Shared Services

Photo Credit: Chelsea Purgahn | Daily Texan Staff

Shared Services, a plan to centralize the University’s human resources, information technology, finance and procurement services, will be implemented differently in future pilot programs as a result of feedback from the first round of voluntary implementation. 

After months of discussion last spring, Shared Services’ implementation was scaled down to a few pilot programs in the College of Education and the Provost Portfolio, an administrative unit that oversees academic and professional areas in the University. The scaling down of the program was a result of recommendations made by the Shared Services Steering Committee. In February 2014, the Committee released a report calling for the University to conduct a pilot version of Shared Services so administrators would have more information about the effectiveness and impact of the program before rolling it out to the entire campus.

Now that pilot programs have been active for one long session, administrators are working to see what has gone well — and what could be going better. Jamie Southerland, associate vice president for Shared Services and Business Transformation, said the College of Education’s pilot program revealed issues as the semester went on.

“As the fall progressed, it became clear that the academic units involved in the pilot did not desire to reduce [their own] cost and/or administrative staffing, and therefore Shared Services offered no benefits to the units,” Southerland said.

To remedy this problem, administrators will recruit departments with a more active interest in implementing the pilot program’s services.

“We are also exploring the idea of offering services that any campus department could opt-in to,” Southerland said. “We know that there are processes that no one is happy with. We are in the process of determining how we can combine re-engineered processes into a service that campus finds valuable.”

Although groups such as the UT Save Our Community Coalition insisted that Shared Services would result in mass layoffs, one year after the pilot programs began, no jobs have been terminated, Almasy said.

“I think we’re now at the very least a year, if not two years, from when this discussion began, and there have been no layoffs or firings,“ Almasy said.

University officials are now looking for another department or college willing to implement a pilot program in order to collect another round of data.

“We are in conversations with other departments who are exploring a move to Shared Services, but we are not in a position to announce anything yet,” Southerland said.

Radio-television-film senior lecturer Anne Lewis said the University’s small-scale attempts at using Shared Services have not succeeded.

“It [has been] a miserable failure,” Lewis said. “It just didn’t work well when they tried to merge so many functions — so many individual functions, that served provost or faculty, into one kind of automated system.”

Southerland said the Provost Portfolio experience with Shared Services was a positive one.

“Thus far, the Provost Portfolio has been pleased with the quality of service from both the [Central Business Office] and [Academic Technology Support],” Southerland said. “They estimate that the switch to Shared Services has saved more than $1 million annually, most of which has already been reinvested in academic programs across the campus.”

After being arrested during a sit-in protest against Shared Services outside President William Powers Jr.’s office Wednesday afternoon, 18 students from the Save Our Community Coalition spent the night in jail and were released Thursday morning.

Philosophy senior Sophia Poitier said after being arrested shortly after 5 p.m. Wednesday, the students were taken to Travis County Jail.

“They forced us to the back of the elevator … and then into a police car,” Poitier said. “We were taken to central booking [and] spent the night on benches.”

Theatre sophomore Blake Medley, one of the arrested students, said students were released in groups from the jail from around 4 a.m. until about 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

In a statement released Thursday, the University said Shared Services is a necessary measure to cut administrative costs.

“In these days of dwindling higher education funding, we have to be responsible stewards of tax and tuition dollars,” the statement said. “Consolidating administrative roles that are now spread across campus … can help save $30 million to $40 million each year.”

Government senior Huey Rey Fischer said arrested students were officially banned from the fourth floor of the UT Tower by UTPD, but he said that wouldn’t stop students from expressing their opinions.

“We’re not going away,” Fischer said. “We’re here and we’re having our voices grow louder and louder every day, because this plan is unpopular.”

The University’s statement said no final plan for Shared Services has been approved, and administrators will evaluate the effects of the pilot programs and discuss them some time next year.

Photo Credit: Chelsea Purgahn | Daily Texan Staff

Administrators call the program a cost-saving, centralization initiative. Student protestors and some members of faculty council claim the plan will “dehumanize” certain University services, lead to an undetermined number of layoffs and increase the pressure on the staff who remain. Amidst the controversial claims, one fact is certain: as Kevin Hegarty, vice president and chief financial officer, told The Daily Texan in January, “Shared Services is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.”

