Where does the axe fall next?

[Dave in Green]

I am actually very familiar with SOX and the events that led to the creation of it. ...

Good, then you know that its stated purpose was to increase board members' roles in overseeing financial transactions, not decrease CEO responsibilities. By that standard, the UA President and BoT share responsibility for financial matters. Maybe I haven't been clear enough in the point I've been trying to make:

If Dr. Proenza recommended and the BoT approved spending on a building plan that at the time of approval was generally considered in the financial community to be a high risk due to unreasonable debt load, then they should share blame for failing in their responsibilities to manage UA finances in a prudent manner.

If on the other hand the plan was generally considered to be financially prudent based on the best data available at the time, they should not be blamed for results largely brought on by the unforeseen recession and subsequent economic repercussions that happened to strike at the high point of UA's debt loading.

I'm still looking for the definitive answer on which of the two scenarios actually applies.

[a-zip]

Once again we need to separate hindsight from insight. You will find very little record of criticism of UA's building plan prior to 2007. Why? Because December 2007 is the month that the Great Recession began. Prior to that the economy was booming and larger debt loads were manageable and even recommended by financial experts. Prior to that is when one of the biggest complaints about UA was that it lacked modern infrastructure and the kind of pleasant campus environment that attracted students to other schools. Prior to that most agreed with Dr. Proenza and the BoT that modernizing UA's facilities was a sound investment on the road to making Hilltop High into a great university.

There is some irony in the fact that complaints can be found on these forums about one of UA's few remaining inadequate facilities, the JAR, alongside complaints that some of the current financial shortfall is due to "overbuilding." But that's just part of human nature. We all want more and no one wants to pay for it. We all want our leaders to make tough decisions and then we assume when something goes wrong it's all their fault and castigate them whether or not we have all the facts available to make that judgment. Truth be told, none of us is in a position to know how much of today's problems are due to bad judgment by those in charge or unforeseen circumstances such as the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

YUP!! So, the bottom line is that Dr. SS has to make some changes and some tough decisions (which he has been doing). I understand the emotional side of this for everyone but I don't think it is fair to judge someone and their decisions without knowing all the facts. The information that is starting to come out is the "shit sandwich" I was referring to.

Hopefully people will start to be more patient and supportive now that information is coming out and the initial plans are being communicated in a more organized manner. Honestly, I think the letter SS sent out last week was still not what was desired but it had to be done to stop some of the bleeding.

[LZIp]

Title IX experts- does baseball being cut allow for a women's sport to be cut next if need be? I doubt it will happen anytime soon if it were allowed as I figure both would have been announced at once, but just something I was thinking about.

[skip-zip]

LZip...down in the "Baseball" thread, I commented on this exact curiosity. My guess would be that Title IX probably prevented a loss of a women's sport, rather than Baseball's cut opening the door for a Women's sport to be cut.

It's hard enough to keep the numbers where they should be. The Baseball cut merely relieves that burden a bit for now.

The better question for me might be........Does this possibly allow us to finally start putting some of our All-American, world-class men's Soccer players on an Athletic Scholarship?

[morris buttermaker]

Does this possibly allow us to finally start putting some of our All-American, world-class men's Soccer players on an Athletic Scholarship?

I would guess Akron is already at the max for soccer schollys

[Balsy]

YUP!! So, the bottom line is that Dr. SS has to make some changes and some tough decisions (which he has been doing). I understand the emotional side of this for everyone but I don't think it is fair to judge someone and their decisions without knowing all the facts. The information that is starting to come out is the "shit sandwich" I was referring to.

I disagree. Just because there a tough decisions to be made, does not mean that those decisions that are being made aren't up for criticism. The PD reported the baseball's budget for one season was $700,000. The cost of refurbishing the presidential mansion was upwards of $835,000. Why is cutting baseball a prudent, needed decision, while refurbishing the presidential mansion is a prudent investment in the university? Why is eliminating faculty positions (which is being done because they're not replacing retirees, which is a lot with changes to STRS, where younger replacements would start at a lower paygrade) a needed tough decision, but absolutely no changes to administration? Why are changes to faculty healthcare policies prudent, but not to administrative?

