The problem isn’t that President Scarborough is running the University of Akron like a business. It’s that he isn’t.
an editorial by Chris Horne, publisher
The subtle message undergirding the University of Akron’s “What I did with my summer vacation” narrative is that they’re running the university like a business.
In a business, within reason, you can hire anyone you want. In a business, you don’t have to tell anyone outside the company—or even many inside the company—what you’re doing or why you’re doing it. In a business, you can contract with pretty much any company you please. Maybe you’ve thought about these things. “What’s the big deal? They’re running the university like a business!”
Except they aren’t.
President Scott Scarborough isn’t running the university like a business because in a business, he’d be using his money—not millions in taxpayer dollars. When it’s someone else’s money, it’s easier to pad the six-figure salary of an under-qualified candidate you prefer with an extra $100,000 a year more than their predecessor received. If the trustees were running the University of Akron like a business into which they, like stockholders, had invested large amounts of their own money, would they approve nearly $1 million in renovations for the house where Scarborough lives?
“Oh, but Chris, it’s totally okay because that came from private donations!”
One, the laborers—before they were fired—were paid by the university, not private donations. Two, considering the financial crisis Scarborough inherited, why didn’t the trustees talk those private donors into putting their money towards something else on campus? Even half that amount could have funded UA Press for multiple years, or almost paid for another season of baseball while the university looked for help in the community. Even if you think the house needed work, who in the world thinks budgeting $140,000 on furnishings is, to quote Pavloff, “acceptable”? You could argue the responsible—albeit “tough”—decision would have been to sell the house, donate the proceeds to the university and give Scarborough a housing allowance.
If they considered these options—and you’d hope they had—why didn’t they go that route? Totally legit question, right? Might have a totally legit answer. But I haven’t heard it. Ditto for many of the others I’ve asked. Why cut one position from the football program but 54 from Student Success? How could Scarborough defend the $8 million spent on football as a “marketing expense”? Aren’t there other, perhaps more productive and less expensive ways to market UA? According to UA’s 2014-15 budget, the university brought in $4 million more than it spent, so from whence did this $40 million shortfall come?
These are the kinds of questions the Akron community deserves to have answered, which is traditionally where your news media enters the picture.
Well, friends, this rinky-dink publication of ours isn’t getting anywhere with the people who hold the answers to these questions. They’re ready to put this summer in the rearview. They do not want this to fester long enough for the campus to fill up with students, staff and faculty.
So, I’m still waiting for responses to questions that are a week old, some older. I’m waiting on a records request, made in July, to get a list detailing who was laid off, who retired, who quit and which positions hadn’t been filled, which you’d think they already know. It took a week to get the apology Dr. Todd Rickel mentions in his statement about the “careless mistakes” on his vita (His written apology to Provost Mike Sherman is literally “I apologize for the errors…”). From the beginning, I’ve asked for a plan that explains why some cuts were made and others weren’t, a logic guiding the “difficult decisions” Scarborough and the trustees say they have to make.
Maybe by the time this issue is printed, they’ll have answered. More than likely, they won’t respond until you make them. You, the people of Akron, and you, the news media of Northeast Ohio. The ball is in your court. If you want the answers, you have to demand them. You can’t be satisfied by lame, incomplete responses.
For example, all the university will tell me about how Rickel explained the significant errors he made on his application CV is that he apologized, they discussed it and now consider the matter closed. We aren’t talking about a couple of errant words but panels with radically different titles and topics listed at conferences that, in two cases, have no record of him even attending. After making promises to communicate better, they seem to be trying hard to keep from answering at all.
That tells me to keep digging because I think you deserve to know why the administration isn’t concerned it’s paying a man nearly $300,000/year (with a $1500/month car allowance) when, at best, he can’t perform the attention to detail it takes to get his own resume right.
But the questions around his vita are just part of the big picture what’s going on at Buchtel Hall.
So the cover story this issue is an attempt to combine all the pieces of the puzzle—UA Press, EJ Thomas, baseball, the layoffs and all the VP hires from Toledo—we have so far to try seeing the big picture.
A key could be one clause in the request for proposals (RFP) to outsource an online nursing program. That clause gives the university the right to extend the services of the winning proposal to outsource other classes and degrees. Worth potentially tens of millions of dollars, this RFP garnered just one proposal: Academic Partnerships. Just imagine an RFP for a construction project that allowed the university to grant the same extension to whatever company won the proposal.
“Great job with the College of Education, let’s get you on that new promenade for the Corps of Cadets! No RFPs!” Nothing weird or worrisome about that, right?
If former president Dr. Luis Proenza overbuilt, will Scarborough over-outsource? Outsource student success coaching to TrustNavigator. Outsource the RN-BSN program to Academic Partnerships. Outsource dining to Aramark. So how does that fit into his idea about what makes a great public university? How does it match yours?
I’m still open to the possibility that there is a plan that makes sense and is good for both Akron and the university. I just want to know what it is. The “trust us” routine only goes so far, especially when the things that keep surfacing make it seem like they are not simply bad at communication—as the daily paper’s editorial board continues to suggest—but rather actively trying to conceal information.