What? The Vendor demanded Reciprocity for the $700,000 Meadors' Mansion “Gift”?

          Just when you thought that things were finally beginning to straighten out for the “Trustees” at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) in Conway, one of them alleges that someone foolishly read the entire “Gifting Letter” from the vendor (Aramark) who offered $700,000 to redo President Meadors' Mansion up to some degree of socially acceptable living standard. (One can only wonder what the prior president Lou Hardin did to the mansion to trash it to the extent that over a million dollars is required to make it habitable for the new El Presidency, Alan Meadors). Poor President Meadors, having already sunk $800,000 into his mansion only to be forced to move out as it didn't meet his “standards”, now reveals that the gift has a string attached, a very long string. Turns out that Aramark, having won the current food business bid on the UCA campus via competitive bidding, is willing to fork over the gift, IF, there's always that “IF” isn't there? If UCA will extend their contract another 7 years without competitive bid, they'll come to President Meadors' housing aid.

            After publicly announcing this financial gift and extolling its solution to the need for more mega thousands to make Meadors' Mansion inhabitable, one of the “Trustees” claims that only later “was he informed of the details” of the letter to discover this little “tit for tat”? Now the “Trustees” is “Shocked! Shocked!” to learn of this demand for reciprocity. He promises a deep, immediate wide-ranging investigation to get to the details of this offer.

            To save the UCA from another “Trustee Tryst” at the Red Apple Inn and Country Club costing over $3,000.00 to discuss and investigate this, I can tell them what occurred.

            UCA has been begging for donation for the Meadors Mansion 3^rd and continual refurbishment to meet President Meadors' demands. This vendor, apparently making a substantial and satisfactory profit from their food contract at UCA, offered up the money IF the contract was extended without competitive bid. The “Trustees” went public with the first part of the deal and while congratulating all on a non UCA cost solution to magnificently restoring the Meadors' Mansion some sneak spilled the beans.

            Now begins the “cover-up”. They are surprised, no “Shocked! Shocked!” to learn of this reciprocity demand.

            Now just think about this. They get a good deal and now want to act “Shocked!” that they finally pulled one off for the good of UCA. Complete honesty would compel one of these “Trustees” to just fess up and say, “Look, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, we just saved UCA $700 grand. The food contract was won in an open competitive bid and this vendor was selected. Extending this competitively won contract costs the students and UCA no more than currently, and allows us to make the Meadors Mansion acceptable to his Presidente, and saves UCA from footing the bill for a third go at it.”

            On the surface, sounds like a win-win to me, of course one can quibble that the food costs for the students must be pretty high if there is room for around a $100,000.00 annual gift to El Presidente's Residency. Maybe this is one reason that student matriculation is down for the 3^rd year in a row. But what the heck, the students are being subsidized by the poor folks that play the state's lottery, so I guess it all comes clean in the washing of the facts. Or perhaps it’s the fact that shady and low ethics seem to be in high use at UCA?

            Can someone explain the duties of “Trustees” to me?