In the real world, where there’s smoke, there usually is fire. In the world of public controversies, it’s sometimes hard to know if the proverbial smoke means there’s a fire, or if it’s just the result of a lot of friction.
When it comes to leadership of the University of Arkansas, the far-from-sinking flagship of a statewide system of universities, the politicaltemperature these days is intense, but it’s diffcult to tell whether it’s the kind of heat that just makes people sweat or that erupts into an inferno.
It’s been a year now since Chancellor David Gearhart reassigned Brad Choate theUA’s chief fundraiser, and told him his contract would not be renewed. This came fi ve months after Gearhart discovered Choate’s Division of Advancement had overspent its budget by more than $3 million. The division’s budget director suftered the same fate. The fundamental question from media and the public was simple: How could this have happened?
In the 12 months since, UA off cials have devoted a lot of time and energy to containment, seeking to limit the damage from revelations about fi nancial management failures. Gearhart and his leadership team insist it’s as simple as a division head and subordinate who didn’t do their jobs. They’ve been antagonist toward the statewide newspaper’s devotion to investigating, oftering assurances that university supporters have nothing to worry about. But lawmakers are raising their eyebrows, too.
The UA administration is as responsible as anyone for the tinderbox it which it now operates.
Turn after turn, they have claimed transparency while demonstrating resistance to scrutiny. For example, when UA offcials completed an internal review of the deficit situation, the UA refused to reveal it to the public. They worked out a way to release it after the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sued.
Before making the deficit situation public, Gearhart declined to seek an audit of what he called “a colossal fiscal crisis” because it “would attract attention from” the board of trustees.
Months later, he met privately with trustees in an executive session for which the purpose was obscured with vague and meaningless explanation.
There’s the UA spokesman fired in August. He claimed he was axed after he criticized the UA’s response to public records requests as inadequate for a “transparent” university. He claimed Gearhart ordered documents destroyed, a charge Gearhart vehemently denies.
Choate was to testify at a legislative hearing on the audit earlier this month when suddenly, a majority of lawmakers voted to accept the audit and shut down any further testimony. It seemed someone had decided the questions needed to end.
This week, state lawmakers asked a prosecutor to investigate the UA’s top fi nance off cer over concerns he lied to auditors. Also, it became known two more employees told investigators Gearhart instructed staft members in January to “get rid of” and stop creating documents related to the Advancement Division’s budget controversy.
Is there a fire at the University of Arkansas?
It’s hard to see through all the haze. That should provide little comfort to those who care about the UA. Remember, after all, that most people in such incendiary circumstances meet their end not from the blaze, but from suftocating in the smoke.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 12/20/2013