When it comes to executive salaries at California's public university systems, there are two things I don't want to hear from PR flacks:

• We have to offer higher salaries to remain competitive.

• It's only a fraction of the budget.

What I'd like to hear – just once – is that times are tough and we all must tighten our belts.

Instead, last week on the news I heard a San Jose State spokesperson say, "Funding for the entire office of the president accounts for less than 1 percent of the budget for the university, so it's a really tiny line item overall."

Taking on this tone deafness is state Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, author of Senate Bill 755, which offers three proposals:

• Cap the salaries of California State University's 23 presidents to a level no higher than 150 percent of the California Supreme Court chief justice's salary.

• Require that pay increases be proposed and discussed in public hearings (loudly announced ones, not the kind they say are public and don't tell anyone about).

• When hiring, trustees would first consider CSU employees and then California residents before considering applicants from out of state.

California's current chief justice, Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, earns $228,856. That means future CSU campus presidents could make up to $343,269. Currently, three campus presidents are paid more, including – whaddyaknow – San Jose State's Mo Qayoumi. Salary: $353,200.

The system still needs to hire six campus presidents.

Lieu's bill comes in the wake of several controversial tuition hikes and $750 million in state funding cuts for CSU this fiscal year. He sees the measure as simple common sense in difficult economic times.

CSU officials disagree.

"Setting the pay of the presidents is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees in consultation with Chancellor Charles Reed," CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith told the San Francisco Chronicle, "and that is where the fiduciary responsibility should remain."

Translation: We want no unwarranted intrusion on the board's authority.

"Really? This is the same board that approved a $400,000 annual salary for San Diego State's new president – $100,000 more than his predecessor – while at the same meeting approving a 12 percent tuition increase."

So let's see: The trustees of a public institution oppose any intrusion into their authority by the very public whose tax dollars help support that institution, so that these authorities, without intrusion, can approve a 33 percent pay raise while raising tuition?

Any board that cannot measure "fiduciary responsibility" with the sensitivities and limitations of the current economic climate is fiscally incompetent, ethically deficient and should be fired.

Incidentally, Mohammad Qayoumi, hired last March at San Jose State, got a $52,000 raise from his previous presidential gig at CSU-East Bay, while the new president at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo makes $380,000 a year. His predecessor's salary: $328,200.

Sac State prez Alexander Gonzalez made $352,719 in 2010, records show.

CSU officials also want the flexibility to hire out of state, and at competitive salaries, lest a different school hires them for better pay.

"We need to be able to recruit nationally to get the type of leaders campuses need and want for our institutions," Keith said.

Exactly what "type" is that, besides someone who needs more than $343,000 plus moving expenses, benefits, housing, car allowances and frills? If you can't find candidates in your system, what does that say about the system?

California has 37 million citizens. If you can't find 23 appropriate candidates within that pool to preside over the CSU campuses at salaries below the proposed cap, what are you saying about the caliber of people who live here?

Here's an idea: Open up executive positions to the bidding process, similar to that required for public works. Qualified applicants only, submitting sealed bids, then considered by the board. It promotes free and open competition while allowing the state to pay the best price for an appropriate product, usually by awarding positions to the lowest responsible bidder.

The board will balk, of course. Chancellor Reed will lament the increasing difficulties of recruiting college executives because peer institutions pay more. You'll hear someone tout the Mercer study – they're an executive consulting group – showing how competitive institutions pay higher salaries. And there'll probably be something about "fiduciary responsibility" and intruding on authority.

I have a modest suggestion then: Take your institutions private and work within that competitive arena. If your presidents, chancellors and provosts can meet their fiscal goals in an environment with no public trough to fall back on, then you can pay them whatever you want – more than $700 grand at Stanford!

But under challenging economic conditions, when budgets are slashed, programs are cut, workers are furloughed and tuition increases are pondered, board members should use restraint, and those at the top of the pay scale should truly lead by asking that their own compensation not rise any more than any other on campus, if at all.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Bruce Maiman is a former radio show host living in Rocklin. Reach him at brucemaiman@gmail.com.

• Read more articles by Bruce Maiman