NIL $$$

[rooneyguy]

Interesting take rooney. So, do you want more transparency or not? I mean, it would be easier to spot all the financial problems so many semi insiders say they know about but can’t really offer much in specifics. Does that make sense?

It really doesn't matter much to me either way. I think UD actually makes quite a bit of detailed information available for those who wish to look for it, including the recent acknowledged financial problems. But, I understand that there are two sides to most issues or they would not be defined as issues.

Perhaps the University's Charter was written by the folks in Dover in such a way to establish a reasonable compromise about how the institution was to be governed across a wide range of matters related to incorporation (i.e., state vs. private control)? As you know, one of the consequences of many compromises is that neither side is entirely happy with the outcomes.

[Bluewyn Gold]

So, in your version of UD's history, Don Crossan was fired because he successfully defended the institution's efforts to keep the FOIA exemption? Make that make sense. Thanks.

Not "my version" but the actual events, sir. If you knew the situation--and you're clearly way beyond your depth here--there were a combination of issues that lead to Dr. Crossan's removal as VP and reassignment to the Ag Dept, not ONLY this single issue. He was a terrific gent and did a ton of great work at the school with ag science and beyond as a positive advocate for the Coastal Zone Act, responsible land use issues, etc. Can't say enough good things about him, but, yes, he cheesed off some powerful constituents at the school, the city, and state by doing his job well in mid-to-late '70s, which, as the school's chief lobbyist, meant going HARD for complete exclusion from Sunshine Law regs, as well as other matters I won't go into here.

Again, UD--and by extension DSU--are unique among state-sponsored peers in the entire country in that large parts of their finances can be conducted out of the public's purview, despite accepting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year. There are no "two sides" in this case, as there are no valid reasons why UD and DSU, among all other peers in the US, are awarded this exclusion. It's simply not normal, not reasonable, and, IMO, not ethical, though it's still permitted by Delaware law, so it's entirely legal.

"The Delaware Way" has its advocates and even acolytes, I realize, even though it's frequently counter to responsible fiscal governance and transparency.

[rooneyguy]

So, in your version of UD's history, Don Crossan was fired because he successfully defended the institution's efforts to keep the FOIA exemption? Make that make sense. Thanks.

Not "my version" but the actual events, sir. If you knew the situation--and you're clearly way beyond your depth here--there were a combination of issues that lead to Dr. Crossan's removal as VP and reassignment to the Ag Dept, not ONLY this single issue. He was a terrific gent and did a ton of great work at the school with ag science and beyond as a positive advocate for the Coastal Zone Act, responsible land use issues, etc. Can't say enough good things about him, but, yes, he cheesed off some powerful constituents at the school, the city, and state by doing his job well in mid-to-late '70s, which, as the school's chief lobbyist, meant going HARD for complete exclusion from Sunshine Law regs, as well as other matters I won't go into here.

Again, UD--and by extension DSU--are unique among state-sponsored peers in the entire country in that large parts of their finances can be conducted out of the public's purview, despite accepting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year. There are no "two sides" in this case, as there are no valid reasons why UD and DSU, among all other peers in the US, are awarded this exclusion. It's simply not normal, not reasonable, and, IMO, not ethical, though it's still permitted by Delaware law, so it's entirely legal.

So, essentially, you want the State of Delaware to change the Charter they established and approved in 1833? Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Afterall, the vast majority of UD's legal rights are derived from that document. Sounds pretty simple to do since it is such a one-sided case. Let us know how that goes.

[Bluewyn Gold]

So, essentially, you want the State of Delaware to change the Charter they established and approved in 1833? Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Afterall, the vast majority of UD's legal rights are derived from that document. Sounds pretty simple to do since it is such a one-sided case. Let us know how that goes.

You clearly don't understand the basis upon which UD sought exemption from the original Sunshine Law, nor do you understand that a charter change would not be necessary to remove UD's and DSU's FOIA exemptions. Neither school is exempt from transparency by virtue of their charters; not even the schools would be silly enough to argue that, nor have they ever. The school's argument centered on the administrative burdens the law would create for the school, subject them to poaching of their professors, and other silly issues. The skirted the original law ONLY by virtue of successful lobbying efforts and fortuitous election of Gov. Pete Du Pont, who had a considerably more cozy relationship with Trabant and his Hullihen bosses than did Sherm Tribbitt. (The latter was pushing hard against UD's ridiculous exclusion.) They've maintained the exemption through hard lobbying, including lobbying by powerful business leaders who also happened to be trustees.

A bill through the normal legislative process would get it done or the university's unlikely acquiescence but, to date, their lobbyists have successfully blocked every effort to subject them to the same sort of transparency regs that apply to every other publicly-sponsored university in the country.

