Putting aside the fact that the budget for that particular small public state funded University didn't require more than the public funding and tuition, that pr

Putting aside the fact that the budget for that particular small public state funded University didn't require more than the public funding and tuition, that premise seems odd. If the justification for someone's salary is "they make us that much money", then why would the University refuse to compensate an IT worker who demonstrably saved the school $50,000+ a year by having extraordinary skills for their position? Or why can't there be Alumni relations staff that only exist to cater to Alumni and extract as many donations as possible? Why does it make sense that the President would do that? Does Obama, to make a stretch comparison, raise all democratic party donations himself? It seems a silly thought. And if he did, would it justify giving him a salary of some outrageous number, just so long as we point out that he raises more money than he costs? Say, $20,000,000/yr salary and he brings in $90,000,000? I'm all for profit sharing, but that brings up an even bigger question: why is there only a single person in the University being given the option of profit sharing? In a place where raises didn't happen for nigh on 10 years straight and bonuses were unheard of, if you could generate more value for the University than your cost, in multiplicity, you should see part of it. It's not OK to do that for the independently wealthy white man running the University with a base salary of $300,000, allowances upwards of $250,000 and a paid-for home while keeping the guy making $40,000/yr who just kept you from needing to buy $100,000 in software and consulting from seeing a single additional penny. It's completely unfair and there isn't any valid justification I can imagine would ever be presented to explain it.