Kirkpatrick's departure not enough to fix EMU

Sunday, July 25, 2004

Regents failed, too; Incarnati should resign

What started as an administration filled with promise is edging toward a shameful conclusion as Eastern Michigan University President Samuel Kirkpatrick leaves the university's image tainted by arrogance, largess and deceit.

And culpability for a string of fiascoes at EMU is shared by a board of regents that failed to provide any meaningful oversight of the president and remains in muted denial of serious wrongdoing.

The list of blunders is long. They were first chronicled by an Ann Arbor News investigation and validated by the state Auditor General's Office and include:

Construction of a 10,200-square-foot home for the president costing at least $5.3 million, about $1.8 million more than university officials repeatedly claimed.

The use of about $3.7 million in state operating revenues to build the house, despite pledge after pledge from university officials that the presidential home would not be built from the checkbooks of students. State operating funds come in part from tuition dollars. During construction of the home, tuition increases ranged from 8 to 22 percent.

A flawed bidding process that did not use sealed bids and seemed crafted to guarantee the selection of the eventual builder.

Heavy involvement by Kirkpatrick and his wife in many decisions requiring change orders for the house costing thousands of dollars more than planned, despite Kirkpatrick's claim that he had little to do with construction. A trail of public records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act documents his involvement.

Failure by the university to get approval for the project from the state Department of Management and Budget and the Joint Capital Outlay Committee.

The university's loss of $91,285 on the purchase and resale of a temporary home for the Kirkpatricks while the campus residence was being built. The loss came despite the trend of rising property values in Pittsfield Township and despite university officials' repeated insistence that the school made money on the transaction.

After reviewing preliminary versions of the state audit, Kirkpatrick and the university announced that he would receive about $514,000 in salary and benefits while on a two-year sabbatical. Kirkpatrick's package includes retention bonuses for the remaining two years of his contract, even though he is not being retained.

The public howl about the university's actions continues to grow from area residents, alumni and state legislators as Gov. Jennifer Granholm's staff begins its own review to determine whether she will move to replace some or all of the regents.

There is no quick fix or happy ending to this story. Kirkpatrick's departure is welcomed, but the university's governing body must not be allowed to skirt public accountability.

From the onset, Philip Incarnati, chairman of the board of regents, has hunkered down in a morass of denial and steadfast defense of Kirkpatrick. Incarnati even provided a letter to Kirkpatrick praising the outgoing president.

Despite numerous questions about the extravagant project from residents, faculty, students and a determined state Rep. Ruth Ann Jamnick, D-Ypsilanti Township, Incarnati and other regents blindly stayed the course.

Collectively, the regents exhibited a stunning detachment from public responsibility, accountability and sensibility that is chilling in scope.

The first signal of detachment by the regents was the failure to stop the Kirkpatricks' move to a temporary home in Pittsfield Township, which many Ypsilanti residents saw as a rejection of their community by its most prominent public official.

A second was their swallowing of Kirkpatrick's pitch that the multimillion-dollar presidential house would aid fund raising. It hasn't, and the governing body didn't see the disconnect between the residence and campus buildings in desperate need of repair.

Instead of showing leadership, the regents stayed in the shadows and remained so aloof and detached that they didn't know the project cost almost $2 million more than stated by their president.

Kirkpatrick, in fact, had a virtual blank check to charge taxpayers for everything he wanted.

Sadly, the truth never would have been found without investigations by The News and the Auditor General's Office.

And, Incarnati remains in denial, insisting that the Auditor General's Office got it wrong.

Incarnati must go, and it would be far better for him to resign than wait to see if the governor demands his resignation or moves to replace him. Last week, Incarnati said he wouldn't willingly leave "unless I felt continuing on would hurt the university, and I don't think that is the case."

Nonsense. His assessment is an exclamation point that shouts his failure to grasp the damage already done and the outrage that stretches to the state Capitol. Incarnati's failure of leadership is colossal and his presence will not aid the healing that is needed.

Do the right thing, Mr. Incarnati, resign.

For her part, Gov. Granholm must act if Incarnati refuses to leave. The public trust has been breached by the lies and the spending, which put the interests of a few ahead of the public's interest.

Leaving Incarnati in place would send a signal that Granholm will tolerate wasteful spending on campuses amid a statewide budget crisis that has resulted in state cuts to higher education, painful retrenching by universities and increased pressure for higher increases in tuition.

Without Incarnati's departure, the search for the next president likely will head down the same path that found Kirkpatrick.

Granholm also should closely scrutinize the lack of financial oversight at EMU and remove any regents who failed to provide adequate financial sterwardship.

While we lack confidence in the rest of the regents, we hope that Incarnati's departure may nurture a more open and responsible approach to governing.

A tragic part of this episode has been the muted response from other regents. At each opportunity, they deferred to Incarnati, who set the tone for everything that happened during Kirkpatrick's tenure. Not one of the band of followers has yet to publicly speak out about any significant aspect of the problems that cracked the board's credibility. The muted mantra from these regents amounts to hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Kirkpatrick's lavish, two-year financial sendoff even included an agreement that neither he nor the regents would criticize each other.

Stonewalling is the strategy at EMU and, in the end, it may cost the school far more than the dollars spent wastefully during Kirkpatrick's tenure.