EDITORIALS

The games UA-F plays

And to think, this was all so unnecessary

THERE, that didn’t hurt a bit, did it? The University of Arkansas at Fayetteville has decided to do what it ought to have done many months and news stories ago: Let the public see a public document. Namely, the financial review it conducted of its Advancement Division, which turns out to have needed quite an advance itself to crawl out of the $3.3-million hole it managed to dig itself into. And it’s not quite out yet, with many a detail still muddy, like exactly how much money it lost track of. But releasing the results of the university’s review of this imbroglio is a good first step.

RELATED

Story: http://www.nwaonlin…">UA deficit brewed for years, report says.

It’s good to know that UA-F’s administration can do the right thing, even if you have to catch its attention first. In this case, by the legal equivalent of a two-by-four: a lawsuit filed to enforce this state’s ever-useful Freedom of Information Act.

Almost as soon as this FOI suit was filed, hesto-presto, reason dawned in them thar hills, and the university decided it could release this review after all, along with some other once sequestered public documents. The law is a great teacher.

But it’s still a mysterious process, how UA-F’s administrators choose which public documents are to be released or not released, and when and how.

Arbitrary might be a better adjective to describe their decisions/moods.

Naturally, a university administration like UA-F’s can’t do the right thing without a face-saving excuse. Friday, it told Arkansas’ Newspaper that two of the university’s employees mentioned in this finally public report, the two who came off worse in it, “have today notified the University that they authorize the release of all pertinent records. We are pleased that the University can now share these records with you and others . . . without violating the legal rights of these public employees . . .”

Oh, the pleasure is all ours, gentlemen, for Heaven knows we’ve waited long enough to see these documents, which were supposed to be public all along.

NATURALLY, questions remain, even abound. As they tend to do when this university’s administration offers answers. Such as: If the university needed to make a face saving gesture, why couldn’t it have arranged something like this months ago? (Yes, months. It only seems like ages since this massive shortfall was discovered last summer.) Did these two employees who signed on to the release of these financial records refuse to do so before now? Were they even asked to do so before the paper’s FOI lawsuit was filed? Why did the university’s administration wait till now to come clean, and then only under legal pressure? Yes, the truth may hurt for a moment, but any transient embarrassment will fade after a while. Secrecy only prolongs the pain and controversy, and breeds suspicion and distrust.

If these public records had been released to the public in timely fashion, it would have saved all of us a lot of bother, not to mention attorneys’ fees and court costs. Instead, the university’s bigwigs hemmed and hawed and even abrogated to themselves the role of the courts, ruling that it would have been illegal to do so earlier. The arrogance.

Still another question: If it really was against the law to let the public have a peek at these public records, then why did the university’s chancellor say it would be fine with him if the state’s Legislative Audit Bureau did? Huh? Is there one law for the university, another for the rest of state government?

The more explaining this chancellor does, the curiouser and curiouser his explanations become. Chancellor G. David Gearhart doubtless has many fine qualities, but when it comes to discussing this scandal, simple legal consistency has not been notable among them.

When these records were finally released Friday, they did contain some items of interest here and there. Joy Sharp, the budget director who’s taken the fall for this whole mess, was finally heard from publicly. Hers was a suitably humble confession, which doubtless was good for the soul.

Then there was the response of her now-demoted boss, Brad Choate, who’s still on the public payroll at $348,175 per annum until the end of the fiscal year, when his appointment ends and won’t be renewed. He’s recorded as still making excuses, blaming his underling, and generally passing the buck.

Here’s hoping Mr. Choate has better luck at his next post in the wonderful world of bureaucracy, and that whoever hires him will have better luck with him than the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville did.

THERE was also an interesting exchange in these now-released documents between Mr. Choate and Chancellor Gearhart, his former fan and patron. The chancellor’s tone struck us as quite different from the surface calm with which he’s been discussing this scandal to date, at least in public. “Brad,” he told his once and still Advancement director, “you have been a friend and colleague for many years. I brought you here to help me. But your lack of oversight has created a colossal fiscal crisis.”

Colossal fiscal crisis. That sounds about right. We wish we’d used that phrase somewhere in all those editorials we’ve been obliged to write about this, yes, colossal fiscal crisis at UA-F. It fits. You’d think that a scandal of this proportion would make it even more imperative that the public be fully and frankly informed about it from the start. It wasn’t.

So now could we get back to the proper business of a university? Contrary to appearances, that business is not all about fielding a winning football team, or raising still more millions in contributions, or making unconvincing excuses for not leveling with the taxpaying public-not to mention the university’s own students, alumni and donors.

No, a university’s real business-its mission-is, or should be, about educating the next generation. And in Arkansas, that means offering at least as good a liberal education as the best small colleges in this state do-complete with high standards, an undiluted core curriculum, and personal attention to students.

Being big is no excuse for being sloppy. There’s no reason the University of Arkansas can’t do as good a job educating its undergraduates as much smaller schools like Hendrix and Lyon do. So that one day, when people speak of fine state universities, they mention Arkansas in the same class as Indiana and North Carolina and the University of Florida. . . . It’s time this state’s “flagship” university became one.

———

And where has the board of this public university been while all this was going on-all these delays and excuses and general fuss-and-feathers over the oh-so-difficult question of whether public documents should be made public? The board has been out of the picture, at least publicly. It’s been silent when it should have raised its voice on behalf of all those interested in the quality of higher education in this state.

The saddest news out of the board last week was that John Tyson, he of Tyson Foods, is resigning because the pressure of business has made it impossible for him to be as active a member of the board as he’d hoped to be. His kind of straight talk will be sorely missed.

Even on his way out, Mr. Tyson expressed his dissatisfaction with the kind of job the board has been doing, noting that “I have become increasingly frustrated with the board’s inability to make meaningful change in the structure and delivery of higher education in Arkansas.” He ain’t the only one. Which is why the governor should look for another straight-shooter to succeed him, one who’ll speak up when the university’s administrators play these wholly unnecessary games with the press-and the people-of Arkansas.

Editorial, Pages 14 on 02/19/2013

Upcoming Events