Letters to the Editor

No ‘nest egg’?

June 9, 2009


To the editor:

Dolph’s latest idea takes the cake. He wants “some program (perhaps) jointly funded by the school, its endowment association and the state … created to provide funds to a retiring executive” so that those poor Regents schools’ presidents/chancellors would have a “nest egg” when they retire.

This is apparently needed because “sometimes the lack of a nest egg, major assets, or an attractive new job offer” keeps a chancellor/president from retiring because “he or she needs the money and perks the job offers.” He worries that they’re “retiring at an older age with no nice-paying job in the offing.”

Must we remind Dolph that every one of those executives makes more than $200,000 a year (more than four times the Kansas median household income)? That they get free use of a house and car? That they’re the chief executives of Regents schools? Even so, Dolph apparently doesn’t think they can plan and fund their own retirement … like the rest of us have to.

Oh yeah, giving the chief execs a hefty retirement bonus as a “fiscal safety net” is going to go over real well with taxpayers, “enthuse faculty members” and “provide the best education opportunities” to students.

Perhaps this is Dolph’s “compassionate conservative” side coming out? Worrying about the nest eggs of the top 3.5 percent of earners. Can we say “clueless”?

Simmons is from Lawrence


Leslie Swearingen 9 years ago

Excellent letter, but I wouldn't get my hope up. I have never been clear as to what the duties of a chancellor is, but why in the world would they need to have someone pay the rent? Sounds like some version of HUD or Section 8 to me. Free car? No. What is wrong with letting them use their salaries to pay bills just like the rest of us. With not having to pay rent, or make car payments, they should be able to save for retirement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.