A state auditor’s report released last week stated that MSU administrators had acted legally in spending $84,345 to lavishly decorate the Harvey House, a mansion in the Country Club area of Wichita Falls. The off-campus mansion, donated to the university by a wealthy family in 2009, has since been sold for $960,000.
“Based on our review, we see no evidence, at this time, to support the elements of a criminal offense,” Pamela Munn of the State Auditor’s Office wrote Oct. 27.
Well, duh!
For the most part, the people who drew issue with the spending never charged President Dr. Jesse Rogers and others with doing anything criminal by throwing fistfuls of cash at the project.
Dr. Rogers’ critics just didn’t think it was right.
The debacle over the Harvey House began in October 2010 when The Wichitan raised questions about the ridiculous amount of money being poured into the property. For example, $4,450 was spent on reweaving a rug, $3,300 for two lamps, $36,000 for a dining room table and chairs.
At that time, university officials said talks were in progress to transform the home into the new residence of Rogers and his wife, Karen. The couple currently resides in the Sikes House off Midwestern and Taft.
But as public outrage intensified, administrators switched into damage control mode. First, they argued that the mansion could be used for parties to woo donations from the pockets of ultra-rich community members. Only after more public outcry did MSU put the mansion up for sale.
Administrators then acted as if that had been the plan all along.
The furnishings, they argued, were purchased to make the home more appealing to potential buyers. Ironically, the buyer of the house didn’t want most of the stuff administrators had crammed into it. Now, big-ticket items like the $36,000 dining table and chairs are parked in the Wichita Falls Museum of Art. A French cupboard and settee and two matching chairs valued at approximately $15,000 are in the President’s house.
Somewhere in all this, five citizen complaints reached the State Auditor’s Office in Austin. No one knows what the complainants had hoped would result from speaking to the agency, but chances are it wasn’t this.
Administrators of a public institution are charged with making the best possible decisions for their constituents – the students, faculty and staff. It’s important to note the difference between making the best decision and the most legal one.
Some people may call that splitting hairs. But doing what’s right and doing what’s legal are sometimes worlds apart.
Costs associated with the mansion were funded by private donations and the MSU Foundation. Even the most begrudging critic of the Harvey House fiasco has to admit that it was legally sound. But donations that aren’t earmarked – meaning they could be spent on anything – made up the lion’s share of funding for the project.
That means this money could have been spent on something else. Anything else. If administrators had polled students, faculty and staff about the best way to spend $84,345, how many would have answered, “I think the money should be spent on an extravagant mansion in which I’ll never set foot in.”?
Some administrators are probably patting themselves on the backs right now for pulling a fast one on the people who pay – at least in part – their salaries. But the three-paragraph auditor’s report is as true as it is meaningless. It proved nothing and answered even less.
To those who read the report with disappointment, buck up. If no one had spoken out, MSU might be in the hole way more than it is now.
O'Reilly • Nov 7, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Spending $85,000 on furnishings for the Harvey House may not have been illegal, but it showed poor judgment. Granted, the university made a profit on the donated house, but it made $85,000 less than it could have. By using donor funds for such extravagance, the university has rankled small donors, a number of whom have said they’ll never donate to MSU again. The Wichitan did the right thing in letting people know what was going on. In the meantime, a $36,000 table and chairs is sitting in the museum gathering dust.
Jane • Nov 10, 2011 at 8:33 PM
That 85,000 does not figure into the profit. They were DONATIONS they never would have seen for any other reason than for those purchases. They could ONLY be used for that purpose. The Wichitan sure has brain washed a lot of people, including those small donors, who cannot understand that simple concept. If that table and chairs are collecting dust, the museum needs to hire a custodian. All of the beautiful “fine” furnishings now belong to the University to be used any way they please.
Jane • Nov 4, 2011 at 8:34 PM
I believe the furnishings were initially meant to make the house suitable for use for entertaining. It was not University money to use at will, as you continue to misrepresent. It was donor money meant specifically for that purpose. Dr. Rogers stated from the beginning he would not be moving there; there was no pandering.
What actually went wrong was it cost far more to clean up and fix than was anticipated. Fixing one thing revealed other problems that needed fixing. This is actually pretty common with real estate but not to this extent. The donor lucked out finding MSU willing to accept their money pit. It was on the market for over a year as before MSU ever got it. MSU was lucky to sell it so quickly. Maintenance costs were also more than expected. It was this, and not anything else that the decision was made to sell it.
If the Wichitan actually looked for the facts and put them in perspective instead of spending so much time trying to get honest, hard working people fired, this story would have had the same ending, but with much less controversy. MSU deserved some heat for the mistakes, and I believe some who made the mistakes did get fired, but there was nothing unethical or illegal about any of it.
Cameron Shaffer • Nov 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM
@ Shane and Bob. It was never sensationalized. The Wichitan reported it as it was happening and criticized it for what it was – an ill-use of university money. Remember that at the time there was no plan on it being sold, there was no evidence donors were helping fund it, and the MSU administration had spent a month pleading with students to raise fees for the student center because there was no other way to get the money.
When the amount of donations revealed were demonstrated to not be earmarked, it looked clearly like a pet project to pander to donors and President Rodgers. There was no guarantee it would have sold at a decent price (the housing market anyone? In fact, MSU lowered the asking price substantially) and, as this article pointed out, most of the things the money was spent weren’t even included in the sale of the house, meaning the investment did not pay off.
Then there was the question of doling out contracts that were too high to friends of the administration rather than having a bid on them.
The whole thing was a mess, and an expensive one at that was deservedly an embarrassment to the university.
Shane Perry • Nov 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM
So we took a house that was given to us for FREE, invested $84,345 in fixing it up, and then sold it for $960,000. By my math, it appears to me that we just made $875,655 pure PROFIT for the University. Now my degree is in Computer Science and not Business, so I suppose I’m going to need for someone to explain to me how this was a bad investment. Anyone?
Bob Jarwin • Nov 2, 2011 at 9:27 PM
The fact is, the Wichitan sensationalized this story in tabloid fashion. Donors themselves approved how the $84,000+ was to be spent. MSU had no authority to spend it on what students or anyone else wanted. If you were a responsible media source, I’m sure you would have been invited to hear the details on the fine furnishings and provided assess. You had no interest in printing the whole story. And of course, once again, NO, NONE, NADA MSU monies were used to purchase that furniture. Your comment that non-earmarked donations funded the lions share of the project is false. You screwed this whole story up and I’m sure it has cost “Your University” big time. The only people patting themselves on the back is you. Just let it die in peace.