The financial reports are actually very vague about where exactly money is going. The breakdown of who gets what is not clear. According to the most recent budget report "Salaries and benefits represent 72.9% of operating fund expenses." How much of this is going to teaching staff, and how much is going to the vice chair of student retention (spoiler: I made up that title)?
Regarding the necessary expertise of the administrators and the competitiveness of these positions, using Moriarty as an example, what exactly does he do to justify his salary of nearly $1,000,000 a year?
UTAM's executive comprises 7 senior managers: William Moriarty, $772,547.00 Lisa Becker, $193,385.04 John Hsu, $304,169.04 Adrian Hussey, $311,518.96. Chuck O'Reilly, $237,605.96. Cameron Richards, $269,187.46. Daren Smith, $349,250.00. Total for UTAM executive salaries: $2,088,416.56.
What does the UTAM executive do? Are they managing U of T's portfolio on a day to day basis?
Here's how Moriarty describes their job:
"UTAM then searches for and contracts investment managers to run segments of the portfolio, depending on their expertise. “In that sense we’re a manager of managers, or a fund of funds,” Moriarty noted."
In essence, they are contracting out to fund managers in much the same way banks' financial advisers sell mutual funds. Does that require 7 executives? If it does, what is Moriarty directly in charge of, when he has 6 other executives managing specific elements of their mandate.
More importantly, how has U of T benefited from the expertise of these administrators?
Since its founding in 2000 UTAM's annual return has been 2.7% (http://thevarsity.ca/2014/03/31/university-criticized-for-alleged-mismanagement-of-pension-funds/)
In the meantime, just as one example, RBC's index fund (a fund simply tied to the market without active management) has made an annual return of 8% in the same period.
A further question is what justifies the vast increase in the percentage of money going to administrators since the 1980s? Were they vastly underpaid then? Does the university function any better now?
Finally, if, as you say, sub-par pay will attract sub-par administrators, can't we make the same argument for the university's students?