Lottery subcommittee reviews $86,800 Learfield sponsorship with University of Arkansas

Members of the ALC Lottery Oversight Subcommittee reviewed a subcontract with Learfield that would let the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery promote its business during University of Arkansas sporting events. The agreement, described to the committee by the lottery's executive director, carries a listed cost of $86,800.

Sharon Strong, executive director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery, told the subcommittee the contract “is a contract that we, procure annually with the University of Arkansas to, to advertise what we do as a lottery.” She said the agreement covers on-field activations, radio interviews, photo opportunities and social media contests tied to major sporting events and that the detailed items and costs appear in Exhibit A of the contract. “If you go to the, towards the end of the contract where it says Exhibit A, it shows the detail broken out of what all is included and the cost is 86,800,” Strong said.

Committee members questioned why the contract is listed as sole-source. Representative Lademan asked whether Learfield is sole-source “because they market in other areas” or for another reason. Jerry Fetzler, chief fiscal officer of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery, said Learfield “has been contracted by the University of Arkansas as their sole representative for all of their licensing. So if we wanna contract with the University of Arkansas for our sponsorship promotions, we have to go through Learfield.” He added that Learfield holds similar licensing arrangements with most other colleges in Arkansas and, to his knowledge, provides services to universities outside Arkansas as well.

Representative Hawk asked whether the lottery does similar promotions with other state universities; Strong said the lottery holds contracts with the University of Central Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Arkansas State University, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and several junior colleges, but those contracts “just don't cost as much and so we don't go through this review process for those.”

The committee made a procedural motion to review the Learfield subcontract, and the chair called for a voice vote. The motion was seconded and the chair said, “All in favor? Aye. All opposed, we'll consider that reviewed.” The committee then moved on to the next agenda item.

The record before the subcommittee did not include a named mover or second, nor a roll-call vote; the outcome was recorded in the meeting as the committee having reviewed the subcontract.