The Committee on Business Productivity, a group charged with identifying ways for UT to cut costs, first introduced the idea of Shared Services in January 2013. Since then, the Shared Services Steering Committee has worked to determine how to implement the initiative on campus. The committee presented its final report and recommendations to President William Powers Jr. earlier this month.  

Since its introduction, Shared Services has been defined in many ways by different parties across campus, and the steering committee itself has undergone multiple roster changes at the request of student and faculty governance groups. Student protestors also oppose the involvement of Accenture, a consulting firm with a controversial history, in the plan’s development. Meanwhile, across the country, other universities have begun to adopt Shared Services plans — with varying levels of success. 

For administrators, Shared Services means cutting costs by centralizing services. At present, various colleges, departments and units across campus organize and deliver their procurement, finance, human resources and information technology services in different ways. According to Hegarty, 500 positions will be eliminated through the centralization process — ideally through natural attrition and retirement.

“Rather than Shared Services, it’s really sharing resources — sharing people,” Hegarty said. “We have people all over the campus, down to the department level, that do very similar activity. … These people do essentially the same thing. This whole concept is, if you amalgamate that work into fewer, more concentrated units, you achieve potentially a different result.”

According to the steering committee’s report, implementing Shared Services will cost the University approximately $35-$40 million. Each year thereafter, the University’s projected savings will sit somewhere between $30-$40 million annually, Hegarty said.

Some members of the UT community have voiced their concerns about the limited amount of hard data and evidence currently available to support the administration’s claims of increased productivity. The Faculty Council passed a resolution in January requesting more information about Shared Services and also asked the committee to add two non-administrative UT employees to its ranks. After the resolution passed, one faculty member and one staff member were added to the committee. 

A month later, the Graduate Student Assembly also passed a resolution regarding Shared Services, requesting more information about the initiative and for a graduate student to be added to the committee. A graduate student was added to the committee after the resolution was passed.

“The issue isn’t with Shared Services; The issue is with the manner in which it’s being rolled out,” said David Villarreal, communications director and president-elect for GSA and one of the resolution’s authors. “The only thing we really need is our involvement. At the end of the day, we’re not trying to stop Shared Services in its tracks. We’re just saying, as it’s being developed, let us know what’s going on so that we know and so that we can be part of the conversation.”

Villarreal said he is concerned about the projected elimination of 500 positions.

“[Hegarty] has outlined a plan that explained how this would happen, under the assumption that those 500 jobs would be voluntarily eliminated within an extremely short calendar,” Villarreal said. “If he had given a more realistic plan and one that just didn’t paint the rosiest of pictures on the job loss, I would probably have helped him and supported him at the end of the day.” 

According to Hegarty, UT already lays off 150-200 individuals every year. Hegarty said individuals criticizing the plan do not understand that the University’s current business model is not sustainable.

“We’re getting starved on the academic end for dollars to hire teachers and retain people,” Hegarty said.

In February, hundreds of students, university employees and community members marched on campus against the Shared Services Plan. Bianca Hinz-Foley, Plan II junior spokeswoman for United Students Against Sweatshops, said she is primarily concerned with Accenture’s involvement in the Shared Service initiative.

As well as assisting in the project management of the Committee on Business Productivity, Accenture also played a role in collecting data for the steering committee. According to Hegarty, the combined cost of these services amounted to more than $4 million. Two members of the Committee on Business Productivity and one member of the steering committee are former Accenture employees.

“Some of the big movers and shakers behind the Shared Services Plan at UT are either current or former Accenture executives,” Hinz-Foley said. “That’s troubling because we want the University to make changes the community wants and not something an outside corporation wants to implement.” 

In 2006, the legislature outsourced the call centers for the state’s food stamps and Medicaid programs to Accenture in an effort to save money. The state terminated the contract in 2007 after issues with technical operations led to problems with benefit distribution. According to a report from the Austin-Statesman in 2009, the state of Texas paid Accenture approximately $243 million for their services.

UT is not the only university with ties to Accenture. The University of Michigan has an approximately $11.7 million contract with Accenture for cost-cut consulting, including Shared Services. Since 2003, the University of Michigan has paid Accenture a total of about $19.4 million, according to documents provided by Michigan spokesman Rick Fitzgerald. 

“We used Accenture, the consulting firm, to help us identify areas [conducive to shared services], how much we might save, what the scope of the operations that could be pulled into a shared services operation — so that’s been going on for a couple of years,” Fitzgerald said.

