CONWAY — The University of Central Arkansas president’s home, which has undergone hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs and renovations since 2009, still needs major work to be suitable for a university president, a committee has concluded.
The UCA committee has asked a Little Rock architect to estimate the cost of further renovations to make the two-story brick house adequate. Two of the early rough-draft drawings include expansions to the house, which historically has served as a residence and a place to entertain guests.
The committee’s meetings have been closed to the public. But documents obtained under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and interviews reflect some faculty discontent with recent spending on house renovations; the committee’s wish to slow down such work until long-term decisions are made; and confusion on when or if President Allen C. Meadors plans to move back into the house.
The documents also show that committee members have discussed such alternatives as giving the president a stipend to find his own house, buying an off-campus house or building another one on campus, all while using the present house for other activities.
The nine-member panel of alumni, staff members, one representative faculty member and one representative student member is advising the UCA board of trustees on what to do with the house, built in 1936 on Donaghey Avenue. Its condition, which included lead and mold problems, prompted Meadors and his wife, Barbara, to move out in March until repairs could be made.
The committee, which meets again Wednesday, has not reached a consensus on the house’s future, said Carol Daves, committee secretary and the UCA provost’s assistant. But it agrees that the house should not be razed and hopes to give its recommendations to the board Aug. 19.
Board Chairman Scott Roussel met with the committee in June and proposed hiring an architect. Because a future president might have children still living at home, Roussel wants that scenario considered.
In May, the committee advised against further renovations other than routine maintenance and repairs. Exceptions are work already under contract, such as hardwood-floor refinishing upstairs. In an April 2 e-mail to Daves, committee chairman Patsy Minton Newton said she had told Roussel “we all agree that the house needs major wo rk to b e suitable for the residence of the president of the university — any president.”
In a draft of recommendations prepared by Daves but not voted upon or read by two members, she wrote in part, “The Committee recommends President and Mrs. Meadors reside in the President’s house for the remainder of his presidency.” Meadors has a five-year rolling contract.
“While not adequate for a larger family,” Daves added, “the Committee believes that President and Mrs. Meadors can be comfortable in the President’s house.” The couple have no children still at home.
Daves’ draft also said, “Future presidential contract negotiations should be broad enough to allow for options other than living in the President’s House. If at some point a president is hired who does not want to live in the house, alternative plans for using the house should be developed by committee.” Events with more than 24 guests should be held elsewhere on campus, she added.
Asked Wednesday when and whether he would move back into the president’s home, Meadors replied in an e-mail, “Don’t know. I haven’t even been in the house since March.”
But Jeff Pitchford, vice president of university and government relations, said Wednesday that Meadors’ “plans are to return to the home by the start of the school year this fall.”
Told of Meadors’ comment, Pitchford said by email, “We were told from the start that the goal was that the house projects would be finished by the end of summer and the president would be able to move back in. I’m not aware of any changes to that and certainly the Board of Trustees may act on a recommendation from the advisory board that would alter that schedule.”
In a May 10 e-mail to Minton Newton, Daves said Meadors wondered whether the panel could meet again sooner than June 10.
“Depending upon which option we decide to go with, he may want to move back into the house or go ahead and rent something else — e.g., if we’re leaning toward a stipend, he could start looking for a suitable house,” Daves wrote. “Also, if we are going to recommend a remodel, he could move back into the house while the architect works on the plans.”
Since June 16, 2009, when the board voted to hire Meadors, UCA has allocated roughly $400,000 in mostly public funds for the house and its lawn, including almost $200,000 for a new heatingand-cooling system and new windows.
“From the point of view of faculty, we’ve spent too much on the house already,” committee member and sociology professor Ed Powers wrote in his suggestions for the residence. “The expenditures for windows and a new HVAC are far out of line with the actual value of the property.”
In his first proposed option, Powers wrote, “Finish the floors, let the President move back in ... stop spending on other improvements. Yes, the house is old and imperfect. Yes, it is inadequate for large scale entertaining. Yes, presidents at universities with more money live in nicer houses. However, the projected costs of making the house ideal are too high at this time and the idea of continuing to spend money across future presidencies is not appealing. Money needs to be spent on a number of other higher priority projects (for example, Lewis Science Center).”
In an e-mail to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Meadors called Powers’ statement about the faculty perspective “theoretical” and said from the faculty’s point of view, “ANY money spent on non-academic facilities (especially a Board of Trustees required Presidential housing) is too much.” But Meadors said Powers “was very honest to say” this is some faculty members’ perception.
“Nationwide, President’s Residences are and have been a point of debate,” Meadors wrote, noting that some schools have switched to stipends instead of owning presidential homes.
Powers suggested that large-group entertaining take place at other facilities.
“In the long term, the next contract with a president should include a reasonable housing stipend so that the President can have a greater range of choice in living arrangements and can spend personal money instead of state money expressing his or her personal tastes,” Powers wrote.
Another option that Powers offered was to find “a donor house for the remainder of this President’s contract.” Then, he wrote, “The President can have the luxury desired without the negative economic and political impacts on UCA. New contracts should offer living stipends instead of houses.”
A third option, Powers said, would be to move immediately to a housing stipend system covering “basic rent and household maintenance.”
“UCA should no longer provide personal housekeepers, carpenters, landscapers, etc. for the president. Each future president can negotiate the stipend,” he added.
If the current house no longer serves as the president’s home, Powers suggested other ways to use it. “No more excessive costs, please,” he urged.
Cromwell Architects Engineers Inc.’s first rough-draft drawings give no cost estimates. The drawings include one for renovations but no additions, one for a 3,255-square-foot expansion and one for a 2,736-square-foot addition.
Committee member Diane Newton, UCA vice president for finance and administration, said these “working documents are simply a starting point.”
“There likely will be many other drawings before we have something to present to the board for their consideration along with other housing options,” she said.
Pitchford said the committee will not vote on any floor plans. “They will review them, ... but their recommendations ... will be general ideas and it will be up to the board to decide what, if any, building plans or other options will be [considered].”
The president’s house has a total of 5,666 square feet with a basement of 520 square feet and a 1,000-square-foot garage.
By comparison, the Little Rock house recently bought for Arkansas State University System President Charles Welch, who is married and has three small children, is 5,300 square feet. Welch said his home will be used “for small and large university entertaining and events.”
The UCA house, which Pitchford said has an insurance replacement cost of $1,268,239, underwent a $400,000 renovation project in 1995-96. That included new wiring, plumbing, an expanded kitchen, building accesses for the disabled and enclosing a screened porch, said a letter from UCA Archives Director Jimmy Bryant to Roussel.
Daves told the Democrat-Gazette that she thought the UCA house was unsuitable for a president because, among other things, “the bedrooms and closets are very small and not well laid out for modern-sized furniture.”
A king-size bed would not fit well in the master bedroom, she said.
While the first-floor guest bathroom meets disability standards, she said, “it would not be large enough for a wheelchair-bound guest to use alone.”
“We have discussed that trying to have 200 people inside the house does not work well logistically,” Daves said in an e-mail interview. “An event of under 50 would be lovely, 24 would be optimum. I don’t think the committee is necessarily looking at expanding the house for an event venue. I personally would like to see it just be a more comfortable house with an appropriate restroom facility for guests.”
She said the house “isn’t ‘presidential’ in a modern sense and would not be a strong selling point for the university when recruiting a president.”
In his written comments, Powers agreed, saying the house is not adequate for a family or someone with a physical disability, but its design “prohibits inexpensive changes that might improve these negative conditions.
“It is unlikely that the house as-is will be an attractive incentive for future UCA executives,” Powers added.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 07/18/2011