Are Kansas University officials embarrassed by information they refuse to share about the athletic director’s compensation package?

It has been said before that athletics is Kansas University’s window to the world. That’s probably a good analogy. For many people in the region and the country, a KU basketball or football game is how they first become acquainted with the university.

Now, it seems the window shade has been pulled. KU still opens it on game days, but it has become clear that there’s plenty in KU’s athletic house that officials don’t want the public to see.

The university recently denied a request by the Journal-World to review the compensation package received by athletic director Lew Perkins. The Journal-World had previously reported that Perkins receives a base salary of $400,000 per year plus fringe benefits that include two automobiles, family memberships to two country clubs, and two season tickets to men’s basketball games.

But the university also has said that “contingent supplemental compensation is potentially available” to Perkins. Some individuals close to the school’s athletic scene claim the supplemental income in Perkins’ case may boost his compensation to between $800,000 and $1 million.

It seems to be an issue worth investigating. At a public university that has raised tuition and claims to face significant financial challenges, it would seem to be both the right and the responsibility of taxpayers to question the school’s financial priorities.

None of this is to say that Perkins is overpaid. KU athletics provides a lot of joy in people’s lives and it is tough to put a price tag on that. Plus, if a successful athletics department attracts millions of dollars in donations or hundreds of high-quality students that wouldn’t have known of KU otherwise, then Perkins may be worth every penny he receives.

Of course, that’s the problem. We don’t know of every penny he receives. The solution is simple. The university should release the information, and then we can have an open, honest debate about whether KU’s priorities are in proper order.

Surely, the university still believes in teaching the value of debate.

Discussing salaries always has the potential to be uncomfortable. But a man who serves a public university in such a high-profile position should know that it comes with the territory. For university officials to defend their decision by asserting that they’re protecting the privacy of their employees doesn’t hold water. There’s more likely a simpler reason why university officials have decided to draw the shade to KU’s window to the world.

They’re embarrassed by what the world might see.