Arkansas Blog

No doubt so that Lu can stay covered on healthcare.

Once again the coverup is worse than the crime.

Nobody wants to go on the record about the buyout? Could we get one simple statement justifiing the use of a buyout during a resignation?

Has anyone even been rude enough to ask? Journalism? Anyone?

Maybe Lu knows where all the skeletons are buried.

No Doubt.

This whole thing has been botched since the get-go AND pretty sure this is common practice for "Sabbaticals" that the person is on 'leave' and remains an employee. The "resignation" would seem to override, but I believe the original announcement used the term Sabbatical...
|

What I do not understand is this. If Mr. Hardin freely resigned for health reasons, why would he receive any sort of buyout, since he was freely relinquishing his position as president. A buyout, however, might be the result of an involuntary separation if the individual being separated had a contract guaranteeing him/her a salary for a specified period. Both Hardin and Sims, the BOT president, are quoted as saying that this is completely voluntary. So, if Mr. Hardin wishes to leave the presidency at UCA, why should WE (the citizens of Arkansas) pay him a million dollars for quitting. I would like to see some explanation of this. I know this bothers many people. Where is the transparency here?

I found a replacement UCA should consider:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/NEWS/80828006

Apparently if you take photos drinking beer from a keg, if you are a universty president you get $400,000 for that. I would be a millionare if that applied to my job.

Rush Harding is less than credible. First Rush says Luser is an employee, then Rush realizes his mistake and no, Luser is not an employee, now yes Luser is an employee again! How can anyone have confidence in what the board voted upon if the board itself does not know. Who is pulling the "puppet of a board's" strings. Obviously Rush never knew what he voted upon. What a shame!

Ah shit...just buy Lu Hardin a fishing pole and a boat, give him a lifetime supply of crickets and a senior forever-fishing license, a mid sized suv and say "good while it lasted" and move on. Here's your health care for life program Lu. Next time you're down my way I'll keep an eye out for you.

There's kids that need rescuing and departmental neglect over at DHS.

Natural state, I am not concerned about legal semantics and jargon. This was a delicate situation that had to be negogiated. The president had a contract. A 9 month sabbatical for health concerns was certainly warranted. He has no duties and no authority, which when asked by the Times, "how can he be on sabbatical if he is not an employee?" my answer to the reporter was, "I don't care about semantics, if 'sabbatical" is the wrong word, I am sorry, but he has no duties or no responsibilities so I do not consider him an employee." I immediately called Tom, he explained the legal requirements and I immediately called the Times back but they had left. I guess one way to stop looking uncredible is to shut up, to refuse to be open and honest with the press, and to never return phone calls. The man had a contract, he had the votes to stay, it was in the best interest of the University for him to go, what was done had to be done. It will not effect this year's budget one cent and the lump sum payment will not come from general revenue so it will not impact salaries, benefits, etc. to the rest of the University. I assure you I knew what I voted on, and if you think I am somebody's puppet that exposes what little you do know. Instead of all this blogging, you do seem like a reasonable person. Could I please meet with you, answer every question you have about this incident and please lay this to rest. 804-8434 or 907-2018 work.

ARK. BLOG: Thanks, Rush, for pitching in here.

I don't think it's semantics -- if you are an employee - I presume you get health insurance and other potential benefits. If you are not an employee, health insurance is on your own ( I would hope he would get COBRA or whatever state employees get to substitute for their health insurance)

So, he was fired, bought out. Fine. The truth doesn't hurt too much. Even gives the board a means and forum to stand up for truth and begin to mend the reputation of the university. No such thing happened.

From your account one of the votes he had was yours. So, why not let him stay. IF he had the votes, he gets to stay.

He had the votes to stay or get fired. Am I confused again?

Sounds a tiny bit more like a half truth. Damn logic, damn rationality. Where did that come from anyway? Let's see, rational thought? where would you go if you were interested in rational thought in our society? Hummm. UCA? Hmmmm.

Or.

He told the board what to do. Sounds like they should go next.

He had done too much damage to stay but had to get all the money on the way out the door. There is more to that tale. A lot more. But, thanks for playing.

Mr. Harding: I read your comments and mine. You may know things that I do not. I was opposed to payment for what I saw as a sever wrongful act. I have vented. Now I am done. Sir, based on what I said and how I said it you are owed my apology and here I give it. Rush I am sorry and will not mention this matter again.

It's sad to say but this was the only way for this to play out. Hardin did have enough votes to stay because I suspect that only Harding and Stanton thought that it was best that he leave, albeit for different reasons. The rest of the board appear to be totally out to lunch. President Hardin views his resignation as a concession because he believes he could have been at UCA for another decade (that's $2.5 million plus deferred compensation). The only way Hardin was resigning was with all the money. The board would not have fired him and, as we have not viewed his contract, it is unclear whether what he did qualifies as cause. Even if it did, in the board's view, Hardin would have sued for wrongful termination seeking at least 3 or 4 million. The distraction would have continued beyond Sept. 16 and the costs would probably have been the same.

" ... he had the votes to stay, it was in the best interest of the University for him to go ..." Rush Harding

Like I posted a day or two ago, UCA Trustees who were willing to vote in favor of Lu Hardin staying on as president should be relieved of their duties. Yesterday!

" ... the lump sum payment will not come from general revenue so it will not impact salaries, benefits, etc. to the rest of the University." Rush Harding

Wow! So the money to buy Lu Hardin off will just rain down from the sky? Oh, I see, it will come from a fund other than the 'general fund' and somehow that makes everything okay. But don't the Trustees use money from that other fund (bookstore profits, etc.) for scholarships? If so, then that means fewer young women and men having a chance to better their lives with a college education.

You know, I don't know anyone who isn't saddened that Lu Hardin is fighting a cancer in or behind his eye. That said, what he did was wrong and what the UCA Trustees did this week is also wrong. What a sad example you folks are setting for everyone, not just the students at UCA.