The Kansas Board of Regents’ strategy on state funding sounds more like the pitch a university endowment association would make to a potential donor than a serious request for funding to support the basic operations of the state’s higher education system.

It’s “politically pragmatic,” the regents said, to approach Kansas legislators with a request for “targeted enhancements” rather than seeking a general budget increase to pay for rising operational costs. Like many university donors, legislators apparently like to direct their money toward specific “extras” rather than provide funding for the more mundane day-to-day costs of operating a university.

So how are universities supposed to pay for health insurance, utilities and other rising costs of doing business? Legislators have made it clear that they are unhappy with recent increases in tuition at the schools. As one regent pointed out, not providing funds to cover rising operational costs amounts to a funding cut for universities. How do they offset those cuts?

Ironically, some of the “enhancements” that legislators like actually raise ongoing costs for the universities. If legislators approve funding for new buildings or programs, the universities are then responsible for finding the funds to maintain those structures or sustain those efforts into the future.

In this new world of funding, money to provide needed salary increases now are an “enhancement,” not a standard expense of doing business. One of the regents’ top priorities for Kansas University funding next year is $3.4 million for merit-based salary enhancements at the KU Medical Center. Calling those “enhancements” is a bit of a misnomer. Those raises actually are necessary simply to retain high-quality staff and researchers who currently are in danger of being lured to other institutions by more lucrative job offers.

It’s no secret that state universities in Kansas have moved from being “state-funded” to being “state-aided.” Still, it seems backward for requests for state funding to be based on special program requests instead of on what it takes to keep the lights on.

The regents need to acknowledge the political realities involved, but if they aren’t going to make this case to state legislators, who will?