On the Ohio University Board of Trustees’ recent decision to raise President Roderick McDavis’ salary by more than $85,000, a student trustee put it perfectly when she said “we are sending mixed signals about our priorities to the constituent groups of this institution.” Considering the ailing economy and budget concerns, she added the decision “may be poorly received.”

On second thought, “may be poorly received” could be an understatement.

The decision shows a total lack of regard for not only the students and faculty who have questioned whether McDavis should lead this university, but staff as well. At a time when OU is experiencing financial uncertainty, the board’s executive committee, consisting of three people, alone negotiated the terms of a new contract that upped the president’s pay 29 percent.

The real issue is not whether he deserved the raise or even the value of it, but how it was handled — in private, without any constituent input, when the university finds itself on unsteady financial ground.

Preparing for the worse, OU officials kept this year’s budget conservative and included a contingency plan in case the economy continues to falter and the state cuts funding to higher education. As most of OU holds its collective breath, the board makes $85,000 pay raises.

In accordance with playing it safe and making sure that the state won’t take money back, resulting in job losses, why not wait for a more favorable climate before committing to a sizable pay raise for one man?

Before eventually deciding to commit to $1.2 million in additional faculty compensation and a 3 percent pay raise, OU initially stalled as it weighed the possibility of job cuts in the event of reduced state funding. Granted, the $85,000 pay raise is a drop in the bucket compared to the investment in faculty salaries, but there was at least a dialogue over the potential for job losses if the flow of state funding dries up. Is the pay raise for this one man above open discussion? The pay raise could cover nearly three full-time custodial workers or four starting utility workers.

Then of course comes the small matter of constituent input — that is, small in the eyes of the board of trustees, deciding not only to give McDavis a new contract but to up his pay without consulting faculty, staff or students. From all the administrative wrangling that goes on at OU, it’s easy to forget that a university is composed of students and faculty first and foremost. Why not wait until they’ve assessed McDavis’ administration in a promised comprehensive evaluation scheduled to begin this fall? The evaluation loses most of its value if, before it even starts, a new contract and pay raise are granted.

The board’s rationale that McDavis is underpaid compared to similar Ohio public universities is fair. Among the seven peers the board studied, OU ranked fourth in Group 1 faculty salaries and eighth in presidential salary. But the fact remains that without any student or faculty input, McDavis is not only getting a new contract that will extend his stay to 2013 but also a salary raise to boot. He’s getting a raise at a time when many at OU are praying the state won’t deliver a blow to its budget. Three people negotiated the terms of his contract behind closed doors.

The signal is loud and clear: the board will act without sufficient input or consideration for how its decisions will be received.