Washburn University Board of Regents

Washburn University is governed by a nine member Board of Regents. Each individual serving on the Board is undoubtedly dedicated to Washburn University. However, as with many groups, the varied backgrounds and dedicated service of these individuals combine in such a way that the result of their efforts fall short of meeting the needs of the public. Individual Board members, well aware of their fiduciary duties to the institution they serve, repeatedly refuse to step too far outside of the group to take stronger stands when needed. While significant individual objections and concerns are oftentimes raised at Board meetings, these same individual Board members will ultimately join the majority and pass on whatever action is being considered by the Board. One gets the impression sometimes that the Board is being led around by the University President rather than asserting its own leadership role.

Here are some areas where the Board of Regents could focus on making improvements.

Budget Compliance

The Board of Regents bylaws state the following:

The Board may authorize the Treasurer to purchase such materials, supplies, and equipment as needed for the successful operation of the University, provided such purchases are within the appropriations of the designated departments or accounts; and provided further, that funds are actually in the treasury as provided by law.

A review of the FY03 year-end financial reports indicates that over thirty areas exceeded their budget allocations. The position of the Vice-President of Administration/Treasurer in regards to expenditures in excess of the budget is as follows:

"It is not an expenditure in excess of the budget for the entire university and the requirement is that the entire university budget not go into a deficit situation."

Furthermore, when the Board approves the expenditures exceeding $25,000, they are rarely informed as to what specific fund or line item is paying for the expenditure, making it quite difficult to ascertain whether or not it is a budgeted expenditure that they are approving.

Nor does the Board member know what is actually being approved when reviewing the monthly list of claims paid by the university. This list includes the vendor, the amount, and some cryptic explanation but provides no information regarding the budget line to which the expenditure was charged. It is impossible to determine from this review of expenditures the appropriateness of the payment.

Internal Audit

Recent financial scandals in various organizations are provoking governing boards to take more aggressive action. Audit functions have become increasingly important. A prudent board puts these functions in place before the opportunity for scandal arises.

In 2003, Westar paid $6.7 million for an internal investigation that provided what some might consider to be good common sense. A major point made in most of these investigations, is that governing boards are too willing to accept management's recommendations without an independent, critical assessment. Internal audit functions, reporting directly to the board, can provide some protection.

It is too easy to be taken in when there is such a sole source of unconfirmed information flowing. Each board members is shirking his or her fiduciary duty to the public when relying on unconfirmed information from this inept administration. Loose adherence to budgets, growing debt, inconsistent policies, poor adherence to policies that do exist, and poor employment practices would indicate that it is time for the Washburn University Board of Regents to seriously address the need for a permanent internal audit function reporting directly to the Board.

Role of the University President

The Board of Regents bylaws state the following in regards to the role of the University President:

The development and maintenance of an appropriate administrative organization and governance structure to facilitate the most efficient and effective utilization of University resources in the achievement of the University's mission, objectives, and goals.

In a report on the May, 1998 accreditation visit, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools., recommended that something similar to the Resources, Planning and Process Committee (RPPC) be utilized to reestablish the concept and functions of university wide planning and budgeting. The University's response -

"At the present time we plan to continue to use the RPPC as part of the planning and budgeting process."

It doesn't appear that the RPPC has been used since 2000, since these Washburn University URLs that used to provide RPPC information are now restricted:

Jerry Farley repeatedly gives the impression that there is adequate and broad consultation for the various projects that are presented to the Board members for their consideration. However, there is very little evidence that this actually takes place in a manner that is open and inclusive. One can only wonder how much support is really on campus for spending $1.5 million on the Washburn Endowment Association office space renovation given the condition of the classrooms and the inadequate funding of faculty development.

Approval of Transfer of Funds

The Board of Regents bylaws state the following:

"The Building Construction Fund shall include all proceeds from bonds issued as required by law and such other funds as are transferred to it for construction purposes by action of the Board."

The administration has repeatedly made year-end transfers of operating funds into the Building Construction Fund notwithstanding the lack of specific action of the Board.

Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act of 1996 - HIPAA

On March 12, 2003, the Board of Regents "designated, as a hybrid entity for purposes of HIPAA compliance, the University's group health plan and of _________________its the Privacy Officer; and approve the attached policy statement for compliance with HIPAA." It doesn't appear that the Privacy Officer was ever named. Therefore, it is difficult to know who to file a complaint with when one hears the University President name individuals and their specific health problems at a public meeting.