I have been reading this debacle story on the UA MIS-management of a lot of money (like $240-250 million!!!). Thanks Kyra Berg, Caitlin Schmidt and Curt Prendergast for your good work on this story.
I agree with today's article that the UA administration needs to cut from the top and cut from those that have the responsibility to properly manage public funds and student funds. Who was "asleep at the switch" and failed to see the river of money flowing out of the university coffers? This didn't happen overnight.
My first thought when I heard about the loss of money and administration "fire drill" to contain the financial damage was don't they have professional financial managers? Where have they been in all of this mess?
Now weeks later it seems that much of the administration efforts is trying to lay the blame somewhere else. Well the blame for losing $240 million rests with the top of the administration and any others that were and are responsible for this debacle. How long has the problem existed? This loss of $240 million certainly didn't happen over night.
The crux of UA's financial issues relate to days cash on hand, which relates to future operating costs, which are projections. Not enough attention had been paid to the budget modeling the university uses, the recent change to the model, and why the model was suddenly wrong.
I would love to see an in-depth look at this particular aspect of the issue. Why was the model changed? Who benefits from the change? How does the model impact operations and spending?
The people making six-figure salaries at the UA bungled the finances -- with the help of bad policies passed by the Legislature. Heads should roll at the top before the administration decides to balance the books on the back of the students and parents. The Arizona Legislature should take half of the blame in this collapse. They have not appropriately funded higher education since the Brewer/Pearce cuts. The Legislature forced the University presidents to become real estate speculators and loan officers. The $50 million loan for athletics that was mentioned in previous stories is the result of a law passed by the Legislature. The Legislature thought it was perfectly fine for the universities to give their land up for corporate headquarters and to take on more debt -- rather than fund the universities. The Legislature created this problem initially.
I have been reading this debacle story on the UA MIS-management of a lot of money (like $240-250 million!!!). Thanks Kyra Berg, Caitlin Schmidt and Curt Prendergast for your good work on this story.
I agree with today's article that the UA administration needs to cut from the top and cut from those that have the responsibility to properly manage public funds and student funds. Who was "asleep at the switch" and failed to see the river of money flowing out of the university coffers? This didn't happen overnight.
My first thought when I heard about the loss of money and administration "fire drill" to contain the financial damage was don't they have professional financial managers? Where have they been in all of this mess?
Now weeks later it seems that much of the administration efforts is trying to lay the blame somewhere else. Well the blame for losing $240 million rests with the top of the administration and any others that were and are responsible for this debacle. How long has the problem existed? This loss of $240 million certainly didn't happen over night.
The crux of UA's financial issues relate to days cash on hand, which relates to future operating costs, which are projections. Not enough attention had been paid to the budget modeling the university uses, the recent change to the model, and why the model was suddenly wrong.
I would love to see an in-depth look at this particular aspect of the issue. Why was the model changed? Who benefits from the change? How does the model impact operations and spending?
The people making six-figure salaries at the UA bungled the finances -- with the help of bad policies passed by the Legislature. Heads should roll at the top before the administration decides to balance the books on the back of the students and parents. The Arizona Legislature should take half of the blame in this collapse. They have not appropriately funded higher education since the Brewer/Pearce cuts. The Legislature forced the University presidents to become real estate speculators and loan officers. The $50 million loan for athletics that was mentioned in previous stories is the result of a law passed by the Legislature. The Legislature thought it was perfectly fine for the universities to give their land up for corporate headquarters and to take on more debt -- rather than fund the universities. The Legislature created this problem initially.