Headline from California Watch: CSU Fullerton spends $300,000 to remodel president’s house.
Now granted, a university President’s house is not merely a university President’s home. It’s a place to invite potential big donors for fundraising. It’s a place to meet visiting dignitaries and local officials, to build bonds between campus and community. So it really ought to look sharp. And so, at a time when tuition is rising, it may well make sense to spend … $300,000 on a remodel????? (Sorry, lost my head there for a moment.)
Well, the historic “C. Stanley Chapman house” (aka, and I am not making this up, “El Dorado Ranch”) is a $3.4 million house, so under 10% of its cost may not be entirely crazy. And according to university spokesman Christopher Bugbee, it supposedly has not had a major renovation since 1951 and badly needs repair. From the linked article: “The university will replace 20-year-old carpet, peeling wallpaper and old flooring, as well as perform some wood preservation and restoration. … Safety improvements, such as asbestos abatement and sewer line replacement, are also in the plans.” And so it may be … even reasonable … that ….
$300,000 on a remodel?????
OK, I’m going to have to stop being reasonable here. Here’s what State Sen. Leland Yee has to say:
“Instead of directing the funding for our students, they are directing it towards the comfort of top executives. All of us would love to renovate our homes, to modernize it and all that. But when we don’t have the money, then you need to prioritize. Unfortunately, this is a classic example of the CSU, where the priorities are always towards the executives and not toward the students.”
Unfair? Get used to it, CSUF; you should have seen this reaction coming from a mile away.
And here’s California Faculty Association President Lillian Taiz, pinning the tail right onto the donkey by calling the university’s decision “another round of tone-deafness.”
“If you have $300,000 available, where are you going to spend it? Spending it on renovating the president’s house is an odd choice. Even if the money is coming from foundations, there’s probably a lot of students who could use some scholarship money right now.”
It might … might … be somehow justifiable, but that’s almost beside the point. As the article notes:
“The 23,000 members of the association began voting this month on whether to authorize a fall strike after the collective bargaining process for CSU faculty members stalled. Meanwhile, CSU officials plan to cut enrollment by up to 25,000 students in 2013-14, and they have said that if voters do not pass Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative come November, the system will lay off up to 3,000 faculty and staff.”
The university has just put itself into what we call “a bad bargaining position.”
I don’t know how it happened in this case, but over the centuries this is sometimes how things like this have happened.
A new ruler comes into town. The courtiers are worried — whom will she favor? How can they secure their own position under the new regime? “I know,” lightbulbs pop over courtier’s heads, “I’ll be the one to arrange a splendid gift for the new ruler! Then she’ll certainly appreciate me!”
Frankly, people do this sort of thing all the times with their bosses in various ways, hence “it’s good to be the king.” But when it goes over the top like this, what it actually does is poison the water for the new leader before she even arrives. It pushes the peasants (and students, and faculty, and workers) closer to revolt. It just LOOKS BAD, OK? This will CAUSE PROBLEMS. Isn’t anyone there paid to notice this sort of thing?
The one person who can come out as a hero is the new ruler herself, Mildred Garcia. If she were to, say, refuse $34,000 of her top-ranked salary for ten years to cover these repairs, she’d be heroic. But that is unfair to ask. This isn’t:
Assuming that the contracts cannot be broken — after all, Milton Gordon and his wife did live there for 22 years so the asbestos situation may not be quite so dire! — she can announce, now, that she will raise the money privately and redirect this money back into scholarships or whatever makes people cheer.
In exchange for their donations — I don’t know, let’s say that people get to ride all of the rides in the house free for a year. (It works for Knott’s Berry Farm!) Just someway, somehow, don’t start off your time in Fullerton with this heavily planted wrong foot.
I know that someone — or many people — at CSUF were just trying to do incoming President Garcia a favor — but they are killing her with kindness here. She can undo the damage — and maybe more — by saying “no thanks, we’ll keep the public money for other and better uses.”
She probably should not wait until she arrives on campus to do it. Of the attacks coming down the pike over this, this story here is probably going to be among the nicer ones.
We’ve been rapping the use of that estate by the CSUF President for awhile. They should liquidate that asset and let their $300,000 a year president buy her own house.
Owning the estate is a cost-benefit question. If having that sort of a President’s home truly saves money by attracting that much more in donations — and by not requiring CSUF to in essence rent a house for the President (because they’re not going to get anyone to buy a house appropriate for entertaining when the have no job security here) — then they can make the case.
However, undertaking an expensive remodel for the new President just when the university is freezing entry for an entire graduating class is a really bad Idea.
Your comment makes no sense.
If the house is a net asset it should be maintained properly (it evidently wasn’t – more CSU efficiency).
If you believe that, then the fact that word got out just as fees are going up and entry is being limited doesn’t make it a bad idea – just bad PR.
So you believe that it wasn’t maintained properly? I hadn’t figured you for the credulous type. I don’t know if it is a net asset, do you? Well, you must, because your first comment says that it should be liquidated.
It was at a minimum bad PR — and also I think that it was a bad policy decision unless Milton Gordon was actually blocking essential maintenance, which I somehow doubt. I can believe that it was a worthwhile goal; I have a harder time thinking that it was a worthwhile priority given what else is going on.
As for the timing: this wasn’t some leak; the timing of the announcement was due to the change in regime.
I would suggest that a $300,000 remodel is more than new wallpaper and carpet.
And watch that $300,000 double by the time they’re done.
Asbestos abatement could account for much of the difference — of course, if the problem is that serious, one wonders why anyone is staying in the house at all.
As I said: private fundraising dedicated to this effort should be the least that they should do.
Asbestos removal shouldn’t run more than $20,000 for a property of this vintage, depending on what is present. Probably some popcorn ceilings, some HVAC ducting, and maybe some linoleum tile.
Asbestos isn’t a problem until it’s disturbed… like in a remodel.
If it just sits there it’s not a hazard.
If you start to remove it, and if it’s not done properly, it can get very expensive. That’s when the AQMD comes in and starts fining the contractor. The AQMD is funded by the fines that they collect, and they are not to be messed with.
Deferring maintenance is always a short sighted solution. The longer you put it off, the more costly it becomes.
Sewer line replacement…. it doesn’t take much to imagine how neglecting that issue could make the property unlivable.
Sometimes the property’s needs aren’t convenient.