In November 2013, approximately 1,000 faculty members signed and submitted a letter to Michigan administrators, criticizing the centralization efforts. Fitzgerald said Michigan’s plan for implementing Shared Services was altered as a direct result of this sort of feedback from faculty.

“What we found as we started rolling this out is that the campus community, primarily the faculty, didn’t really have enough information about how [shared services] would be working,” Fitzgerald said. “We learned that we needed to slow down the process and make sure we gave the schools and colleges more time to figure that out.”

The University of California-Berkeley is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation of shared services on their campus. According to Berkeley spokeswoman Melanie Hurley, Campus Shared Services, which was launched in January 2013, currently provides business and financial services to 60 percent of the campus. 

Hurley said Campus Shared Services was developed through more than 20 “work groups” on Berkeley’s campus. 

“Throughout implementation, the team has relied on campus work groups made up of staff, faculty and students who collaborate with [Campus Shared Services] staff to identify the most effective processes for Berkeley,” Hurley said in an email. 

According to Hurley, savings will not actualize until the 2016 fiscal year, when Berkeley will see $6.9 million in annual savings. Hurley said, by 2020, annual savings are predicted to increase to $13.7 million.  

At UT, Hegarty said the end goal of Shared Services is to ensure that the University can operate efficiently.

“We want to minimize administrative costs to maximize investment in our core missions,” Hegarty said. “We’re not in the business of just doing administration for the sake of doing administration. We’re not in the business of just employing people for the sake of employing people.”

Photo Credit: Jenna VonHofe | Daily Texan Staff

Several hundred students, faculty and community members marched across campus in protest of the University’s Shared Services Plan, despite campus being closed for “winter weather” Friday.

The Shared Services Plan is a list of recommendations intended to save money by centralizing the University’s finance, human resources, procurement and information technology services. University officials predict that 500 jobs will be eliminated — primarily through natural attrition and retirement, according to officials — as a result of this centralization. 

The UT Save Our Community Coalition, a collection of student groups on campus including United Students Against Sweatshops, partnered with the Texas State Employees Union, the University Leadership Initiative and several other organizations to voice their concerns about UT’s partnership with management-consulting company Accenture for the implementation of the Shared Services Plan.

In 2006, the state outsourced the call centers for the state’s food stamps and Medicaid programs to Accenture in an effort to save money. The state terminated the contract in 2007 after issues with technical operations led to problems with benefit distribution.

Anne Lewis, senior radio-television-film lecturer and Texas State Employees Union Executive Board member, spoke at the protest about the importance of a community rallying together to preserve its ideals.

Lewis said a petition has been opened to UT faculty in opposition to the UT-Accenture plan. Lewis said between 400 and 500 signatures have been collected so far.

“I’m not sure if the petition will change anything,” Lewis said.

Plan II junior Bianca Hinz-Foley, spokeswoman for United Students Against Sweatshops, said around 300 people showed up to the protest, which was held on the eve of a two-day United Students Against Sweatshops national conference held in Austin. Hinz-Foley said her organization’s main goal is to convince the University to discontinue collaboration with Accenture.

“We’re calling on UT to cut ties with Accenture altogether,” Hinz-Foley said. “Accenture is the worst of the worst. It’s not that they’re inefficient, it’s that they’re fundamentally corrupt with their model.”

UTPD officers accompanied the protesters to ensure their safety and keep traffic unaffected, according to UTPD Capt. Gonzalo Gonzalez. Gonzalez said the protest was generally peaceful, but it did create a disturbance when protesters physically blocked the street traffic on Guadalupe, while dancing and chanting.

On Thursday, Kevin Hegarty, executive vice president and chief financial officer, responded to a resolution from Faculty Council asking for more information about the Shared Services Plan.

Hegarty agreed to add a non-administrative faculty member nominated by the Faculty Council Executive Committee to the Shared Services Steering Committee. He also included information about Accenture’s role in the plan.

Hegarty said Accenture worked with the Committee on Business Productivity, which recommended implementing Shared Services to the University. He said Accenture also played a role in gathering data for the steering committee to determine the potential success of implementing Shared Services at UT, a service that will be completed in February.

According to Hegarty, the combined cost of these services totals more than $4 million, but there is no current contract with Accenture for future services.