These are just a couple examples that wouldn't necessarily account for $60million...but labeling things as "tough decisions" that needed to be done, absolutely does not exclude them from criticism. You're right, we don't have all the facts...another criticism that can be leveled against the administration. If you're going to parade transparency, you better damn well live up to it.

[zip-O-matic]

Just looking at that graphic on athletic department spending, I wonder how much money could be saved through a Can't merger. Combined budgets are over 50M and if all the savings lowered the subsidy (about 40M combined), the school could possibly have an AD the size of UC but with less subsidies. Clearly, the saving would come from merging redundant programs rather than making cuts.

[skip-zip]

Morris....you might want to check on the Soccer Scholarships. Or, maybe someone else can enlighten us. As far as I know, there's been plenty of guys in the past who had to qualify with an Academic Scholarship because we don't have enough Athletics to hand out on the men's side due to Title IX.

Would the baseball elimination at least allow us to correct that injustice?

[LZIp]

Morris....you might want to check on the Soccer Scholarships. Or, maybe someone else can enlighten us. As far as I know, there's been plenty of guys in the past who had to qualify with an Academic Scholarship because we don't have enough Athletics to hand out on the men's side due to Title IX.

Would the baseball elimination at least allow us to correct that injustice?

I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anything like that. I'm sure there are scholarship limits for soccer just like there are for football and basketball. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that there were players who wanted to come here without being on athletic scholarship just due to the caliber of the program.

[ZipsBurgh]

I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anything like that. I'm sure there are scholarship limits for soccer just like there are for football and basketball. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that there were players who wanted to come here without being on athletic scholarship just due to the caliber of the program.

I believe the limit for Men's Division I soccer is 9.9 scholarships.

EDIT: The NCAA Manual is found here (downloadable as a free PDF)

It shows this:

15.5.3.1.1 Men’s Sports. There shall be a limit on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per

Bylaw 15.02.4.2) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in the following men’s

sports: (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/10/92, 1/16/93 effective 8/1/93, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08)

Cross Country/Track and Field.......... 12.6

Fencing............................... 4.5

Golf.................................... 4.5

Gymnastics......................... 6.3

Lacrosse............................ 12.6

Rifle.................................... 3.6

Skiing................................. 6.3

Soccer................................. 9.9

Swimming and Diving........ 9.9

Tennis................................. 4.5

Volleyball............................ 4.5

Water Polo.......................... 4.5

Wrestling............................ 9.9

Edited July 13, 2015 by ZipsBurgh

[Dave in Green]

Cutting baseball was a prudent decision in the sense that Zips athletics had to share in the pain that other areas of UA were subjected to. The option would have been to reduce the budget of every sport and make them all less competitive or eliminate one completely. Had no reduction in the athletic budget been made the howls of protest would have been much greater from more than just a few sports fans.

[morris buttermaker]

Morris....you might want to check on the Soccer Scholarships. Or, maybe someone else can enlighten us. As far as I know, there's been plenty of guys in the past who had to qualify with an Academic Scholarship because we don't have enough Athletics to hand out on the men's side due to Title IX.

Would the baseball elimination at least allow us to correct that injustice?

?.. as others have said, there are 9.9 for men's soccer-- I would assume that it is a fully funded sport at Akron...and that would mean that 9.9 are given.

[Dave in Green]

... The cost of refurbishing the presidential mansion was upwards of $835,000. ...

The ABJ reports that UA purchased the 28-year-old home in 1999 for $850,000 and has budgeted $375,000 to give it its first major update. The article goes on to describe the importance of the home for such activities as fund-raising from donors, which some on this forum have suggested should be a high priority for Dr. Scarborough:

... The university requires Scarborough to live in university-provided housing. As the university’s chief fundraiser and cheerleader, he’s expected to entertain UA alumni, friends, donors and others.

Expansive homes burnish the university’s reputation and give the president an intimate, genteel setting in which to reach out to benefactors, supporters say.

“The president is the public face of the university,” said UA trustee vice chairman Jonathan Pavloff. He said the trustees “all are in agreement that this is an appropriate piece of the presidential package.”

Other universities provide similar homes to their presidents. Sometimes universities rent the home, as Can't State does for Beverly Warren, or subsidizes the costs of the president’s privately owned home.