[rooneyguy]

So, essentially, you want the State of Delaware to change the Charter they established and approved in 1833? Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Afterall, the vast majority of UD's legal rights are derived from that document. Sounds pretty simple to do since it is such a one-sided case. Let us know how that goes.

You clearly don't understand the basis upon which UD sought exemption from the original Sunshine Law, nor do you understand that a charter change would not be necessary to remove UD's and DSU's FOIA exemptions. Neither school is exempt from transparency by virtue of their charters; not even the schools would be silly enough to argue that, nor have they ever. The skirted the original law ONLY by virtue of successful lobbying efforts and fortuitous election of Gov. Pete Du Pont, who had a considerably more cozy relationship with Trabant and his Hullihen bosses than did Sherm Tribbitt. (The latter was pushing hard against UD's ridiculous exclusion.) They've maintained the exemption through hard lobbying, including lobbying by powerful business leaders who also happened to be trustees.

A bill through the normal legislative process would get it done or the university's unlikely acquiescence but, to date, their lobbyists have successfully blocked every effort to subject them to the same sort of transparency regs that apply to every other publicly-sponsored university in the country.

So, good, you do understand what has to happen to have your dreams come true. And I have nothing to do with that. Best of luck. Bye.

[Bluewyn Gold]

So, good, you do understand what has to happen to have your dreams come true. And I have nothing to do with that. Best of luck. Bye.

It's not a dream--my dreams are much smaller at this stage!--but transparency isn't an unreasonable expectation as a Delaware taxpayer, alum, and supporter of the school. You appear to have some reason to argue the contrary or dislike it when someone calls out your nonsense. In any case, good day.

As we go down the road of paying athletes, I don't think the transparency issue is going to go away for UD and DSU.

[Hens79]

So, good, you do understand what has to happen to have your dreams come true. And I have nothing to do with that. Best of luck. Bye.

It's not a dream--my dreams are much smaller at this stage!--but transparency isn't an unreasonable expectation as a Delaware taxpayer, alum, and supporter of the school. You appear to have some reason to argue the contrary or dislike it when someone calls out your nonsense. In any case, good day.

As we go down the road of paying athletes, I don't think the transparency issue is going to go away for UD and DSU.

The second sentence is right on the mark. Folks post so much nonsense and then when called to back it up, post corn ball responses like “I don’t care” or “I have nothing to do with that” or “pagaphobia”. And if UD’s finances are so publicly available, maybe provide a short bulleted list of the specific financial problems for those of us who aren’t quite as in the know. And BG, remember this is the guy who provided marketing expertise about the poor choice of black uniforms based on a gohens poll even after info to show they are a wild success. You can’t make this stuff up. Anyway, good gohens activites in still cold and snow covered Newark.

[Cluck U]

Good discussion (except for the usual chirping from the uniformed bird).

Not sure why there seems to be some animosity...the issue is a bit more complicated than both of those presentations (not an insult...just that UD's unique standing can't be summed up in a few paragraphs).

I'd happily have you both at one of my tailgates...drinks and food on me...to continue the discussion. We all want the best for UD and our community.

Usually announce the Spring tailgates publicly on the lacrosse thread, but I'll probably add an extra one on the down low. I'll send you both an invite about a week before the game...date is dependent on the weather. Hope you both can make it.

[Cluck U]

Agreed, Rooney. The majority of public universities that are considered "flagship" universities of their respective states end up receiving between 25% and 35% of their annual funding from the state.

Well, by UD's own admittance, they aren't quite 100% public. UD shields much of their internals from the public and the legislature.

No reason to give more public funding if the school won't open up their operations for public inspection. Econ Stewardship 101. Instead, UD wants to have it both ways...a public money supply, but little accountability to the public. This isn't new...UD has repeatedly told the legislature to pound sand when information is requested...and so the semi-polite dance continues.

Not to quibble, but UD describes itself as "state assisted but privately governed" as opposed to them saying we "aren't quite 100% public". The former seems more accurate to me.

And, as I suspect we both understand, the semi-polite dance you refer to is conducted to the tune of "Be Careful What You Wish For" because both sides would rather grumble about how they think things should be rather than go through what could be a painful process of trying to win (and possibly lose) the argument. Its the same logic I use in deciding to not tell my wife what I really think about the new drapes she bought when I thought the old ones were perfectly fine.

Indeed, it is a performative dance...and both sides do not want to lose. Not surprisingly, the UD/legislature relationship is similar to how our government works. Performative squawking to rile up the base, while no one seriously puts forward any real changes and the business-as-usual effort continues.