Photo Credit: Chelsea Purgahn | Daily Texan Staff

Kevin Hegarty, executive vice president and chief financial officer, submitted a response to a Faculty Council resolution requesting more information about the Shared Services Plan on Thursday morning.

In his response, Hegarty agreed to add a non-administrative faculty member nominated by the Faculty Council Executive Committee to the Shared Services Steering Committee. Hegarty also included information about the role of management-consulting company Accenture in the implementation of Shared Services and a list of the University units that volunteered to participate in a pilot version of the plan.

The plan consists of a list of recommendations — scheduled to be submitted to President William Powers Jr. in the coming months — designed to cut costs through the centralization of human resources, finance, information technology and procurement services at UT. The plan also outlines the elimination of at least 500 jobs, which, according to University officials, will take place primarily through natural attrition and retirement. 

Faculty Council passed a resolution requesting more information about the plan at their January meeting. The resolution, authored by the Faculty Council Executive Committee, asked Hegarty to share specifics of the Shared Services Plan with the public. It passed by a vote of 28-3.

“We would like to emphasize the need in all discussion on campus for transparency,” said William Beckner, mathematics professor and chair-elect of Faculty Council, at the meeting. “We would like to have information about how the pilots are progressing.” 

The resolution requested a variety of data, including an explanation of Accenture’s role in Shared Services.

In his response, Hegarty said Accenture played a role in the Project Management for the Committee on Business Productivity, which aims to identify opportunities to cut University costs. Hegarty said Accenture also played a role in developing data for the steering committee to determine the potential success of Shared Services at UT. According to Hegarty, the combined cost of these services is more than $4 million. 

Hegarty said there is no current contract with Accenture.

The resolution also asked Hegarty to disclose which University units have already volunteered to participate in a pilot version of the plan. Hegarty provided a list of 11 units that have volunteered, including the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Education, the McCombs School of Business, the Moody College of Communication, the Jackson School of Geosciences, the Dell Medical School, the Portfolio of the Chief Financial Officer, the Central Business Office, the President’s Office and the University Athletics Administrative and Business Affairs. 

Hegarty also provided a list of higher-education institutions which have already implemented their own versions of Shared Services, which UT will be observing. The list includes multiple campuses at the University of California, the University of Michigan and Yale University.

Hillary Hart, engineering senior lecturer and chair of Faculty Council Executive Committee, said she appreciated Hegarty’s prompt response. 

“The more I know about this and compare it to how things were done at Michigan and Yale — the two other Shared Services at universities I know the most about — we are just approaching it so differently,” Hart said. “I think [Hegarty] made a really good start on responding to the resolution and providing the information
we requested.” 

In 2006, the Texas Comptroller denounced consulting firm Accenture’s mishandling of Texas welfare, Medicaid enrollments and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Instead of saving the state money as the company had promised, Accenture cost the state $99.9 million more than their budget had allowed. Because of Accenture’s shoddy work, families in need were wrongly denied food stamps, many health insurance applications were mistakenly faxed to a warehouse in Seattle and 81,504 children lost health insurance coverage in just 9 months — some of them seriously ill. The State of Texas has since terminated its contract with Accenture, but not before paying $243 million for these horrors.

Now some students worry about Accenture’s plans to transform UT in the form of the University’s new Shared Services plan, which will begin being implemented this semester and which was planned with the help of Accenture. 

In 2011, the chief executive of Accenture’s Health and Public Service, Stephen Rohleder, published an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman in which he argued that public institutions, such as UT-Austin, should adopt shared services practices from the private sector. Rohleder worked with Accenture for 30 years, several of them as a chief operating officer at the company. 

Months later, Rohleder chaired a committee advising UT on business productivity. UT paid Accenture staff $960,000, without competitive bidding, meaning that no other companies were given a chance to compete for the contract. A subcommittee chaired by Stephan James recommended that UT’s operations be centralized into shared services in the process, eliminating hundreds of jobs. James, too, was an Accenture executive, for 38 years, and another chief operating officer. 

Given Accenture’s past history, some faculty and students voiced concerns about the company’s involvement in the initiative last semester.

UT’s Chief Financial Officer Kevin Hegarty replied, “Shared Services at UT is not an Accenture-driven project.” At a faculty meeting, Hegarty also admitted, “If it’s an Accenture plan, it’s not going to be successful.” 

