I have no problem with outsourcing textbooks and food services. What I object to is the press release made it appear that, in its infinite wisdom, USM has discovered how to remove millions from its operating budget.

I wonder if Barnes & Noble is going to give thousands of dollars of their profits each year to keep the athletic department's budget in line.

I believe this has been standard practice for years now.

quote:

---

Originally in the HA article linked above:
"The fiscal 2005 operating budget ... dropped by $9.5 million when administrators outsourced the bookstore and food service operations.

By contracting ... food services and ... Bookstore and Textbook Services, Southern Miss removed $17.7 million from the bottom line.
"

---

Speaking as a COAL type, this is very confusing. Are 'bottom line' and 'operating budget' terms of art? Otherwise, why are they different numbers? Is the 9.5 a subset of the 17.7?

More important-- what do these numbers really mean? People paid for the books and food. How do we know they didn't show a profit?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tinctoris
"

People paid for the books and food. How do we know they didn't show a profit?

Or at least, where do we find the number to subtract from this windfall to represent the "inventory" (i.e., books & food) purchased? Or, as Tinctoris just bellowed from on high, "were they giving them away for FREE?"

It is my understanding that something called "Auxillary Services" or "Auxilliary Enterprises" used to run various campus services (e.g., the bookstore) on a profit-generating basis. Has USM now awarded Barnes & Noble the right to run the bookstore for a specified period of time and in return for a moderate sum of money to be paid to USM "up front"? If that is the arrangement, it is possible that USM has accepted a smaller but immediate payment from Barnes & Noble in lieu of a much greater but delayed payment over an extended period of time. In other words, in terms my mom would use in making this point: Perhaps USM has accepted the "now" money. If so, the arrangement announced in the press release might provide USM with an immediate infusion of funds (the use of which to be determined by the present administration) - but at the sacrifice of a continuing stream of far greater income generated over an extended period of time (the use of which would be determined by future USM administrations). I do hope the specific financial details of the arrangement is a matter of public record, and that those records will closely examined. The deal may be, as my mom would say, just fine and "hunky dorey." But I believe somebody qualified to make that judgment should have access to those details.