UVA Performs Info Dump; Slush Fund Remains Abuse Of Public Trust
This morning’s Charlottesville Daily Progress pushes a high gloss on the “nothing to see here” mantra coming from the University of Virginia this morning, as the “slush fund” scandal continues to pick up high steam.
Email exchanges dating back to January show university officials discussing plans to channel a pot of unused money — nearly $2 billion in investment returns accumulated since 2009 — into the new fund, which would stand separate from the endowment and pay out roughly 4.6 percent each year. These payouts would be used for projects that could improve the university’s academic rankings, research capabilities and enhance the student experience at UVa.
. . .
In May, Goodwin exchanged a series of messages with staff members on a news release that would explain the creation and purpose of the new fund, which now totals about $2.3 billion. But the administration did not even discuss the fund in open session at its next meeting, on June 10.
While in Charlottesville this may sound like a defense, in Richmond this is an indictment.
The greater point being pushed home by the General Assembly — that UVA plead poverty to the public trust while racking up a $2.3 billion surplus, one that only came to the light on June 10th, 2016 — is the problem.
Something to consider here: Harvard University just raked in a 21.4% return on its endowment in 2011, a remarkable achievement given its 2015 numbers of 5.8%. The University of Virginia performed at about a 7.7% rate of return in 2015, with a paltry 5.8% rate of return in 2011 itself.
As of right now, 32.4% of UVA’s operating expenditures rely on tuition and fees from its students — approximately $400 million dollars.
If UVA took the slush fund and put it into an endowment exclusively for the purposes of reducing tuition? At a 7.7% rate of return, UVA would be able to cut tuition practically in half for every undergraduate, graduate, and professional student at the University.
At 2011 Harvard rates of return? Tuition would be free.
Of course, as “modest proposals” go there are all sorts of holes one could poke in this argument. After all, isn’t this what the slush fund was aggregated for in hindsight? To relieve the pressure on the taxpayer and the student (ostensibly through yoga)?
Unfortunately, because this was not done in the sunlight, such an argument is moot. What the argument above demonstrates here is the obtuse size of the slush fund itself, its aggregation made all the more worse by the callous and sclerotic behavior of UVA professional staff towards the “very important constituency” at the General Assembly — also known as the stewards of a public trust sorely abused.
