A Kansas Board of Regents member offered sound advice this week when he urged the regents and university officials to stick to the facts when describing the potential impact of a 5 percent budget cut.

“No ‘Chicken Little’ language,” said Regent Gary Sherrer. “No BS. We want to say ‘I can prove this to you. If this is the budget I have to do, I can prove to you that there is no option but to impact the future of students.”

University officials have been asked by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to prepare budgets based on two possible funding scenarios: a 2 percent cut this year and a 5 percent cut next year. The percentages are small but the impact on state university faculty, staff and students could be significant.

It would be tempting for university officials to exaggerate that impact in an effort to paint such a disastrous picture that lawmakers would think twice before applying such cuts. If the Board of Regents and the Kansas Legislature are going to have a meaningful budget discussion, however, it’s important that lawmakers trust the figures they receive. Many legislators already are skeptical that universities are operating in a lean, no-frills manner. The regents and universities need to be armed with data that will illustrate, but not exaggerate, their budget situation and the effects of major cuts.

Leaders of all six state universities told regents it would be impossible to reduce their budgets by 5 percent without directly affecting students. Kansas State University estimated it would have to cut about 180 positions and 400 class sections to meet that goal. Kansas University said even if it delayed equipment purchases, a 5 percent cut would result in the loss of up to 125 positions, about 1.5 percent of its 8,000 work force.

About the only positive note that came out of Wednesday’s meeting was the commitment of university leaders to protect students and their families from further tuition increases to offset state funding cuts. Top officials from both KU and KSU indicated that additional tuition increases would be considered only as a last resort.

Regents should hold them to that resolve and apply the “no ‘Chicken Little,” test to any university’s attempt to claim they are down to their “last resort.”

It’s not unreasonable to expect state universities to share the burden of a struggling economy and diminished state revenues. The request for proposed budget cuts, however, would be easier to swallow if state financial support for higher education hadn’t slipped to such dismal levels in recent years.

We’re all in this together, but legislators should remember that if state universities are forced to share in the current lean times, they also should benefit when the state’s financial situation turns around.