When homes are owned by universities, they are public properties and do not pay property taxes. ...

[a-zip]

I disagree. Just because there a tough decisions to be made, does not mean that those decisions that are being made aren't up for criticism. The PD reported the baseball's budget for one season was $700,000. The cost of refurbishing the presidential mansion was upwards of $835,000. Why is cutting baseball a prudent, needed decision, while refurbishing the presidential mansion is a prudent investment in the university? Why is eliminating faculty positions (which is being done because they're not replacing retirees, which is a lot with changes to STRS, where younger replacements would start at a lower paygrade) a needed tough decision, but absolutely no changes to administration? Why are changes to faculty healthcare policies prudent, but not to administrative?

These are just a couple examples that wouldn't necessarily account for $60million...but labeling things as "tough decisions" that needed to be done, absolutely does not exclude them from criticism. You're right, we don't have all the facts...another criticism that can be leveled against the administration. If you're going to parade transparency, you better damn well live up to it.

Shocking you disagree…..what took you so long.

What I was referring to were the people that were making criticisms and judgements BEFORE any information came out. Now that information is starting to come out, feel free to complain until your heart's content………you are good at it

[Balsy]

The ABJ reports that UA purchased the 28-year-old home in 1999 for $850,000 and has budgeted $375,000 to give it its first major update. The article goes on to describe the importance of the home for such activities as fund-raising from donors, which some on this forum have suggested should be a high priority for Dr. Scarborough:

I understand that's the rationalization for it, but I'm not buying it. There's always a need or a "defense" for spending money. I want to see the numbers. And if they are such dire times economically at UA, requiring athletics to share in the burden of cuts (while administration, again, is not shouldering any of the burden), is the presidential house really in that dire need of a retrofit to make that much of a measureable impact on fundraising? Call me a skeptic, but I believe we deserve more than what we've been given on that considering the stakes.

[Dave in Green]

So when Curtis got in to inspect the house, he found water leaking in the basement, wallpaper lifting from the walls, stones that had heaved in terraces and walkways and 1980s-era kitchen and bathroom fixtures.

[Hilltopper]

I understand that's the rationalization for it, but I'm not buying it. There's always a need or a "defense" for spending money. I want to see the numbers. And if they are such dire times economically at UA, requiring athletics to share in the burden of cuts (while administration, again, is not shouldering any of the burden), is the presidential house really in that dire need of a retrofit to make that much of a measureable impact on fundraising? Call me a skeptic, but I believe we deserve more than what we've been given on that considering the stakes.

If you would have bothered reading the ABJ article, you would have learned that was an existing housing fund of $340,000 that is being tapped for the majority of the renovations. The budget for the current renovations is $375,000 so the remaining $35,000 is that needs to be funded out of new money.

[zip-O-matic]

Was the remodel done with general university funds or through private fundraising. Recently in higher ed, these things are usually done through a special fundraising campaign.

[zen]

So when Curtis got in to inspect the house, he found water leaking in the basement, wallpaper lifting from the walls, stones that had heaved in terraces and walkways and 1980s-era kitchen and bathroom fixtures.

[skip-zip]

I wish I could find the article about the soccer scholarships, and post it. Maybe I completely misunderstood it. It was a few years ago.

[a-zip]

Skip - it is 9.9 schollys for soccer

[Dave in Green]

Was the remodel done with general university funds or through private fundraising. Recently in higher ed, these things are usually done through a special fundraising campaign.

There's really a lot of detailed information in that ABJ story that answers a lot of questions:

The money for the purchase of the home and the decorations came from the proceeds of the Eaton Avenue home and private donations that had been set aside in an interest-bearing fund controlled by the trustees.

After UA bought the house and paid for the new decor and furniture, the house fund had about $600,000 left. While UA tapped the fund for some minor improvements during the Proenza years, Curtis said UA did little there at the couple’s request. They chose privacy over the dust and bother that comes with renovations, he said.

So when Curtis got in to inspect the house, he found water leaking in the basement, wallpaper lifting from the walls, stones that had heaved in terraces and walkways and 1980s-era kitchen and bathroom fixtures.

