UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

report compiled after a recent visit to the University of Central Arkansas by an accreditation team recommended reaccreditation of the university through 2017.

But the report by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools noted concerns about the university’s finances under former president Lu Hardin.

But the report noted recent changes under President Allen C. Meadors.

The report noted how bad financial decisions under Hardin’s leadership left the university without necessary cash reserves. Facility improvements, the purchase of several houses and apartment complexes, and the expense of advancing the university’s athletic program to Division I status left the university without adequate funds.

“These decisions were made by the president, apparently with little consultation of university officers,” the report states. The report also cites declining state funding, increased scholarship spending and the “unexpected need to rapidly deploy a new technology enterprise system” as reasons why the university’s cash reserves “dwindled and went negative in 2007.”

According to the UCA release, the report also notes “significant accomplishments since the last accreditation visit,” noting improvements in the university’s response to its financial crisis, outstanding support provided by the Instructional Development Center to faculty and the university’s “strong and mutually supportive” relationships with the community.

The report also noted the university’s commitment to implementing a long-term strategic plan under Meador’s leadership, which the university had failed to do since the accreditation team’s 2000 visit.

Members of the Faculty Senate believe that shared governance at UCA is much better than it was six years ago.

Over this time, an ever increasing number of students attended UCA, received quality instruction from dedicated faculty and benefitted from existing and new academic programs.

Key officers of the institution indicated optimism regarding the financial
status of the university, and a number of elements that will more favorably affect the budget are in progress, such as a stabilization of athletic costs along with student fees and games scheduled to generate considerable revenue. It is anticipated that the university will end the current year with significant cash balances.

UCA’s move to Division 1 A for football has resulted in greatly increased attendance at football games, which in turn resulted in a positive impact on the local economy through increases in game weekend motel occupancy and income for local restaurants and businesses.

When students, faculty, staff, administrators, external constituents, and board members were asked to share their understanding of the UCA’s mission statement, the first response was for the interviewees to look at one another blankly. A participant at another meeting volunteered that UCA’s mission is to
be the second-best institution in Arkansas.

The University of Central Arkansas has been tested in extraordinary ways since the 2000 site-visit team was on campus. Individuals in leadership, governance, and regulatory roles failed to perform with the integrity and professionalism that UCA was entitled to expect. Political expediency, a certain level of favoritism, and a good deal of bad judgment were evident for a number of years. Even decisions that will ultimately prove beneficial for UCA were made abruptly, with little or no discussion or consultation.
And yet, campus units and offices remained dedicated to high quality teaching,
accessible student support, and effective and innovative learning experiences. Alumni, students, and the community hold the campus in high regard. Faculty and staff want to move forward and are at least cautiously – and some genuinely – optimistic that this will now occur within the next four or five years.

UCA’s Board of Trustees requires considerable attention. One can only wonder how
this Board would have approached the 2010 re-accreditation visit if a presidential
transition had not occurred. If the previous president had been allowed by this Board
to continue the behaviors and patterns exhibited from 2002 through 2008, how would
the University of Central Arkansas have even begun to approach the five criteria, let
alone respond to the standing criticisms of 1990 and 2000? With no strategic
planning in place, a continued deficit operating budget, little effectiveness in shared
governance, and all of the criteria deficiencies noted in this report, how could UCA
have engaged in a Self-Study and survived an accreditation visit without sanctions?
The work of the university is done in the departments and offices of the campus, but
the tone for leadership is set by the Board of Trustees and the administration. The
new administration understands the task before it and has begun to undertake the
difficult work of mending a campus and rebuilding on strengths.
It is not apparent that the Board of Trustees as a group understands the task before
them. Only three of seven were available to attend the meeting with the visiting
team. The Board chairperson, who was unable to attend the scheduled meeting with
other Board members, met by phone with two of the consultant-evaluators on the
visiting team. That conversation was troubling to the team members. The Board
chairperson exhibited little understanding of the seriousness of the institution’s
financial situation as a public institution, calling it “just a cash problem.” He referred
to a private line of credit subsequently deemed illegal by the state as just a “need to
borrow some money.” He seemed uninformed about the university. The role of the
President was to “run the university” and the Board would only step in if the
President “got out of whack.” Asked if the Board had had to step in on a president in
the past, he said “no.” He said the Board got along amicably, but then noted a
couple of situations in which Board members repeatedly play out personal
animosities (these were confirmed by administrators).
This Board of Trustees requires continuous training in the proper role of a board. It
should not become a micromanager, but it does need to understand the right
questions to ask in the context of its responsibilities as a public university board. The current President initiated training through Association of Governing Boards (AGB) and offered that training locally for the current Board members. The Board should take upon itself a continuous assessment facilitated by outside consultants (AGB
would be a good source) in order to improve its awareness and level of
responsibility. For many years, a president took on arbitrary decision authority that
created financial difficulties and even ethical dilemmas for many faculty and staff
members. Throughout this period, the Board never asked the probing questions,
never asked for detail behind the finances, nor questioned the financial presentations
they were given. Now, at least one Board chairperson does not appear to
understand that this was a problem. This Board, except for the newer members,
dramatically failed in its stewardship of UCA and its good people.

20. Finally, you are going to hear from Vice President Newton that we are making continued sound financial progress. In February, we predicted a year end cash balance of $6-7 million, today that forecast has increased to $9-10 million. This is from a zero cash balance last year. Ms. Newton will also correct the misconception that for the first time, UCA’s tuition and fees are higher than the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. As you know, the University of Arkansas
at Fayetteville receives over $2000 per full-time student more than UCA in appropriations from the State of Arkansas.
If we obtained the same per student state appropriation, our state budget would be close to $19 million more and yes, our tuition would be much lower.
Because of this significant imbalance, our tuition and fees have been higher than UofA since the mid-2000s (2005 to be exact) In spite of that difference, the University does a wonderful job of educating our students. Second to none!