SD Democrats plan legislation to attack corporate involvement with universities.
From today’s Rapid City Journal comes a story where SD Senate Democrats are going after corporations’ involvement with our university system. Particularly, the practice of corporations inviting University officials to sit on corporate boards:
The appointment of South Dakota State University president David Chicoine to the board of agribusiness giant Monsanto in April has some state legislators questioning a possible conflict of interest and planning to bring the issue to the Legislature in January.
House Democratic leader Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, said even if such cozy corporate-education relationships are common in other states, it doesn’t mean they should automatically be accepted here.
and…
State Sen. Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland, has railed against it, saying it could create a conflict of interest if the company does business directly or indirectly with the university.
And Chicoine’s appointment is the perfect example of why it’s a bad idea, Kloucek said, because Monsanto has several projects on SDSU’s campus.
“It looks like they’re bribing them,” he said. Even if a university president vows to abstain from certain votes, they’re “still going to have every appearance of impropriety.”
Kloucek is drafting a bill for the upcoming legislative session and researching other states he says have regulations on public servants serving on boards for compensation.
It will have resistance from those in and outside the state.
“This is not new,” said Elaine Hairston, a consultant for Academic Search, the Washington, D.C., firm that has facilitated several searches for South Dakota universities and the board of regents.
Hairston said it is an honor for a president to be asked to serve on a board, particularly one large enough to offer compensation.
So let me understand this – for years our University system has been encouraging corporate investment and sponsorship into our universities as a way to raise money for our colleges. This allows them to improve programs, research, and to offer scholarships without a need to have to raise student fees or ask for money from taxpayers. And when we’re finally making enough headway for corporations to recognize the value of our University staff, now Democrats are saying “hell no?”
This reminds me of when former Democratic House Minority Leader Dale Hargens virtually urinated all over the announcement that Denny Sanford was donating $70 Million to make the DUSEL research lab a reality.
What is it with the Democrats in the state that they can’t stand private investment into public ventures? Is it because it precludes the need to squeeze the public for tax dollars?
By virtue of them being public ventures, the transparency is there to prevent any graft.
Democrats need to get on the same page as taxpayers who would be otherwise footing the bill, and to quit biting the outstretched hand which is offering to feed our needs. Because the taxpayer’s food dish is too empty to refuse it.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
What is it with Republicans who fail to see the potential of a conflict of interest when a state employee receives more compensation from an out-of-state corporation than from the taxpayers paying him to protect and promote our land-grant university? If you’re going to call Scott Heidepriem phony for having a more expensive house than you (and I) and making money as a lawyer, you’ve got to drop similar bombs on a university president more beholden to Monsanto than the Board of Regents.
What is permitted isn’t necessarily ethical.
What someting appears to be may not be accurate.
The Board of Regents has obviously deemed that serving on this board is not against policy or the terms of Chicione’s employment. But that doesn’t mean what the SDSU President did was ethical.
On the surface, it appears that there is a conflict of interest. But, maybe the Regents knows more than Hunhoff/Kloucek and have the proper protections and policies in place.
Personally, I’m not comfortable with the relationship but, unless Hunhoff/Kloucek have pursued the matter with Board of Regents and been stone-walled, I’m not comfortable this needs legislative intervention until the matter has been vetted better in private. President Chicione as an employee deserves as much.
We don’t know all the details, but I have always assumed that President Chicione is acting with the University’s best interests at heart. He is a native South Dakotan who came home to take this position. I assume that surving on that board creates more access and opportunities for the University and its students, when it comes to Monsanto’s substantial research dollars and internships.
PS Legislative-Self-Proclaimed-Regent Kloucek also had the forsight to vehemently oppose D1 status for SDSU- anybody thing that was a braniac position today for Frank’s alma mater! D1 has been a visionairy move for the school’s national profile – maybe this is too?
“If you’re going to call Scott Heidepriem phony for having a more expensive house than you (and I) and making money as a lawyer, you’ve got to drop similar bombs on a university president more beholden to Monsanto than the Board of Regents.”
DING DING DING DING DING!!!
WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!
A “winnah” Tommy Pain? Only if you’re enrolled in the SDSU College of Alchemy under the guidance of Frank Kloucek.
Frank ha been an obstructionist for some of the biggest things to happen to SDSU, such as D1 status, which should be a huge hint to everyone.
If Frank opposes it, then it has to be good for SDSU.
Dr. David Chicoine should choose. Either to be president of SDSU or a director of the board of agribusiness giant Monsanto. He can’t do both. Its clearly a conflict of in terest. It has already created conflict and confusion on the campus and in the agricultural community.
Lest we forget: 92% of the respondents to the May 15, 2009, Farm Forum Poll said YES to the question, “SDSU President David Chicoine will earn almost $400,000 in salary and stock options in the next year as a member of the board of directors for agribusiness firm Monsanto. Do you think this arrangement will impact the integrity of the agricultural research being done on the Brookings campus?”
Republican might does not make this right.
Rose Mary Task –
Chicoine is a Democrat. Or can’t you testify to that fact?
For sure, what we need to do to improve the awareness of science and research in South Dakota is spend more money on athletics and travel expenses for jocks all over the country. No sense building labs and hiring better professors when the jock shortcut works so much better.
Curt – “Dr. David Chicoine should choose. Either to be president of SDSU or a director of the board of agribusiness giant Monsanto. He can’t do both. Its clearly a conflict of in terest”
And the best part is that NOBODY is denying there’s a conflict of interest.
Doug – “what we need to do to improve the awareness of science and research in South Dakota is spend more money on athletics and travel expenses for jocks all over the country. No sense building labs and hiring better professors when the jock shortcut works so much better.”
+1
Monsanto is evil, and everything they do should be looked upon with suspicion.
I wonder which farmer they’ll sue next because the wind blows their patented pollen onto his field.
“By virtue of them being public ventures, the transparency is there to prevent any graft.” What exactly do you mean by that?
If I were running a corporation and looking for an institution to do unbiased research or to donate to, I’m not certain I would choose one run by a man sitting on the board of my competitor. So if I sever ties, and others in my industry do likewise, is the single company “employing” the university president going to pick up all the support we withdraw?
If that happened, what credibility would any study done by the institution have? And if credibility was lost, would the institution not also be worthless to the single supporter which would also then withdraw?
Maybe you are right, this is much ado about nothing. But it doesn’t mean Democrats are looking for a means to get rid of corporate funding. It’s quite the opposite.