Arkansas Times

Arkansas Blog

« We're in the money | Main | Sweeter sounds at UCA »

The UCA money trail UPDATE

I've gotten some answers to questions raised by the hurryup of a windfall bonus for UCA President Lu Hardin.

This began in August 2005, with the adoption in a public session of the UCA Board of Trustees, this resolution, proposed by Rush Harding:

That the Board of Trustees reaffirms President Hardin's five-year rolling contract; that President Hardin's salary increases for the five-year period beginning July 1, 2005, be limited to the average pay increase awarded to the faculty; that a deferred compensation plan for President Hardin be established from the Board of Trustees Endowment Fund in the amount of $60,000 per year for a period of five years, commencing July1, 2005, totalling $300,000, and that the $300,000 will be vested and available to President Hardin at the conclusioin of said five-year period.

We now know that the UCA Board decided in secret in May, without taking a specific public vote, to pay Hardin the $300,000 immediately, though he had not yet accrued even $180,000 in credits.

Jack Gillean, UCA's vice president for administration, tells me Hardin has been paid the full $300,000 with what he understands was a UCA check. No money had been deposited into a fund that could have gained income during the accrual of Hardin's time credits, he said. No annuity was purchased that could have reduced the cost of the deferred comp plan to the university.

Gillean said it is his understanding -- but as yet no written record exists of what happened in the May UCA Board meeting -- that a private source will repay the $300,000. If that means the UCA Foundation, it means a foundation run by Kelley Erstine, who is also vice president for development at UCA, and which reaps a significant amount of income from leasing space to UCA. That makes it, in one man's opinion, somewhat hard to argue that the Foundation is a fully independent and private operation. It seems clearly to be supported in part by public money.

I asked about bonus payments to presidents generally. Are they legal? Or is pay to a university president not allowed to exceed the statutory limits in appropriation legislation? Gillean said the law allows colleges to pay up to 25 percent more than the salary line item "to recruit and retain exceptionally well-qualified employees in certain categories" and the president is covered by that law.

Hardin, however, makes $253,000. Under the law, it would seem that his pay in this year couldn't be greater than about $316,000. With bonus, his pay this year is about $553,000.

So here's what we have: A public payment of money not authorized by a legal action of the Board of Trustees and seemingly in excess of the amount authorized by law. A dream come true for a lawyer who specializes in illegal exaction lawsuits? I don't think I heard Gillean disagree with this rhetorical question.

UPDATE: Hardin defends the May board action as legal. The board voted on a group of unspecified personnel actions, none yet recorded in official minutes. I wouldn't want to be the one arguing in court for the sufficiency of that vote, most likely shrouded in secrecy on account of a faculty pay freeze and tuition increase at the same meeting. And there's still the question of calling this a $60,000-a-year supplement. To restate: he was cut a $300,000 UCA check for roughly two years and nine months of work. I didn't take math at UCA, but I still figure that at something more than $60,000 a year.

Comments

March 15, 2008
President Clinton Announces Student and University "Commitments to Action" on Pressing Global Issues

"Lu Hardin, President, University of Central Arkansas
The University is creating a new program that will leverage faculty and student research relating to poverty alleviation."

Lu's figured out his end of the research/alleviation.

Forget that Hardin is not qualified as an "exceptionally" well qualified employee. He only got the job by public pressure from the Huckabee clan and has used it mainly for self promotion.

The whole nature of the relationship between UCA and the foundation stinks to high heaven based on its funding by public moneys. It looks like quite the scam. A closer look at those books could reveal all sorts of uses for those "lease" monies. Looks like just a semi-legal way to misuse public funds.

Seems like if he was accumulating $60K per year that IS within the 25% he's allowed.

Doesn't explain the early granting of the deferred payment (or "bonus," if you insist), though. Note the Board did vote for the original deferred salary in a public meeting (if not for the early payout). Was the supposed "secret vote" in May actually "illegal," as you characterize it, or merely inadvisable (I'm not familiar with the rules about such things -- I'm just asking for information)? Or do you mean "illegal" as in it's more than a president legally can receive?

I think UCA is a blowing and going place. I assume Hardin is responsible for some of that. If he's not the "well-qualified employee" responsible, at least he's that employee's boss and presumably that is evidence of SOME qualification.

Even if he IS a Republican.

ARK. BLOG: $60,000 a year likely was legal. But if he's paid $300,000 after 2.5 years of the agreement, he's been paid well more than 25 percent per year of salary. At $100,000 per year, his supplement is something like 40 percent. The UCA lawyer is aware of no provision in law for payment beyond the salary maximum thatn the 25 percent enhancement.

FOI law says quite clearly that actions taken in secret and not ratified in public are not legal actions. Never mind that they never voted on the subject of the secret meeting in the first place.

None of this is an argument about the merit of paying Lu more. It's an argument about doing it improperly.

So the bottom line looks like:
1. The first three years, at $60,000 a year following a public vote by the board probably were just fine.
2. The May private personnel meeting of the board was fine, but they should have taken public votes on their actions after their private discussions.
3. If President Hardin was given $300,000 deferred payment over three years, that comes out to $100,000 a year, or more than 25% of his existing salary, making the payment (if we understand its circumstances correctly) not permissible under Arkansas law.

Could be the board trying to get away with something, could just be carelessness. In either case, it doesn't pass the smell test, not to mention being questionable under the law, and the board's legal staff should know that and should have squawked. Of course, maybe they did. If board members WERE trying to get away with something, they should have known better just as a practical -- if not a moral -- matter, because this kind of thing ALWAYS gets out to the public eventually and the reputation of a darn good institution gets tarred.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Campaign climate
Date: 2/4/2010
By: Paul Barton

A paper published by a think tank last month warned that Sen. Blanche Lincoln's ascendancy to the Agriculture Committee chairmanship was a bad omen for passage of climate-change legislation in 2010 due to her close ties to agricultural producers and processors seen as major contributors of greenhouse gases. /more/

Nurturing fiction
Date: 2/4/2010
By: Arkansas Times Staff

Last Wednesday, a column by Cathy Frye appeared in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette under the headline "Mothers in Haiti Face Living Nightmare." But Frye has never been to Haiti. /more/


Return of Count Ed
Date: 2/4/2010
By: Arkansas Times Staff

Dracula can't stop biting necks and Ed Bethune can't stop debasing Arkansas politics. Persistence is but one of the traits they share. /more/

Home / Blogs / This Week / Entertainment / Ark. News Headlines / Multimedia / Classifieds / Subscribe / Contact