UH engineering faculty questions college spending

Faculty leaders at the University of Hawaii’s College of Engineering say they have been "stonewalled" for at least six months trying to get details about how the college spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in private donations each year.

Among the dozens of funds they inquired about was a University of Hawaii Foundation travel account that had been drained to the point that engineering Dean Peter Crouch, overseer of the account, temporarily suspended its use.

Before the account suspension, Crouch himself used $42,000 in foundation funds over two years to take nearly 30 college-related trips to the mainland, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore and the neighbor islands, according to a Star-Advertiser analysis of his 2008 and 2009 gift disclosure documents and other UH information.

None of that information had been provided to the faculty Senate Executive Committee despite its requests.

"The SEC officers so far have been stonewalled in trying to obtain this information," professor Amarjit Singh, president of the college’s Faculty Senate, said in written responses to Star-Advertiser questions.

Committee members say the problems they’ve had getting details on spending raise transparency and accountability concerns for a UH system that relies on the trust and generosity of thousands of donors who provide tens of millions of dollars annually.

Since 2006 an average of nearly 30,000 donors a year have contributed roughly $50 million to benefit the 10-campus operation. In the 2010 fiscal year, about $1 million in gifts and pledges were donated for the College of Engineering.

Yet the university appears to have no uniform policy for the public disclosure of spending information at the college or department level, leaving decisions about releasing data to the discretion of individual administrators.

The engineering faculty’s requests have drawn inconsistent and sometimes conflicting responses. In a March 2 email, Isaac Fujioka, the college’s administrative officer and a member of Crouch’s leadership team, indicated to a faculty representative that the foundation data would not be forthcoming.

"I checked with the department chairs, and they are not comfortable disclosing financial information," Fujioka wrote in his response, which was copied to Crouch. "Their reasoning is the funds are from private donors, and it is not public information."

In another email a representative of the foundation, a private nonprofit organization that raises money on behalf of the university, told the Senate officers that the foundation discloses financial information only to those authorized as account administrators.

Now the information might be forthcoming after all.

Responding to Star-Advertiser questions about the faculty’s efforts, Crouch said in a written response that the Senate did not ask him about the issue until late April, even though his leadership team had been queried since at least February. Crouch said he has been preparing a report to present to the faculty at the beginning of the semester. Classes start this week.

The flap resurrects a controversy that has periodically dogged the foundation and UH. Critics say the foundation’s dealings with the university have been too secretive. The issue generated headlines in 2003 when UH and the foundation refused to identify the donors paying roughly half of then-football coach June Jones’ $800,000 salary.

The foundation, an independent organization with its own board and employees, has long maintained that it is not a public agency and not subject to the state’s open-records law.

Margot Schrire, a foundation spokeswoman, said in a written statement that despite the organization’s private status, it openly shares as much information as possible to advance the public’s understanding of its mission and operations. She also described an extensive process for ensuring that money is spent properly.

"The foundation goes beyond state and federal disclosure requirements (for nonprofits) and provides audited financials, 990s (tax returns), annual reports and endowment reports directly through its website," Schrire said.

Those documents usually reveal only aggregate spending numbers in broad categories, such as faculty support or student aid. It is not possible from those reports to determine how foundation funds are spent at the college or department level, the kind of detail sought by the engineering professors.

The engineering faculty began asking questions because of Crouch’s frequent travels after he was hired as dean in 2006 and also because he discontinued a long-standing policy allowing professors to take one academic trip a year using the foundation travel account.

Crouch instead told the faculty he would evaluate all trip requests for their value to the university. In his response to the Star-Advertiser, the dean wrote that professors under the old policy were allowed one trip annually "regardless of whether it was in the best interests of the college or the university." Several faculty disputed that characterization.

After his new travel policy was implemented, Crouch used foundation funds during a two-year period ending in June 2009 to cover expenses for 27 off-island trips plus a $690 stay at the Ihilani Resort in Ko Olina for an energy conference, according to his gift disclosure documents. During the second year alone, he went on 15 trips using about $26,500 — more than half the roughly $50,000 of foundation money he oversees for engineering department travel, according to the records and Crouch.

In a 23-2 vote in March, the faculty Senate passed a resolution recommending that the dean revert to the old policy. Beei Huan Chao, a mechanical engineering professor, questioned whether Crouch’s extensive travels benefited the college.

"We really don’t see that," Chao said.

Crouch defended his trips, saying they have helped the college gain more graduate students, increase its research profile and strengthen relations with other universities.

Magdy Iskander, director of the college’s Hawaii Center for Advanced Communications, said he is disappointed that faculty are spending time and energy pursuing foundation information instead of more research funding.

"They just want their free trips," Iskander said.

Crouch also defended using $223,000 in foundation funds to renovate the reception area outside the college administration offices, including his own. The bulk of that money had been earmarked for converting available building space into a student lounge. But the cost of that project turned out to be much greater and would not have added space, he said. Given the deplorable conditions of the reception area, that renovation was deemed more pressing, and Crouch obtained permission from the foundation and his boss to redirect funding, he added.

As public universities increasingly rely on private support to offset declines in government funding, transparency questions have become more common. Philanthropy experts say expenditure information should be readily available to anyone, and if it isn’t, donors need to take heed.

"Those organizations that have the least disclosure are those that donors should be wary of," said Ken Berger, president of New Jersey-based Charity Navigator, a watchdog group. "Sunshine is always the best disinfectant."

University of Washington spokesman Norm Arkans said fundraising information at his school is public.

"It’s all transparent here," he said. "We like it that way. Being transparent provides insulation against allegations that such-and-such a person might be able to buy his nephew’s way into the university."