But even after the original proposal was finished, Accenture’s involvement on the UT campus continues. The project team tasked with creating the  UT Shared Services plan has six leaders, including three Accenture executives, Tim Mould, Ryan Oakes, Jamie Wills, plus a former Accenture executive, Brad Englert, now the University’s chief information officer. 

To implement the Shared Services plan, administrators will have to buy a “hugely expensive” system called Workday for more than $100 million. Workday publicizes its Services Partners, and its first partner is Accenture — despite the fact that Workday does not list its partners in alphabetical order. Accenture even describes itself as  “one of Workday’s most strategic, experienced and successful deployment partners,” further underscoring the relationship between the company and Workday.

Englert will oversee the implementation of Workday. Julienne VanDerZiel, another Shared Services planning leader, is also a former Accenture executive.

It remains to be seen how their experience at Accenture will affect the University. 

Accenture developed shared services for the University of Michigan. At a meeting of UT’s Staff Council, Hegarty explained the importance of Michigan’s Shared Services as a model for implementing the system at UT: “They’re probably the closest institution to us of any out there. They’re about the same size, the same scope, everything. And so we think: That’s really a good test case to look at, watch and monitor …. They look very, very much like we look when you look at how they’re organized.”

And what does shared services look like at Michigan? It looks like Michigan has paid $22.5 million for Accenture’s shared services to cut 50 staff jobs and relocate 275 jobs out of other departments. Longtime employees must reapply for jobs, which they might lose. Department chairs received “an unprecedented gag order” not to discuss shared services. An investigative committee of alumni and students concluded that Accenture “cannot be trusted with the University of Michigan’s financial management, its IT systems or with other sensitive information.” They begged for the vice president of finance, a former Accenture executive, to be replaced immediately to avoid conflict of interests. 

Michigan’s IT Governance Council complained that Accenture underestimated costs and overestimated savings. Finally, scores of Michigan professors denounced shared services as “a misguided venture that will irreparably harm our cherished institution.” An unprecedented 1,169 faculty have signed a petition, including the chairs of 29 departments. They begged their president to terminate the project immediately: “We implore you to restore sanity to the University.”

But UT, which has just begun the implementation of the Shared Services plan on campus, can prevent a similar crisis before it begins at home. I urge that instead of paying companies in California, Ireland and Bermuda through Accenture, UT should hire UT staff and Texas programmers to custom build its administrative systems. 

Alberto A. Martinez is a member of the UT Faculty Council, and an associate professor in the department of history.

Nash Horne, Student Regent. Photo courtesy of UT System. 

Editor’s Note: Nash Horne is a communication studies senior from Austin who is currently serving as a non-voting member of the UT System Board of Regents, a position to which he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry. On Tuesday, the House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations met to hear testimony in the case of Regent Wallace Hall, who is currently under investigation by the state legislature for possible impeachment in the latest turn in the ongoing drama between UT-Austin, the UT System, the state legislature and the Board of Regents. Horne sat down with the Texan on Wednesday to talk about the situation and his time on the board. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and space considerations.

Daily Texan: How would you explain to students what’s going on in the Board of Regents right now, both in regard to the House Transparency Committee’s investigation of Regent Wallace Hall and the claims that there are threats to President Powers' job from the board? 

Nash Horne: I would say that there’s three entities involved here: the board, the individual board members and [the] UT System, and each one is playing a role. Obviously, individually, Regent Wallace Hall and his inquiries into UT-Austin have been called into question, which the committee is investigating. And then there’s [the] System, which has been involved in this as well, as they are the ones that retain all the records. So all three of these people, not to mention UT-Austin, which is a piece of this as well, those four players together are all involved. The board is the board, and each individual regent is a regent. Everyone is appointed and brought forth with their personal rules of governing.

 

DT: What do you think are the governing philosophies of each individual regent?

NH: You know, I really couldn’t answer that, because I’ve never personally sat down and asked them what their philosophies are.

 

DT: You’ve never asked another regent what their philosophy on education is? 

NH: I’ve never had a personal conversation with another regent about that. The Texas Public Open Meetings Act restricts how often we can converse, because if there’s more than two of us [regents] together, we have to convene a formal meeting.

 

DT: So you’ve never met individually with any of the other regents?

