UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

This from the ADG this morning:

A University of Central Arkansas vice president first contacted food-vendor Aramark to see if it would help fund renovation of the UCA-owned president’s home, interim President Tom Courtway said Tuesday.
Contention surrounding Aramark’s offer of $700,000 for renovations if UCA would renew its seven-year contract led to the resignation Friday of Allen Meadors from the UCA presidency.
Courtway said Diane Newton, vice president for finance and administration, told him earlier Tuesday of her contact with Aramark. Newton was one of nine members who had been serving on a committee appointed by the board of trustees to look into the president’s home, determine whether it was appropriate for a family of four and, if not, suggest what should be done.
At an Aug. 26 trustees’ meeting, board Chairman Scott Roussel, calling it a “godsend,” announced that Aramark was donating $700,000 for further renovations of the house, which already had undergone roughly $400,000 in mostly publicly funded repairs and renovations since June 2009.

Neither Meadors nor Roussel mentioned to trustees the contract condition, which the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette first reported last week.
Both men later acknowledged that they were aware of the stipulation at the time. They apologized at a specially called board meeting Thursday and suggested their failure to disclose the condition upfront was an honest mistake.

Now my question is, how can Meadors be held accountable and Roussel not?

To the Board of Trustees - with your decision to terminate Meadors you reestablished some faith back into many UCA supporters who had lost some confidence in the Board. We support your decision and appreciate the way the matter was expedited. However, if Roussel admitted "guilt" why hasn't he been terminated also? As Board president this really does not look good for the Board not to take action against him. If what Miss Shelton has written is true than this is a no-brainer.

Let me be clear, I have no animosity towards Mr. Roussel but he purposely misled the Board - honest mistake or not. To further repair and sustain the integrity that the Board has bestowed upon itself during this Aramark matter, I feel, and so do many others, that you have at least one more loose end to tie up. Protecting your own will definitely not sit well with the masses if that is the choice you make.

Integrity - that's the bottom line here. The decision is yours.

They're right. Roussel has to go.

Can the board get rid of another board member? I doubt it, since each member is appointed by the governor. Regardless, Roussel should be forced to resign.

Technically, you could be right. However, I have no doubt in my mind that they can make it happen if they so desire.

The board are not employees. They volunteer their services. If enough people are not happy with their service I am sure resigning will not be an issue. These board members have their own professions and outside activities they would be happy to pursue if their efforts are not appreciated by the UCA community. It works both ways. Let's not get carried away.

who's getting carried away? the guy knew there were strings attached and didn't point it out to the rest of the board? after all that's gone on at UCA in the past 3 years? c'mon now.

A couple of congresswomen want an "outside" investigation according to the ADG this morning.

“I think probably someone else needs to investigate it,” said state Sen. Sue Madison, co-chairman of the Legislative Council Subcommittee on Higher Education.
“It’s certainly fine if they [university staff and trustees] want to look at it, but I don’t know that that’s going to be sufficient because there could be a conflict of interest there,” said Madison, D-Fayetteville. “If they find wrongdoing by board members, for instance, that would be a conflict” when the findings go to trustees.
This would help ensure “an impartial and neutral investigation,” Madison said.

Referring to Roussel, state Rep. Johnnie Roebuck, who co-chairs the subcommittee with Madison, said Monday that “the fact that one of the board members was actually part of the inappropriate activity should still not keep all the other board members from looking at that [issue] and doing what they’re charged to do.”
“If they [the Audit Committee members] find anything that they need to report, it is my sincere hope that they will do so and not in any way circumvent their authority because they feel like they owe allegiance to only UCA,” said Roebuck, D-Arkadelphia.
“I think sometimes we forget they are also trustees of the state money,” not just a university’s expenditures, Roebuck said.
Roebuck said she did not know what, if any, questions trustees asked about the Aramark deal the day Roussel announced it. But she said, “As a legislator, I assume — and maybe that’s the problem — I assume that trustees are trained” to handle their duties and to ask the right questions.

I think maybe these two ladies are right. If there is nothing to hide then we should welcome an investigation. Exposing the guilty culprits in this debacle without protection of them by any insiders here at UCA is what we need to clean up this mess. Expose them and get rid of them. Our only allegiance to UCA as alumni and friends is to believe that our integrity will be restored and maintained when the dust has settled. When the dust settled after the Hardin fiasco there was a lot of water mixed in with it.

Also, out of all the articles and blogs I have read concerning this matter, not one has come down on Gov. Beebe for his inaction of the matter and the questioning of his appointments over the years. I would think some of the blame should lie with him. He took no action after the Hardin ordeal and so far has kept a low profile during this matter. It appears the lame duck has roosted on top of the fence.

The more this case lingers on, the blacker the eye for UCA.

Off the Arkansas Times site. It will be interesting to hear what vendors do for Fayetteville, especially athletics.


Officials: College-vendor contracts with perks common
Posted on 14 September 2011
By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau

LITTLE ROCK — State colleges and universities commonly hire vendors under contracts that include money or other perks for the schools, officials told lawmakers today.

In fact, officials of several two and four-year institutions acknowledged the schools have arrangements not too different from the one that recently cost the University of Central Arkansas president his job.

The UCA Board of Trustees voted Sept. 2 to buy out Allen Meadors’ contract after he misrepresented as a “gift” food vendor Aramark’s offer of $700,000 toward renovations at the president’s residence in exchange for renewal of a food service contract with the university.

