A QUESTION FOR TRUTH4USM - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 21, 2004

A QUESTION FOR TRUTH4USM

Date: Aug 21, 2004

Does anybody really know what is going on with our finances? I'm finding it hard to tabulate where we are at. It is easy to play a shell game for a while with money, but it eventually it catches up with one. Even though we are now supposed to be a business, no admin. is talking bottom-line figures with us. Does anybody have a clue about any of this?

Date: Aug 21, 2004

Shadrack:

Thank you for thinking that I might be able to spearhead new efforts to take out Shelboo. I don't know if I'm the right person or not, though. Since I'm not in H'burg anymore, I don't have access to what's happening directly on campus like some do. I agree that following the $$ is the way to go. It's just a matter of making that happen.

I'm up for listening to your (and others) specific ideas.

Truth

Date: Aug 22, 2004

TRUTH:

We need to start with the Poly lab first. Then look at his expenses at the Prez House. Then look at the perks. Some people were hired at the lab to help out his son's spouses. Part time work for full time bennies.

Date: Aug 22, 2004

While this may be a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry, we should keep in mind that one can work at USM fewer than 40 hours and receive benefits. I don't remember what the cut-off point is, it could be 30 hours. Let's don't waste time going down rabbit holes.

Date: Aug 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"While this may be a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry, we should keep in mind that one can work at USM fewer than 40 hours and receive benefits. I don't remember what the cut-off point is, it could be 30 hours. Let's don't waste time going down rabbit holes."

I don't know any details, or any of the persons, or for that matter whether any such allegations are true. But one thing I do know: In my books it would be improper for anybody who controls the purse strings, or who serves as supervisor, to hire a relative in their department -- whether full time or part time, with or without fringe benefits, for any number of compensated hours. Not even to use one's influence to help a relative obtain such a job. Not even on a grant unless specifically approved by the grantor and in conformity with state regulations.

Date: Aug 22, 2004

Oh dear me. Welcome to Byzantium.

Date: Aug 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Oh dear me. Welcome to Byzantium."

LVN,

What?

Date: Aug 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: What?
"I don't know any details, or any of the persons, or for that matter whether any such allegations are true. But one thing I do know: In my books it would be improper for anybody who controls the purse strings, or who serves as supervisor, to hire a relative in their department -- whether full time or part time, with or without fringe benefits, for any number of compensated hours. Not even to use one's influence to help a relative obtain such a job. Not even on a grant unless specifically approved by the grantor and in conformity with state regulations."

Actually, according to the new USM handbook -- that first part is the definition of nepotism.

Date: Aug 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"Actually, according to the new USM handbook -- that first part is the definition of nepotism. "

Watching the message board threads unfold is like April 21, 1986 when Geraldo Rivera opened Al Capones vault on TV but found nothing. Based on my USM experiences I wonder if the college board of any other regulatory authority would actually take appropriate action if something turned in one of USM's vaults.

Date: Aug 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Street Wise in Chicago
"Based on my USM experiences I wonder if the college board of any other regulatory authority would actually take appropriate action if something turned in one of USM's vaults. "

I don't think they would. They'd try to bury it or hide the evidence. As decent analogy is the way Judge Anderson was obviously charged with "settling out" in the G&S hearing before Robbie McDuff could do a cross-X. From their point-of-view, it would be "minimizing collateral damage."

Date: Aug 23, 2004

the first place you might want to view is the ownership of property on hardy street that houses the paint store.....look at present owner and owner for last ten years (be careful there are actually 3 partials but appears to be only one building)

this morning c/l says ihl is considering a new audit committee

Date: Aug 23, 2004

In addition, doesn't SFT own an apt. building that is on university property (by the Payne Center)???

Date: Aug 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Swan Song
"In addition, doesn't SFT own an apt. building that is on university property (by the Payne Center)???"

Swan Song, I would hope that no university administrator who is in the position of exerting control out of student housing matters would have an interest in off-campus apartments which are rented to students. The potential conflict of interest would be too great. I wouldn't think a university administrator would want to be subjected to such a risk, and I wouldn't think the university governing board would tolerate it.

Date: Aug 23, 2004

folks--AKL and Trent Lott are and have been co-owners of apartments in hattiesburg for years.

Date: Aug 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"folks--AKL and Trent Lott are and have been co-owners of apartments in hattiesburg for years."

May God have mercy on your souls.

Date: Aug 23, 2004

Wouldn't someone have to demonstrate that the apartments existed solely for student use before any semi-accusation of conflict of interest might be raised? Hate to break the news to y'all, but Hattiesburg isn't Oxford or Starkville. Students don't make up the majority of people living in the 'Burg. In fact, I think that's part of the problem USM faces with respect to community support.

OTOH, were a university employee to obtain (somehow) the ability to own apartments on university property, it might be a whole 'nother smoke...

Date: Aug 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictu
"Wouldn't someone have to demonstrate that the apartments existed solely for student use before any semi-accusation of conflict of interest might be raised?

Maybe. Maybe not. It's the 'Maybe not' that presents the problem. If one owns apartments adjacent to campus and those apartments are largely unfilled, it would not be to the apartment owner's financial advantage if new dorm rooms were opened up or new dormitories were built. Shortage of dorm rooms on campus would facilitate the occupancy of the apartment complex adjacent to the campus. From my perspective there might be a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, if a director of housing or anyone who controlled dorm construction, or the availablity of dorm rooms on campus, to own apartment adjacent to campus. The apartments adjacent to campus, while not exclusively for students, are probably occupied mostly by students. I would never occur to me to own apartments adjacent to campus if I held a position central to controling campus housing. I wouldn't even have to think twice about the propriety of such a thing. I have no earthly idea whether or not anyone at USM has such a conflict of interest. All I know is that I would never put myself in such a situation. Even if a course of action is legal, a university administrator should avoid the mere appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. But that's just my opinion.

Date: Aug 23, 2004

SFT may no longer own the apts. on campus, but he used to own them. He owned them in the 1990's - maybe he sold them, but he did own them - it might have been under some type of corporate name, but they were his. It's common knowledge.