College presidents, whose pay packages often include the use of a college-owned home, often face tough questions when their institutions decide to upgrade the properties.
Last year a house controversy contributed to the resignation of North Dakota State University's president, Joseph A. Chapman, whose 11-year tenure was also characterized by the opening of a new downtown campus, an increase in enrollment by more than one-third, and a more than doubling of doctoral programs.
Mr. Chapman spoke with The Chronicle about what he learned from the controversy.
Q. How important is it to have a nice president's house?
A. That depends on how you define nice. It's important to have venues where you can entertain and create an environment where people come together and celebrate the success of their institution. Having the venue to do the entertaining—and attracting people who make significant gifts—that's important.
Q. In your case, why did the university build a new house?
A. The previous home was built in the 40s or 50s. It was certainly inadequate for the institution as it is today. The house itself wasn't really set up for holding big events.
Q. How did the house end up costing $1.5-million more than expected?
A. There were no contracts, no plans, people were adding things on here and there. There was no regard to what the ultimate cost was going to be.
Q. How involved were you with the planning?
A. I really was not involved in that part of it at all. The reason I didn't want to be involved was, the minute they start talking presidential houses, there's trouble.
Q. Should you have been more involved?
A. I assumed the issues had been handled, and they weren't. Don't assume people who are responsible are doing what they're supposed to do.
Q. If you're not involved, how do you make sure the house stays on budget?
A. It's a terrible Catch-22, but in hindsight, it would have been much better if there were more public disclosure. The magnitude of the overrun was really amazing.
Q. What advice do you have for other campus leaders considering renovating or building a new house?
A. Don't just trust everybody is doing what you think they're doing. Have regular budget meetings for everyone involved—the Legislature, the Board of Higher Education, the university foundation. Make sure you have detailed contracts. ... And it's really important to understand the politics of whatever setting you're in. It's very important for other presidents to realize that [houses] create an opportunity for others to go after you.
Q. In tight times, do you think colleges should be spending money on presidential houses?
A. I'd say right now, given the fiscal climate, any project needs to be carefully examined, not just the president's house.
Comments
1. jeff1 - January 21, 2010 at 06:55 am
President Chapman is right on the money that facilities for entertaining major donors are absolutely necessary. That is not to say a presidential home is necessary. It is likely for the foreseeable future that higher education development will continue and accelerate as it has for the past several decades. Institutions that do not have the gravitas of a presidential palace may be at a disadvantage with some major donors. It is also a vehicle for the institution to project its stature much like an aircraft carrier is for the United States. Many smaller countries do not have aircraft carriers for various reasons. Those of us who do can project our power in our communities and beyond.
2. ken_d - January 21, 2010 at 11:37 am
To me providing a house to the president has always seemed anachronistic. The same goes for the practice of creating jobs for the spouses of senior people.
It's true that universities need to entertain, but universities can more efficiently create specific venues for official events and receptions without simultaneously conveying the impression of executive largess.
3. gcwaters - January 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Mr. Chapman's wife and administrative assistant were on the committee that planned and oversaw the house's construction. How could he not be involved?
4. dr_administrator - January 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm
>Mr. Chapman's wife and administrative assistant were on the committee that planned and oversaw the house's construction. How could he not be involved?
Examine your own statement; you've answered your own question. The guy wasn't involved--his wife was.
5. gcwaters - January 21, 2010 at 01:41 pm
You're joking, right?
6. alumnus57 - January 22, 2010 at 07:56 pm
Published newspaper interviews with the project architect indicate that the President only made one request which was to enlarge the patio -- cost $700 -- and his wife (and others on the oversight committee) suggested finishing space above the garage for a "bonus" room -- cost $120,000. That's a long way from the total cost overrun and certainly doesn't justify blaming the President.
7. alumnus57 - January 23, 2010 at 03:32 pm
Published newspaper interviews with the project architect reveal that the President's only request was to expand the patio -- $700 -- and his wife suggested, as did others on the oversight committee, that the open space above the garage be finished as a "bonus" room -- $120,000. If the President and his wife didn't author requirements which caused the million dollar overrun, why was it he who resigned? There's something wrong with this picture....
8. andr1320 - January 26, 2010 at 01:12 pm
gcwaters is correct. Chapman's wife and assistant were on the project committee. He knew darn well what was going on.
9. andr1320 - January 26, 2010 at 01:18 pm
Additionally, while the president's residence put the media on Chapman's trail, it was ultimately the uncovering of gross overspending in other areas on his part that forced his resignation.