The legislature controls the state's purse, but UD controls the economic engine of the state. Almost a Westphalian situation where they accept each other's status in order to maintain the peace.

[BlueHenBill]

Cluck U, I Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that in the past (and presumably continuing) UD's exemption from FOIA /disclosure does NOT apply to programs/projects funded with DE state monies (about 10% of UD's total annual budget) which are specifically identified in the DE state appropriations. If I am correct, UD is exempt from FOIA/disclosure for programs/projects funded by non-DE state monies which account for about 90% of UD's total annual budget. Further, to the extent that UD would receive increasing portions of the UD budget from DE state monies, UD would have more expenditures subject to FOIA/disclosure.

[Bluewyn Gold]

Indeed, it is a performative dance...and both sides do not want to lose. Not surprisingly, the UD/legislature relationship is similar to how our government works. Performative squawking to rile up the base, while no one seriously puts forward any real changes and the business-as-usual effort continues.

The legislature controls the state's purse, but UD controls the economic engine of the state. Almost a Westphalian situation where they accept each other's status in order to maintain the peace.

Very true comments, Mr. Cluck. Thanks for your insight.

I'd only push back that no one has seriously recommended any real changes. Former Gov. Sherman Tribbitt lobbied against UD's exclusion efforts when the Sunshine Law was originally making its way through the legislature. He lost the election, and his opponent, who's family controlled university business for decades, didn't support including UD in the bill that ultimately passed on his watch. Since then, there've been at least five bills put forth since '97 in the House and Senate by responsible legislators on both sides of the aisle with the support of good government advocates, faculty, student unions, media, labor unions, contractors, etc. to remove our universities' FOIA exclusions. The 2014 bill was signed into law but with so many carveouts.

I might be all wet, but I think the NIL situation will eventually cause them to have to open their books wider where it comes to AD finances. Might even be to their benefit to do so.

[Cluck U]

Indeed, it is a performative dance...and both sides do not want to lose. Not surprisingly, the UD/legislature relationship is similar to how our government works. Performative squawking to rile up the base, while no one seriously puts forward any real changes and the business-as-usual effort continues.

The legislature controls the state's purse, but UD controls the economic engine of the state. Almost a Westphalian situation where they accept each other's status in order to maintain the peace.

Very true comments, Mr. Cluck. Thanks for your insight.

I'd only push back that no one has seriously recommended any real changes. Former Gov. Sherman Tribbitt lobbied against UD's exclusion efforts when the Sunshine Law was originally making its way through the legislature. He lost the election, and his opponent, who's family controlled university business for decades, didn't support including UD in the bill that ultimately passed on his watch. Since then, there've been at least five bills put forth since '97 in the House and Senate by responsible legislators on both sides of the aisle with the support of good government advocates, faculty, student unions, media, labor unions, contractors, etc. to remove our universities' FOIA exclusions. The 2014 bill was signed into law but with so many carveouts.

I might be all wet, but I think the NIL situation will eventually cause them to have to open their books wider where it comes to AD finances. Might even be to their benefit to do so.

And there's the rub.

Plenty of proposals from well meaning folks (and some not-so-well meaning folks), but in the end, the watered down bills mean little real change.

One of the challenges to us normals is that UD is almost, "too big to fail." UD has campuses in every county and in many districts. That means big spending on jobs, money, infrastructure, etc. throughout the state. State reps aren't immune from that reality. And, it doesn't help that DSU (with its own growing fiefdom) and UD both realize their shared interest in keeping their doors closed to public inspection. Furthermore, it is easy to see the recent strengthening of that cozy, "none-of-your-business" relationship with Tony Allen's appointment.

I remain an optimist that time will crack the walls (and there has been some progress).

NIL's growth might be a complication to UD's preferred silence, especially if there is some demand for comparison to DSU's resources, but as long as those donations remain privately funded and UD remains a corporation with strong links to our legislature, I think it will be a long time before we see any meaningful changes.

[dchen]

No.

Thanks!

I guess we will have to wait until the tax returns are released, unless the University
decides to bury it in some miscellaneous expenditure??

Do NIL payments even run through the University books? I have my doubts as I thought they came directly from the NIL Collectives.

[dchen]

i wonder if UD is subject to the federal level (rather than the state) FOIA. Like almost every school UD receives significant federal funds through federal financial aid programs and other federal grants.

[Bluewyn Gold]

i wonder if UD is subject to the federal level (rather than the state) FOIA. Like almost every school UD receives significant federal funds through federal financial aid programs and other federal grants.

I think federal FOIA only applies to agencies of the federal government, not state and municipal governments or universities. An attorney versed in FOIA law might be able to verify.