Unlike the UCA contract, officials said, the other schools’ agreements were endorsed by the leadership of the college or university after they were made aware of all the details.

“It’s interesting to me that this is fairly common, yet it was such a surprise to us,” Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, said during Wednesday’s meeting of the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Members discussed the vendor contracts during a more than three-hour review of tuition cost containment efforts at state higher education institutions.

Four two-year colleges and four four-year universities were reviewed Wednesday. Five more four-year schools, including the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, and eight two-year colleges are on today’s agenda. The remaining state schools will be reviewed by the subcommittee at its October meeting.

The UCA board’s unanimous vote to buy out Meadors’ contract came a day after the trustees convened a special meeting to discuss the Aramark deal. Several board members said they did not know the details.

UCA is currently conducting an internal investigation. Meadors’ departure comes two years after he took over as head of the university in 2009, replacing former UCA President Lu Hardin, who resigned amid a financial scandal involving a $300,000 bonus in 2008.

Today, UCA Interim President Tom Courtway told lawmakers that the university has two other vendor agreements, in effect for several years, that include payments to the school.

A 10-year contract with Pepsi that began in 2003 included an initial $500,000 company payment to the university and annual payments of $50,000. The company also was allowed to place vending machines throughout the campus.

Courtway said the agreement was worth about $2 million, the majority of which he said went to construction of a new athletic practice facility.

Also, he said a contract approved in 2007 with bookseller Barnes and Noble to run the university bookstore includes provisions that the company make annual payments totaling at least $365,000 to the school. Additionally, Barnes and Noble made a $150,000 one-time donation to UCA when the contract was approved and contributes $3,000 a year to a book scholarship fund.

Diane Newton, UCA’s vice president for finance, told lawmakers that bids were taken on both contracts and those financial agreements were included in the offers.
“So when they submitted the bid, they said ‘we’ll also put in it with this extra?’” Madison asked.

“Yes, that was part of their offer,” Newton responded, adding that other vendors included similar offers in their bids.

Courtway, who was UCA’s general counsel before being named to replace both Hardin and Meadors, told lawmakers he was not involved in the agreement with Aramark.

Officials with Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock told lawmakers their schools receive payments as part of vendor contracts.

HSU President Bobby Jones said the university has a contract with Aramark under which the food service company agreed to pay the university $2.5 million toward construction of a new dining facility. The vendor also agreed to help the university pay off the project’s debt with an annual payment of $94,000.

Jones said the agreement required the university to extend Aramark’s contract from seven to 10 years, which it did at the beginning of the current fiscal year with HSU board’s approval.

“We’ve had Aramark on campus since 1996,” Jones said, adding Aramark bid on each contract renewal until the most recent. “We’re very satisfied with the services Aramark provides to us.”

UALR President Joel Anderson told the panel the book store contract the school renewed with Barnes and Nobles last year included the vendor paying $150,000 used toward construction of a food service facility in a residential hall.

Arkansas Tech President Robert Brown told the committee that in 2004 the university renewed its contract with Chartwell Food Services and the company paid the school $1.2 million, which was used to upgrade women’s sports facilities on campus. The food service company had had the contract with the university since 1996.

Brown said the agreement has been cost effective, noting that an ATU student can receive a meal plan — three meals a day — for $9.84 a day.

“We think it’s a terrific bargain for our students,” he said. “We believe that given the level that they can provide, we don’t think we can beat that.”

The contract comes up for renewal in 2014 and “if they’re not up to par, we’ll seek someone else.”

Sen. Jimmy Jeffress, D-Crossett, questioned the agreements that Arkansas Tech and other universities have made with vendors.

“Even though it is not illegal, I promise you will not find 99 out of 100 who think it’s proper,” Jeffress said. “I don’t think that this is proper.”

Just pay attention to press releases and reports mentioning vendors paying for capital improvements, to get a pretty good idea as to what is happening. I'll bet maybe 1000 universities have similar deals.

After reading the other universities leaders comments, it seemed someone was out to make a mountain out of molehill. UCA's board will vote on what they want to do regarding the food service contract as they do on all similar contracts. Roussel, Newton or the university president do not make those decisions

I would have to agree Bearsbro. Unless there is something about this that has not been exposed,it appears that the Aramark agreement would have been business as usual at every other university. I'm afraid that the powers that be may have unwittingly aided DHS in giving UCA yet another unwarranted black eye. I'm not an alum,but I do have a son in school at UCA. From the outside looking in it appears that there may be too many folks that enjoy drama and maybe not enough folks who just want to do the right thing and work together for the betterment of the school. That's just my opinion based on about a year and a half of casual observation.Not meant to offend or attack anyone in particular.

No one is arguing that the contract is business as usual. The problem arose when the former president and the current board chair (and possibly others) covered up the full details of the gift. People are still upset because we got rid of one person, but others are still around.

But the board makes their decisions based on these individuals plus other people's opinions also. That's why the board is trying to defend itself in this case - they made a decision on some other people's sayso. If the board is going to have to research every opinion presented to them to see if it's true or not before acting on it then why do we need a president or vice president to run the school. These officials are paid good money to be most ethical and/or intelligent in making their decisions and recommending them to the board. As of now, we're 0 for 2 in that category.

You're making an assumption that when the contract information was made to the board in December that the chair and administration wouldn't provide all the options. Ms Newton has always provided the board with accurate information, why do think she wouldn't this time? Do you know something you're not sharing with us?