The inspiration for this post was a Wisconsin Public Radio article describing the raises the UW Board of Regents approved for 5 different chancellors.
The question that immediately jumped to (my) mind was, “How many of those chancellors really deserved their raise?”
Question 1) One metric of sound stewardship is budgetary figures. Logically, a well-deserved raise would be a portion of the increased revenue brought-in by the chancellor — or at least, by his or her lackeys.
(I’ll address those budgets in further detail after enrollment, because typically “student headcount” determines the maximum allowable budget, not vice-versa.)
Question 2) I delved into enrollment figures to see how attracted or repelled students were by the results of the chancellor’s management. Absent any obvious “scandal,” a continual decline in enrollment is the clearest indicator of mismanagement.
Question 3) Also, were there any scandals during any of the chancellors’ tenures? To what extent did this top-down supervision produce more “oversights” than insights?