Letters

High salary needed to draw new chancellor

In “Raises not justified for high-paid UC officials”
(Oct. 3), the editorial board makes a number of grievous errors in
evaluating the proposed raises for University of California
executives.

The editorial states that the $350,000 some UC administrators
make is “a lot of money,” but a lot of money for what?
The value of anything is determined chiefly by the benefit it
brings to the purchaser. For the UC, the labor of skilled
administrators is one of the most important investments that can be
made.

Consider Chancellor Albert Carnesale’s role in Campaign
UCLA, an effort to raise $1 billion for the school. Under his
leadership, the program is set to raise more than three times that
amount. Even a million-dollar salary would be about 0.033 percent
of that ““ quite a small finder’s fee. While the campus
and dining hall jobs are important, can other UCLA workers claim to
have as much of an impact as Carnesale?

The editorial also says it is a “considerable leap of
faith” to claim that higher salaries will attract better
administrators, even though three of the four chancellors it cited
were offered higher salaries to draw them from their former
universities.

What is supposed to attract a new chancellor? Perhaps he should
be satisfied with our appreciation. His paycheck could even be in
smiles.

No, the board says, he should want to be here for the prestige.
But any administrator that concerned about glorifying his image is
probably not a good candidate anyway.

To get the new chancellor, take back the hugs, and fork out the
dough.

Kenneth Hurst

L.O.G.I.C. chairman