Samantha Chaffin
Editor-in-Chief
Recent talks about the proposed purchase of a new presidential home for Idaho State University have sparked an abundance controversy and debate.
Much of the community rebuttal and argument against the proposed purchase has come as a result of misinformation or a lack of knowledge regarding what exactly the proposal entails.
Many have used outlets including letters to the editor and social media to express that President Vailas gets paid enough to purchase his own home, or that purchases like these are “why tuition keeps going up.”
The fact of the matter is that these claims are as ignorant as they are inaccurate, as could be realized with basic research or understanding. These realizations include the understanding that the home would not be property owned by Vailas, but by the university for any and all university presidents, and the fact that the money is reportedly not coming from tuition funds and will not affect tuition costs.
Regardless of these facts, though, I tend to find common ground with those expressing concerns, based in fact and understanding or not, as I have some concerns of my own.
First and foremost, I want an explanation as to why any current or future university president requires a home with acreage that costs more than almost any other property in the Pocatello area I’ve seen in my time here.
While the university is certainly growing and working to expand as a business, I simply cannot fathom a reason for acreage being necessary after thriving for so long with the current residence.
In addition, I think it is absolutely unreasonable for the proposed new residence to be located so far out of town and away from the university.
Other university presidents, such as the presiding president at the University of Idaho, have residences that are literally located on the campus of the university, as it should be. Any presidential residence ISU purchases in the future should absolutely be located near ISU itself.
Having a residence located so far from the university could actually be a potential deterrent for future university presidents who would come in after Vailas. Needless to say, the potential of deterring qualified leadership goes against the idea of advancement and growth of the university, thus trickling down and hurting faculty, students, and ultimately the community should that potential become reality.
While I do not have enough insider-knowledge or insight to determine whether a new home for ISU’s president is warranted, I can say with confidence that the way this proposal was handled by the university was poor at best.
I am certain that if there were a true need and the proposal for the new home were as solid as the university claims, being up-front, open and answering the community’s questions and concerns could have swayed reasonable people in the university’s favor.
Instead of being up-front about this purchase, officials did not release this information at all and the backlash after it came to light was tremendous—deservedly so.
The backlash and commentary was so tremendous, in fact, that it forced the university to pull the proposal altogether.
For that, I am glad.
Having a provided residence is absolutely a perk of acting as a university president, but the recently proposed residential purchase is simply not one I can support.
In the future, should the university be up-front and available to answer questions like mine when proposing such a purchase, I just might find myself in the administration’s corner.
Until then, here I stand.
