We begin this editorial by confessing that we have egg on our face. We wrote in Monday’s edition of The Post that Ohio University President Roderick J.
McDavis should consider donating his most recent raise back to the university.
We failed to consider, however, that McDavis already donates significant amounts back to the university. He pointed us to an article from the Daily Kent Stater that reported in 2011 McDavis donated $73,070 to Ohio University — 3.44 percent of his base salary at the time.
It was bold of us to assume he did not, and bold of us to suggest what the university’s president do with his money. For that, we apologize.
However, we still feel three raises in 14 months is concerning, especially considering consistently growing tuition costs and rising university spending.
But more troubling to us is the manner in which these raises are decided upon.
Additional news about the president’s raise arrived with a Wednesday Columbus Dispatch article that reported the Board of Trustees’ decision to include McDavis and his wife in the recent pay raise was illegal because it was approved during a closed-door meeting.
By that afternoon, the university announced it would delay extending the raise to McDavis and his wife until the board could properly approve it with a public vote in January.
It remains unclear what exactly happened during the Board of Trustees meeting Friday. We are also unsure whether McDavis’ 2.89 percent pay raise and 15 percent bonus that were approved in August were approved legally.
The board will likely easily approve the raises for McDavis during its next board meetings without much to-do. The raises will likely even be retroactive, so no harm done.
But it seems pretty clear to us the gaff illustrates our concerns with a lack of transparency, concerns we have written about numerous times before. We aren’t convinced McDavis’ compensation must be discussed behind closed doors. The trustees should be able to evaluate the university’s top administrator — both the good and bad — publicly.
One would assume that if the board is continually approving these raises, the discussions involve highlighting McDavis’ successes, which begs the question: Why the secrecy?
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post’s executive editors.
