Meet the Board of Trustees.

These are the 9 people taking your tuition money away from your education (and some of their recent political donations).

Phil D. Collins

  • $1000, $800 Donald Trump (R)

  • $2700 John Kasich (R)

  • $500 Mike Huckabee (R)​​

Thomas E. Mischell

  • $1000 Steve Chabot (R)

  • $1000  Bill Martini (R)

  • $1000 Rob Portman (R)

Geraldine B. "Ginger" Warner

  • $2100 Mike DeWine (R)

  • $2800 Brad Wenstrup (R)

  • $4600 Steve Stivers (R)

Ronald D. Brown

  • $750 Rob Portman (R)

  • $500 Jean Schmidt (R)

  • $1,000, $500 Steve Chabot (R)

Margaret K. "Peg" Valentine

  • $2500, $2700, $2400 Steve Chabot (R)

  • $800 Donald Trump (R)

J. Phillip Holloman

  • $2700 OH Democratic Party (D)

  • $2500 Sherrod Brown (D)

William C. "Wym" Portman III

  • $500 Rob Portman (R)

  • $1000 Steve Chabot  (R)

  • $250 John Boehner (R)

Kim Heiman

  • $2000 Mike DeWine (R)

  • $5000 Promoting our Republican Team PAC

  • $1250 Rob Portman (R)

Monica Turner

  • $400 Michael Ray Thompson (R)

The Board of Trustees votes on how your money gets spent, namely through the university budget, where they've created a highly destructive system that capitalizes on an increase in student tuition money and large donations to fund infrastructure projects and vague "directions" that feed their own wallets.

In 2009, the administrative budget was $16,553,039, but by 2016, it had risen to $29,618,276, almost doubling its budget in a 7 year period.

Meanwhile, the College of Arts and Sciences has an operating budget of $0 for the 2019-20 school year, despite making the university upwards of $190,000,000 during the duration of the current budgeting model's use.

The University of Cincinnati is a public university that acts like a private one.

The administration's goal is to have 60,000 students enrolled by 2025 (their "Next Lives Here strategic initiative", in which they push vague directional propoganda and flashy building projects like Lindner and 1819 Hub), despite lacking adequate housing for the extra people. The goal is to make as much money in tuition revenue as possible.

And, the top paid administrators and athletic staff.

Even more people taking your tuition money away from your education.

Neville Pinto

  • President

  • $660,000 salary (not including bonuses)

  • 50% higher salary than previous president

  • Gave himself a $50,000 bonus in 2019 after the BOT decided to raise tuition by 6%

    • This raise in tuition funds scholarships as well as the Next Lives Here strategic initiative (vague, but essentially a marketing strategy to increase student population and therefore bring more tuition revenue),

  • Acts as the face of and primary benefactor of the university's marketing tactics.

Kristi Nelson

  • Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

  • $489,600 salary (not including bonuses)

  • VP of academic affairs' job is to maintain a distinctive academic vision (commitment to education).

  • Provosts oversee the bulk of the budget and administrative personnel, notably responsible for revenue-generating business operations like sports events, corporate sponsors and overall marketing strategy.

  • These two jobs rarely align, as the core academic mission cannot be upkept by sports and Pepsi sponsorships.

Karl Scheer

  • Chief Investment Officer

  • $438,600 salary (not including bonuses

  • According to a 2017 article, the endowment lost $9.3 million on hedge funds in the last two years

  • Despite losses, UC’s general counsel’s office declared the holdings' content to be trade secrets exempt from the Ohio Public Records Act

  • Check out this CityBeat report on his money-losing investments

Mick Cronin

  • Former Men's Basketball Coach

  • $2,217,465 (salary and bonuses)

  • Left for UCLA with a $24 mill. 6 year contract

Mike Bohn

  • Former Athletic Director

  • $552,040 salary (not including bonuses)

Check out this CityBeat investigative report on the use of students' tuition (meant to provide them with a quality education) to fund sports programs.

In 2013, UC officials provided the athletic department with a $21.75 million subsidy, records show, using student fees and money from the school’s general fund, which is primarily funded by tuition. The total subsidy amounts to $1,024 out of the pocket of every full-time undergraduate student on UC’s main campus. The four-year price tag costs each student more than $4,000.

Students and faculty are paying the price for these exploitative practices (literally).

Faculty was then asked how much they agreed with the following statement: "The current budgeting model has negatively affected the core academic mission in my unit."

Results showed that over 2/3 of faculty (69.96%) agree with the statement that the current budgeting model has negatively affected the core academic mission while over half (53. 32%) strongly agree.

See graph for survey answers.

In the largest survey of faculty done in years, the AAUP:UC (American Association of University Professors at UC) found that over 3/4 of faculty (75.34%) believe that the current budgeting model provides insufficient resources to their unit.

See graph for survey answers.

Meanwhile, adjunct professors (part-time faculty) in A&S haven't received a base pay raise since 2003.

Read The News Record's report on the mistreatment of adjuncts at UC.

This continued exploitation is notable because if faculty does not receive adequate compensation and any job security, it worsens the quality of education they're able to provide for students.

  • Adjuncts do not have offices for office hours

  • Most juggle another full-time job during the day (bringing valuable expertise from the professional world) but teach almost as many courses as a regular professor would

Over the years, the number of tenured and tenure track faculty has steadily decreased as the amount of non-tenure track and adjunct faculty has increased significantly.

See graph for faculty demographics.

(This site is constantly being updated)


To be clear, the financial crisis at UC is not a budgeting problem, it is a spending problem.


Although the university has announced the pilot of a new budgeting model for the 2020-21 school year, the same problems are bound to repeat themselves. Without administrative transparency and accountability, irresponsible spending can and will continue under any budgeting model.

We encourage you to share this page on social media; screenshot pieces of it, link it in a post or in your bio, make it known! The only way we take back our school is by educating the student body.

If we're loud enough, the administration will hear us, enacting change.


And, if you or anyone you know has a related story to share, please do.