[This was sent to Lee Todd, CEO of the University of Kentucky, on Thursday, February 10. Don’t hold your breath for a response.]
CEO Todd,
The Herald-Leader stated that your reason for increasing Mitch Barnhart’s salary $125,000.00 was because “[t]he higher salary puts Barnhart closer to the market rate for SEC athletics directors.” (These are their words describing your reasons.)
I’m wondering if your comments were taken out of context. As I’m sure you know, Mitch was already the 3rd highest paid AD in the SEC. Four months ago, UGA (which has an athletic program that consistently outperforms UK in the Sears Cup rankings and generates an even greater profit than UK athletics) set the market rate for SEC AD’s by hiring Greg McGarity for $425,000 a year (or $50,000.00 less than Mitch’s old salary of $475,000.00).
Can you please explain how Barnhart’s raise, which moves him from the 3rd best paid SEC AD to the 2nd best paid AD, brings him closer to the market rate? Do we have different understandings of what getting closer to the market rate means? You’re a business person, so I’ll defer to your definition, but please explain to me what you mean by market rate and how it applies here. Shouldn’t you be cutting Mitch’s salary to bring him closer to the market rate for SEC athletics directors?
Thanks,
Danny Mayer
Editor, North of Center
Lee
Dear Mr. Mayer,
We did a total compensation review of ADs in all the major conferences to determine the market. What you failed to consider is that most institutions have university or athletic foundations that supplement pay. For example the University of Louisville Foundation supplements the AD’s base university salary, bringing him to around $741,000. The University of Kentucky does not have a foundation so the base pay is a real number.
Thanks for asking.
Lee Todd