Sunday’s Journal-World story about the purchase and use of a private jet by Kansas University triggered many responses — some favoring the purchase, use and costs, but more questioning or criticizing the jet expense.

The big question is: Who should pay for many of these flights, not the plane, but the flights? Should it be Kansas taxpayers or the departments within the university that are using the plane?

Maybe it’s OK for KU to have the plane, but it’s hard to justify the use of taxpayer money to pay for some of the trips the jet makes. If Kansas Athletics wants to use the plane for recruiting trips, to attend rallies to raise money or other reasons, shouldn’t the athletic department funds be used to pay for those trips rather than money earmarked for KU’s general operating fund?

Use of the plane by KU Medical Center doctors who work and consult with clinics in western Kansas seems far more understandable and justified, but as long as the plane is available and state taxpayers are picking up the tab, why not use it?

Shorter trips to Emporia, Pittsburg and Wichita could be made by car unless there is a critical time factor. Especially in this day and age, time on the road needn’t be wasted; officials can be on their phones or doing other work in the car.

In many other cases, it would seem reasonable to use commercial flights even though a private jet may be more comfortable, save time and is a more prestigious way to travel.

The story was not meant to find fault with recruiting trips, doctors trips or trips by the chancellor and others for important meetings. If KU Endowment Association officials or KU administrators were able to work out a good deal price-wise to buy a jet, good for them. But should taxpayers be paying for these trips? If it’s OK for KU officials, why don’t Kansas State and Wichita State or the other state universities buy jets and have state taxpayers foot a good portion of the travel bills?

State tax dollars are tight, and officials at state universities are fighting for additional fiscal support from the state. Should state tax dollars be used to pay for a jet, or even a turboprop to travel around the state and to distant spots such as Washington, D.C., Scottsdale, California and other attractive locations?

Maybe Kansas lawmakers, Internal Revenue Service or Federal Aviation Administration officials could work out a policy whereby various KU departments and Kansas Athletics could pay for their use of the plane with revenues generated by their own efforts rather than state dollars.

Otherwise, Kansas taxpayers are likely to ask more and more questions about how their dollars are being spent to provide private jet travel for KU personnel.