Adam Goodman | The $400,000 question

In a 1983 Pentagon audit, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) revealed that the military, in an unabashed display of hubristic stupidity, had somehow found a way to purchase toilet seats for $600 apiece.

The details would later be disputed, but the $600 toilet seat would forever be seared into the minds of disbelieving Americans as a maddening symbol of wasteful government spending.

On Jan. 22, the DP reported that over the past few years, Penn had taken it upon itself to outfit the high-rise dorms with designer chairs.

You know those love-seat style chairs in the lobbies and the smaller, diamond-shaped ones found in the suites? Yeah, those are actually pieces of contemporary art, designed by world-class European artists and architects, which retail for about $2,400 and $500, respectively.

According to the Design Within Reach catalogue, when you curl up in the "Womb Chair," you're in fact enjoying "one of the most iconic and recognized representations of mid-century Scandinavian organic modernism" (consult your local art history major for translation). Oh, and don't forget about the $1,300 tubular chairs adorning Harrison's mezzanine lounge.

"I think Penn students are really lucky to have these beautiful, artistic, organic pieces which are really icons of design," said Sue Smith, Penn's spokeswoman for College Housing and Academic Services.

My initial feeling wasn't quite one of gratitude. On the contrary, while the prices of the chairs weren't quite as shocking as Grassley's toilet seat revelation, it was enough to make my jaw drop.

Presumably, Penn paid a bulk rate for these chairs - what was it? How many units of each chair could be found in the high rises? How much exactly had Penn spent on these icons of design? I wanted details.

Unfortunately, I didn't get any.

After a number of unanswered e-mails and a long line of referrals where I was repeatedly assured that I would get the relevant information if I only contacted so-and-so, I finally reached the end of the line with Rhea Lewis, spokeswoman for Business Services. Lewis wouldn't or couldn't release the figures.

"One, when we negotiate contracts between Penn and the vendor, they're at a discount, and as a courtesy to the vendor we don't disclose the terms of the contract," Lewis said. "Two, we often find that these figures can easily be taken out of context by students when reporters don't do sufficient research and include all the relevant information."

Lewis did eventually tell me that the amount Penn spent on the new furniture amounted to "less than half a percent" of the budget for Phase I of the High Rise Renewal project. That budget was $81.1 million, meaning that roughly $400,000 was spent on the new furniture.

Since Lewis wouldn't disclose specifics, it's difficult to speculate how much money the University could have saved by buying substantially cheaper - but equally comfortable and durable - chairs that aren't Nordic masterpieces.

Whatever the amount, it could have been put to myriad better purposes by Penn. Still, when viewed within the context of Penn's massive overall budget, it represents a relatively minor misuse of funds.

What's more concerning is the lack of transparency which marked this process. Lewis characterized Business Services' unwillingness to disclose the numbers as a "courtesy on both ends of the arrangement - both to the vendor and to us." But that begs the question: What's more important to Penn - confidentiality of vendor contracts or general accountability to students?

Business Services' tight-lippedness would seem to indicate the former and that's a problem. Students need to know where to turn when they have specific issues with how the University appropriates its funds - our tuition dollars.

As of now, there's nowhere. As Wilson Tong, chairman of the Facilities and Campus Committee said, "In the end, it's not really up to us how much money gets spent where."

In that case, there's a relatively simple lesson for the University to glean from High Rise Chairgate: communicate with the students and be accountable to them.

"In general, the interaction between the UA and the administration is pretty good, but when it comes to furniture and similar things, we're not consulted," said Brett Thalmann, chairman of the UA.

Thalmann also noted, while he hasn't yet received any formal complaints, "the general sense is that people think the cost of the chairs is pretty ridiculous."

According to a Knight Ridder report released last year, the Pentagon is still up to its old tricks, inexplicably paying $5,501.20 apiece for two deep-fat fryers and shelling out similarly absurd amounts of money for other common kitchen appliances.

Let's hope Penn is careful not repeat its own mistakes in the future. It could be more costly next time.

Adam Goodman is a College sophomore from La Jolla, Calif. His e-mail address is goodman@dailypennsylvanian.com. A Damn Good Man appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.