as its future, if the state fails to fund the school at the proper level?

There are sure to be complaints about a 24 percent increase in the chancellor’s earnings, but only 1.5 percent of this total will come from the state. The rest will come from a special — very special — funding program provided by KU alumnus Charley Oswald of Edina, Minn. The plan is set up to provide about $50,000 a year for Hemenway.

Not long ago, Oswald, a Hutchinson native, gave KU a gift of approximately $10 million to be used by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the school of business to provide additional unrestricted funding. Later, he thought about the salary level for Hemenway compared with compensation for other university chancellors or presidents and decided to do something to improve Hemenway’s income.

He worked out a plan to give KU another $1 million and then decided it would be nice to add KSU president Jon Wefald and Wichita State University President Donald Beggs to the same program. It is a wonderful act of generosity, and Oswald deserves the thanks and appreciation of all those interested in higher education.

At the same time, allowing supplemental funding for the chancellor and presidents does present some potential problems. Do gifts such as these increase the possibility of certain individuals or companies gaining undue influence with a particular university leader? In the past, Kansas regents had said no to any supplemental income for school leaders, but now that restriction has been removed. Are there ways to get around this policy? History shows there are those who will try to circumvent policies and rules whenever money is involved.

In this case, Oswald has done a marvelous thing in providing the extra income for Hemenway, Wefald and Beggs. But what happens when there is a change in command at one or more of these schools? What happens if these individuals do not measure up in the eyes of the regents has not been made public.

Education, whether at the K-12 level or higher education, takes a tremendous bite out of state revenues. Some will be quick to say they have never met an educator or school official who thinks he or she is being properly funded. “They always are asking for more; there is never enough,” such observers say. And there’s some truth to this.

Years ago, Kansans and Kansas legislators were proud of their fiscal support for education — at all levels. Kansas used to rank near the nation’s top in this category based on a per-capita formula.

For some reason, however, the level of funding started to slip and the just-released report confirms that the situation is getting worse, not better.

KU officials, as well as alumni and supporters, face a major challenge. How do they get the public excited and enthused about the university’s role and potential? This also applies to KSU and WSU officials and supporters. How do they get the public, especially legislators, to realize how strong universities benefit all Kansans?

It’s not an easy task, but one that should command the top attention of KU officials and those supportive of the school.

Again, what kind of universities do Kansans want to educate this state’s young people? It’s up to the people of Kansas to make this decision, but university officials are the ones to make the case for excellence rather than mediocrity.