The State of Oregon Audits Division released its audit of selected University operations this month, covering spending between March and July 2000, and revealed some unfortunate and embarrassing department spending. Auditors reported that money given through donations was meant for academic improvements in individual departments. Instead, donations intended to benefit students were wasted on birthday cakes, office parties, alcohol, airline tickets and a car insurance premium for the dean of the law school.
Not only is this bad public and donor relations, it may put the spendthrift University in a negative light when the Oregon Legislature decides to delegate funds to higher education. At a time when the campus is debating academic vs. athletic funding, maintaining academic donor confidence should naturally be a high priority.
The audit said the sum for questionable and prohibited use of donor funds totaled $26,694, while department procurement spending totaled $13,835. The audit also found that during the 1999 calendar year, the University made more than 9,000 transactions on procurement cards — University credit cards — totaling about $1.23 million. Eighteen percent of those transactions were prohibited by law, according to the audit. Equally disturbing was a report that 83 of the 90 procurement card statements under scrutiny did not have an authorized signature.
Addressing concerns about spending in the Sept. 17 issue of the Emerald, University Vice President of Administration Dan Williams said that “those are not expenses that have been to the personal benefit of any of the individuals. Those expenses are incurred for the purpose of attracting donors.” It’s hard to believe that about a car insurance premium.
To his credit, Williams has been taking careful steps to resolve the situation, including teaching about the use of procurement cards and revising policies and procedures. These are good first steps, but there has been no effort to reassure donors the situation will not repeat itself.
The University Foundation raised $35 million last year, and the money is supposed to be used in congruence with donor intent. Donors are not likely giving money to support personal monthly bills, birthday cakes or flower arrangements, which all benefited the individuals who abused their authority.
It is time the departments come clean about their spending habits, apologize to donors and return the money. In this time of economic uncertainty, the University cannot afford to play bait-and-switch games with coveted donation money.