The University of Akron trustees clearly liked the work of Ernst & Young. The management and accounting firm was brought to the campus earlier this year to assess the university’s finances. It reaffirmed what many understood, UA drawing heavily on its reserves, at a pace the school cannot sustain for much longer. The firm helped with the crafting of a “Transformation Plan” unveiled by Matt Wilson, the university president.
That proposal has been launched, though the details of a key element, voluntary university-wide buyouts, have yet to be revealed. The goal is to generate more than $60 million in combined revenue increases and cost savings the next two years. And now, to help get there, the trustees have engaged Ernst & Young to keep advising university officials.
A week ago, the trustees agreed to pay the firm $200,000 a month, for up to six months and perhaps as many as 18 months. President Wilson and Rollie Bauer, the board chairman, reasoned that the university needed the experience and expertise to move forward “quickly.” Bauer talked about supplementing existing staff. Wilson noted: “We have limited hands at this time.”
Ernst & Young will assist with data collection and generating analyses from the information gathered. The immediate objectives are finding savings and adding revenue, especially through enrollment gains, UA having suffered a steep decline this year. The trustees are convinced the investment will result in the necessary return. What they shouldn’t miss are the raised eyebrows at such a potential sum, perhaps as much as $3.6 million flowing to the firm when so many on campus may face the prospect of cutbacks.
Is the university so lacking in “hands” ready for the work, especially with Ernst & Young already having assisted in providing a blueprint?
Which gets back to the important yet languishing Tiger Team proposal to put faculty members on the committees of the board of trustees. How smartly such a move would complement the work of Ernst & Young, bringing true expertise about the purpose of the university and the way it works to the decision-makers.
After all, neither the trustees, who are political appointees, nor a management and accounting firm bring deep knowledge about the workings of higher education.
Here, too, would be the makings of the next step, developing a strategic plan beyond the acute crisis, shaping answers to questions such as the size of the university going forward and how it will build on its strengths. The trustees still have a rich opportunity to acknowledge past mistakes, lift morale and elevate the university, or the things expected of strong leaders.
As it is, they appear more determined to act largely on their own, continuing on what has been an unproductive path if the school has ambitions, as it should have, to be distinctive and successful in attracting talent. One guess is that Matt Wilson understands the role that shared governance, or working together, could play in reaching those objectives. In certain ways, he has been a refreshing presence. Perhaps he can explain the value of such leadership to the trustees.