The Ohio Controlling Board in Columbus rejected Miami University's $166,648 proposal for office chairs for the Farmer School of Business Monday. The plan required approval from the bipartisan state panel since taxpayer money would be funding the request.
Controlling Board meetings utilize a competitive bidding process called a Request for Purchase. To establish a Request for Purchase, competing vendors offer various prices and the lowest bid is accepted. At Monday's meeting, Miami waived the competitive bidding option.
Miami asked for 333 chairs in three different models. According to The Cincinnati Enquirer, the request included 78 chairs at $446 each, 10 chairs at $397 each and 245 chairs at $522 each. For the 245 office chairs, there were three options for the model Miami wanted. Of the three choices, which would cost $365, $458 and $522 per chair respectively, Miami requested the most expensive option. Miami's architect justified selecting this particular chair by emphasizing their durability and comfort, considering the amount of time their users would spend sitting in them.
The editorial board of The Miami Student understands the need to ensure professors' health and wellbeing while working in their offices, but during a time of budget and position cuts, it seems irresponsible to spend money on expensive chairs when there were cheaper options. Furthermore, because the justification for chairs was their longevity and comfort, the board feels the need to call attention to the fact that if we continue to cut faculty positions such as visiting professors, we won't have enough people to fill those chairs. A university full of empty chairs has no value as an undergraduate institution.
Budget cuts should be applied to places where they will have the least significant impact on undergraduate education. Having professors hold office hours in a cheaper chair would not hurt any students' undergraduate learning experience.
The university has stressed the severity of the current budget situation and the need to be fiscally responsible during this time. This action is not consistent with its own rhetoric. Requesting money for the most expensive selection from a state severely strapped for cash is not responsible. The Ohio Controlling Board has rejected very few proposals in the last three years, and the editorial board commends the board for doing the math and realizing Miami's request was unreasonable.
The lack of cost effectiveness in this decision makes this board question if this is symptomatic of university spending as a whole. This is not the time for frivolous spending on luxury items like the Herman Miller Aeron chair.
The university is just now evaluating how to proceed on the question of the chairs, looking for ways to be more frugal; however, this is something they should have done before the initial request. Miami must return to the Controlling Board with a better defense, better preparation and a fuller understanding of all the options.
