Donors are funding MSU’s president. Where’s the the oversight? | Opinion

When The Detroit News asked us about Michigan State University’s compensation arrangement for President Kevin Guskiewicz, one of us said that, in today’s market, $1.5 miollion is not an exorbitant salary for leading a major university. We stand by that assessment.

Our concern is not how much Guskiewicz is paid. It is how the additional money is being provided and the lack of oversight regarding those funds.

Two prominent donors created the Presidential Spartan Fund, an LLC with commitments from 20 donors. It provides $500,000 a year to the president’s office, raising Guskiewicz’s salary from about $1.03 million to $1.5 million. The fund’s spokesperson says the donors’ agreement is private and that the university has no agreement with the LLC. The LLC was formed on July 6, the day Guskiewicz announced that he would remain at Michigan State.

When The Detroit News asked us about Michigan State University’s compensation arrangement for President Kevin Guskiewicz, one of us said that, in today’s market, $1.5 miollion is not an exorbitant salary for leading a major university. We stand by that assessment.

Our concern is not how much Guskiewicz is paid. It is how the additional money is being provided and the lack of oversight regarding those funds.

Two prominent donors created the Presidential Spartan Fund, an LLC with commitments from 20 donors. It provides $500,000 a year to the president’s office, raising Guskiewicz’s salary from about $1.03 million to $1.5 million. The fund’s spokesperson says the donors’ agreement is private and that the university has no agreement with the LLC. The LLC was formed on July 6, the day Guskiewicz announced that he would remain at Michigan State.

A governing board does more than set the president’s compensation. It must ensure that the process can withstand public scrutiny. Here, the board has allowed funds intended for the president’s salary to enter an account in his office without the approval process used for other large gifts.

Trustees were not merely observers. The chair of the board’s budget and finance committee said in advance that she planned to seek donors to fund the increase. People who organized or contributed to the fund later gave nearly $16,000 to each of the two trustees seeking reelection this fall. One of the fund’s organizers also helped host a fundraiser for their campaigns.

There is no evidence of a quid pro quo. But when people who help pay the president also finance the campaigns of those who oversee him, a responsible board establishes clear firewalls and discloses them publicly. Michigan State has disclosed none.

When asked about possible conflicts, the board chair said that other donors have given more and that she does not know many of the fund’s contributors. Those answers evade the governance issue: the risk stems from the donors’ roles, not the size of their gifts or the chair’s familiarity with them.

This arrangement cannot be considered in isolation. Earlier this year, Guskiewicz accepted the presidency at Clemson University after describing conditions at Michigan State as “unsustainable.” He accused some trustees of misusing confidential information and pursuing personal agendas.

He was then offered a $1.2 million base salary at Clemson but six weeks later reversed course, thanked the Michigan State board for its patience, and accepted $1.5 million at Michigan State. This was less than the board had originally offered him and strong evidence that the dispute concerned governance rather than compensation.

Clemson had to select another president.

If conditions were unsustainable in May, what changed by July? Neither Guskiewicz nor the board has responded to this key question. No independent review of his allegations has been conducted, and no public account explains what, if anything, was done about them.

This was not the first time Guskiewicz’s judgment raised questions. In 2025, The State News reported that he had hired a longtime friend as a senior adviser at $300,000 a year. That decision may have an explanation, but it adds to the need for openness about this one.

Guskiewicz says that he spends one-third of his time fundraising, so it is reasonable for philanthropy to cover one-third of his salary. But that does not explain why the money must come through a separate LLC. If private funds are to supplement his salary, they should go through the university foundation, where the arrangement would be subject to independent oversight and public disclosure. Guskiewicz should have insisted on that.

Donors are entitled to ask what their gifts accomplish. When their gifts pay the president, the public is entitled to know the terms and safeguards. Here, the public knows neither.

Even if no donor has sought or received special treatment, the appearance of divided loyalty erodes trust among faculty, students, legislators and taxpayers. Opacity is not a firewall. It also sets a precedent that other universities may be tempted to follow.

This is not hard to fix. Put the money in the university foundation, have the board approve the arrangement in public, and release the terms. The board also should set rules for donors who contribute both to the president’s salary and to trustees’ campaigns.

Whether Kevin Guskiewicz is worth $1.5 million is a fair question. Whether a private group operating outside the university’s normal oversight structure should help pay him is not. Michigan State is a public university. The public should not have to finance its president on faith.

This piece was originally published by The Detroit News on November 11, 2026.