UA official’s story
Now, the other side
As with many Arkansans, I’ve been curiously waiting for results of the Washington County prosecutor’s ongoing investigation into the audit of records from that multimillion-dollar budget shortfall inside the University of Arkansas’ Advancement Division.
Part of that investigation involves scrutinizing testimony by former Vice Chancellor John Diamond alleging that Chancellor David Gearhart told him and purported witnesses to destroy budget-related documents maintained by the university. Under oath, Gearhart vehemently denied doing that, or that he would consider such an act. I don’t know Diamond. But the David Gearhart I do know fairly well lives his life far distant from being that dumb or deceptive.
After hearing the allegation by Diamond, who’d been fired from his position not long before making the claim at a legislative hearing, and reading about purging UA records, I became curious about the university’s policies on maintaining, storing and purging its voluminous documents. Every story is bound to have at least two sides, right?
Mark Rushing, who directs strategic communications at the university, explained those processes: “When allegations were made that the University of Arkansas destroyed documents relevant to a Freedom of Information Act request and the state legislative audit, some decided the university was guilty until proven innocent. A recent news article even implied that a storage consolidation effort was proof that relevant documents were destroyed.
“No records relevant to the audit have ever been destroyed by the university,” Rushing said. “No records requested under FOIA have ever been destroyed by the university. Nothing relevant to the [budget shortfall] audit or any FOIA request was maintained at storage facilities either on or off campus.”
University officials say they believe news accounts have not included key facts that clearly support this information, while implying connections that don’t exist. “These are facts that have been presented but not publicly shared,” Rushing said. “The university’s storage consolidation was designed to discard old, unused records as part of a wider effort to reduce expenses and the budget deficit. Advancement Division leadership, which at the time included former Vice Chancellor Brad Choate and former Associate Vice Chancellor John Diamond, approved the storage consolidation in October 2012 at a University Advancement Committee meeting. Diamond didn’t object to this project at any time until after his termination. Chancellor David Gearhart was not consulted about, or aware of, the consolidation effort.”
Rushing said the consolidation effort began months before Gearhart even requested dual audits. “It wasn’t an effort to obstruct a review of the budget deficit. It was instead one of many actions aimed at cutting expenses to decrease the Advancement Division’s deficit. The division saved thousands of dollars in annual rental fees by consolidating several off-campus storage facilities and eliminating those rental contracts,” he said.
Equally significant, he added, is that documents relevant to the legislative audit were never destroyed as a part of the storage consolidation effort. What was, he said, “included the likes of old Greek system fundraising brochures, campaign press releases, information related to job searches and call-center information. Those items had simply outlived any useful business purpose, and certainly weren’t relevant to either the audit or any FOIA request.” Rushing said several staff members involved in the records consolidation recently confirmed and emphasized for reporters that nothing relevant to the audit ever was discarded.
Rushing also told me inventory logs provide a reliable record of stored documents. “The logs exist for Advancement Division documents saved in storage facilities and elsewhere and they have been provided to media. One location did lack an inventory. But that unit contained only records from Gift Services created before 2008, so it wasn’t relevant to the audit.”
Rushing said all payment authorizations have remained available at the UA Foundation and were provided as auditors requested. “In fact, auditors sought and were provided all payment authorizations over a two-year period. The foundation offered auditors an opportunity to view and print each of the actual payment authorizations. But the auditors declined that offer, asking for and receiving 80 specific authorizations.
“The university’s financial officers have access to the payment authorizations stored electronically at the foundation, as well as the entire request record, which the university maintains in its general ledger through the institution’s online BASIS system,” Rushing said. “Therefore, there’s just no reason to keep paper copies of payment authorizations, as the university has explained many times. Misleading information can be dispelled with simple facts.”
So we all will continue waiting to see where the chips of this shortfall truly fall as the prosecutor’s office gleans fact from fiction.