A misleading editorial appeared in yesterday’s Emerald regarding an audit by the Secretary of State. I was dismayed by this editorial both because of the inaccurate picture it paints of the use of donor funds and the numerous factual errors upon which its spurious argument is based.
The editorial ignores the fact that the audit found no problem with the way in which the vast majority of funds were spent. It also declares that funds in question were “meant for academic improvements in individual departments.” This is simply false. The funds in question were given for discretionary purposes to be spent by the appropriate authority as it determined. The University Foundation scrupulously examined every expenditure to be sure that the donor’s intent was followed. Every one of the items questioned was found by the University Foundation to be within the intent of the donor.
The Foundation must ensure that funds are spent in accordance with donor intent, but it is the University’s obligation to ensure that funds are spent for purposes that achieve the institution’s purposes. The expenditures noted fell primarily into three categories: cultivation of donors, team and morale building within academic units, and business-related expenses. Each of these expenditures was within donor intent and was for legitimate university purposes.
The statement that these expenditures “benefited the individuals who abused their authority” is patently false. There has been no abuse of authority. What has occurred, within the intent of the donors’ restrictions, is the exercise of judgment. One can argue with a given judgment. But to categorize these expenditures as violations of donor intent, abuses of authority, or benefiting individuals, is irresponsible and untrue. Your editorial does precisely that of which you accuse the University, which is to “put the University in a negative light when the Oregon legislature decides to delegate funds to higher education.”
The audit did point at a number of areas where procedural problems existed, and the University has acted to rectify those as you noted. Running this University is a public trust that my colleagues and I take very seriously. One can always question individual judgments, but we are responsible stewards of the dollars invested in the University, whether public or private. I would challenge you to find an institution that has accomplished more with less.