"It’s Un-American. Even if the resolution were to pass I would not resign unless I believed my presence was harming the university."

This a quote from Incarnati in late April in response to a question about a resolution by State Rep. Paul Gieleghem, D-Clinton Township, asking the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents to resign because of the controversy over the University House project.

Last week, the Michigan Auditor General’s office released its audit of the project. That audit found numerous problems with the project, including raising the total cost of the president’s residence and fundraising facility to $6 million including related costs.

In light of the growing criticism following the audit’s release, it is time for Incarnati to make good on his April comment and resign.

As the chair of the regents and perceived point man of the project, his continued presence on the Board of Regents clearly is harmful to the university because he has clearly been part of the problem.

EMU President Sam Kirkpatrick resigned his post effective next month. Both he and Incarnati said his departure has nothing to do with University House, but the fact of the matter is Kirkpatrick’s decision is a major step toward getting EMU out of the political and public relations nightmare that has continued to grow as it has become ever more clear that the University House project was out of control.

It also is time for the rest of the regents to stop allowing Incarnati to speak for them on this issue. He has failed them dismally, and their continued acquiescence in an agreement to let Incarnati say whatever he wants about University House and imply that he speaks for the entire board can only further damage all the regents’ credibility.

Only EMU’s most dedicated apologists can rationalize what has occurred with University House as a few bookkeeping errors or minor problems that really don’t deserve both harsh criticism and the most stringent actions to ensure that it does not happen again.

For good reason, Incarnati cannot be trusted to clean up the mess he was so instrumental in creating, especially in light of his characterization of the state audit as opinions.

It is not an opinion that University House and related costs were $6 million. Neither is it an opinion that EMU and Incarnati continued to insist that University House only cost $3.5 million because it kept the books on the project so that they would reflect the project cost $3.5 million.

University House is not just about how the books were kept, it is about the philosophy behind the decision to build it, and the rationale for letting the costs grow to an unreasonable level, and the failure of the Board of Regents and the school’s top administrators to be forthright about what they were doing and how they were paying for what they were doing.

Incarnati’s credibility on University House is in shreds, and as a result of University House, a growing number of people are asking whether EMU can be trusted to be forthright.

Re-establishing any credibility simply is not possible if Incarnati is involved in the process of fixing the problems specific to University House or the selection of Kirkpatrick’s successor.