[Dave in Green]

But wait, there are more answers in the ABJ story to questions that haven't even been asked yet. Over the years some of the remaining $600,000 house fund was transferred to UA Foundation accounts, and the $35,000 difference between the remaining $340,000 and the $375,000 refurbishing budget will simply be transferred from the UA Foundation back to the house fund from which it came:

All of their choices will go to Curtis, not for the esthetics but to ensure that they remain within the $375,000 budget.

Even if they do, the renovations will deplete the $340,000 that UA said remains in the house fund, so the university will have to tap available money in the UA Foundation, spokeswoman Eileen Korey said.

She said the balance in the house fund dropped during the Proenza years because trustees tapped it for operations, such as utilities and lawn mowing and to cover minor repairs.

In addition, “Some of the balance was transferred into UA Foundation accounts,” she said in an email.

[Balsy]

If you would have bothered reading the ABJ article, you would have learned that was an existing housing fund of $340,000 that is being tapped for the majority of the renovations. The budget for the current renovations is $375,000 so the remaining $35,000 is that needs to be funded out of new money.

I did read the article, thank you and I'll directly reference it to reiterate my criticism because apparently the thrust of my criticism has been lost. My criticism is not "where is the money coming from" it's "is this a prudent investment". The university has, evidently, questioned this investment in the past (quoting from the ABJ article below because I can't get the scripts to allow me to type below it).

I still don't buy it's a prudent investment. The BOT originally got rid of the presidential mansion in the 80's because it was too expensive, and could perform those fundraising duties on campus. They then made a new investment in it again in 1999 for Proenza for the same purpose stated as with Scarborough. And now, one president later, we're paying even more money to update a presidential house. The numbers I was talking about wasn't the money used to update the house...but what are the gains that are made from having an independent presidential house for fundraising vs doing it on campus. We have a much nicer campus than we did in the 80's...or in 1999 when the presidential house was purchased for proenza to "fundraise" at.

Apparently, IMO, fundraising at the presidential house has been a failure. I mean, seriously based on the information we've been given, how can you possibly justify it? I know, I know it's "what all the other univeristies do" or some other argument without numbers to back up its success. But I don't get how it can be justified that this is a prudent investment when you know you're facing a $60million defecit next year.

The house was expected to be completed by Janurary right? So we should be swimming in those donations from the private fundraisers that Scarborough has been holding at the house right?

Sorry, I'm not buying what's being sold. Everything that has been cut, directly impacts students: from the services that benefit them, to less teachers to teach them, to less scholarships to potentially become a student (yes I don't know if that's true or not...only assuming that's part of the cost savings from cutting baseball), to higher "fees" on upperclassman; while the administration is getting new toys.

Costs, including utilities and lawn care, soared to more than $653,000 between 1981 and 1987, according to a Beacon Journal story at the time. Muse tapped UA money to help cover the rising costs.

By 1990, UA trustees decided they’d had enough and put the house up for sale. “The board feels we should be bringing people” to the UA campus, instead of entertaining them in a home, trustee chairman Eugene Graham said at the time.

...

Trustees reversed course again in 1999, when Luis Proenza was named president. They decided he needed a home in which to entertain and hold fundraisers...While UA tapped the fund for some minor improvements during the Proenza years, Curtis said UA did little there at the couple’s request. They chose privacy over the dust and bother that comes with renovations, he said.

[Dave in Green]

It's very simple. The UA-owned home that President Muse lived in was a money pit that required tapping a lot of cash from the general fund to maintain. UA wisely dumped that property and temporarily tried entertaining donors on campus instead. It didn't work out as well as they had hoped it would. Some donors were willing to finance another private home, as most universities have for their presidents, and UA wisely purchased one that was in a good state of repair and didn't require major funding to maintain. UA has owned the current home for 16 years and it just now requires updating -- as most homes do after 16 years of wear and tear from living in and entertaining guests -- at a cost that's reasonable compared with the upkeep costs of the old home they dumped many years ago.

A nice home that represents a university well without exorbitant upkeep costs represents a prudent investment because the cost of housing is factored into a university president's salary. Those presidents who aren't provided a home by the university are typically paid a higher salary to compensate. By owning and maintaining the president's home and offering a lower salary, a university can better control the image it presents to donors.

This is a red herring that just takes attention away from the real issues.