NH: No, I have not. I’ve only been to board meetings. But I think the board is looking for a balance: How can we get the highest-quality education to students at the lowest price, and where can we cut things so we can keep the quality but take out some of the frivolous costs that there are? I think that’s what [the other regents] are aiming for [in terms of philosophy].

 

 

DT: In your opinion, is UT-Austin affordable for a sufficient variety of students?

NH: I would say that I don’t have the answer to that question. I would have to go do some research. I think as a board we’re trying to move to make it more accessible to people of different backgrounds.

 

DT: You said earlier that there’s a movement on the board toward cutting frivolous costs while making sure that we maintain the quality of education. What in your time as a regent or a student have you seen that you think constitutes frivolous costs? 

NH: You know, I’d rather not speak to that. There’s certain costs that I know that we talk about frequently as a board and I know the UT system looks into. I know that [Chief Financial Officer] Kevin Hegarty recently came out with a long report from an outside source that talked about [that]. My personal opinion is, if something doesn’t have a benefit for students, then why are we doing it? And I think the board comes at it that way as well.

 

 

DT: You mentioned Kevin Hegarty’s Shared Services Plan. Do you have an opinion on Shared Services? 

NH: You know, I really don’t. I don’t want to speak to that. I haven’t read it thoroughly enough.

 

DT: Going back to the current controversy and the players that you outlined, where does UT-Austin play into this, and is it actually under attack as much as people perceive it as being? 

NH: I think that this process [of the transparency committee impeachment proceedings] is a great thing. Because this is how our government was set up, so that we have checks and balances. With that said, I think that this whole process has taken away from the core mission of achieving excellence for students, both on UT-Austin’s side, in terms of document requests to Regent Hall, and the legislative side in terms of document requests to UT system. A lot of people don’t realize that a lot of the staff at [the] System work tirelessly for our smaller campuses, for instance, a great example is lawyers. UT-Austin has a team of lawyers. But places like UT-Permian Basin [doesn't] have a team of lawyers, so they rely on UT System lawyers. Well, those System lawyers have been drawn away to work on things, document requests and things of that nature, and have put students of those universities away for a second as they work on these document requests. So I think on both sides there’s been some time that was lost that should have been put to students.

 

DT: Going back to the previous question, are UT-Austin leaders justified in feeling attacked by the Board of Regents?

NH: You know, I honestly can say that is a question that President Powers' office and the staff of the president’s office can answer for you. I don’t think I have an answer for you. All I know is what the press has put out, and I wouldn’t want to formulate an opinion on that unless I was there personally.

 

DT: When this argument first started, it seemed like it was more of a conversation about Jeff Sandefer’s "Seven Breakthrough Solutions" for higher education. It now seems that it’s become more of a fight for personal reasons than a fight for higher education’s values. Where do you see it falling? 

NH: You know, I think the best, the most factual evidence we have of where it is, is the fact that we’re investigating Regent Hall for potential impeachment. In terms of Jeff Sandefer, I can honestly attest that I have never heard that brought up in a board meeting by any board member since my term. His name has never been brought up, the seven-I-can’t-even-tell-you-what-they’re-called have never been brought up. I’ve read it in the paper; that’s the only place I’ve ever seen his name. For my point of view, it is personal in that it’s an investigation into whether articles of impeachment are warranted for Regent Hall, but it’s also not personal in that the committee is going to tell us what state regents' roles ought to be.

 

 

DT: Your role is to represent students in the UT System to the Board of Regents. A lot of UT students on campus right now are saying that they stand with President Powers. Do you stand with President Powers?

NH: I have had an excellent education here, and President Powers was the president of the University of Texas at Austin during my time here, and so by that logic, I do [stand with Powers]. He’s the president of the university ... I attend.

 

DT: Should more state funding be appropriated to the UT System?

 

NH: I think that’s a question for the legislature, because they are the ones who decide that. I think what we can do at home is see how most effectively we can cut costs.

 

DT: So if a member of the state legislature is saying, should I up funding to the UT System or should I not, what do you say?

NH: Yeah, absolutely. I would never turn money away.

 

DT: But do you believe more money should be directed to the UT System? 

NH: Should? I don’t know if I want to answer that. But would I accept it? Yeah.

 

DT: What’s the ideal outcome from the House transparency committee hearings?

NH:  The ideal outcome is, first of all, that it would come to an end in a timely matter. I think the faster we can get past this and back to focusing on students, the better.