Comments on: SD Democrats plan legislation to attack corporate involvement with universities.

By: Some Anonymous Dude

Some Anonymous Dude — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:36:56 +0000

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: Tommy Paine

Tommy Paine — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:48:41 +0000

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.”

By: Tommy Paine

Tommy Paine — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:47:56 +0000

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.

By: Doug Wiken

Doug Wiken — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:36:01 +0000

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.

By: PP at the SDWC

PP at the SDWC — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:33:01 +0000

Rose Mary Task –

Chicoine is a Democrat. Or can’t you testify to that fact?

By: Rose Mary Trask

Rose Mary Trask — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:28:46 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:29:03 +0000

Curt Hohn should have stepped down from the WEB water system when he was running for congress.

By: Curt Hohn

Curt Hohn — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:59:57 +0000

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.

By: Lee Schoenbeck

Lee Schoenbeck — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:22:31 +0000

maybe Frank’s getting even for a bad grade on a term paper?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:39:08 +0000

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.

By: Tommy Paine

Tommy Paine — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:36:03 +0000

“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!!!

By: Lee Schoenbeck

Lee Schoenbeck — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:02:32 +0000

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?

By: Troy Jones

Troy Jones — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:59:44 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:51:23 +0000

confict of interest he has got to go.

By: caheidelberger

caheidelberger — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:54:22 +0000

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.

By: myleftfoot

myleftfoot — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:13:51 +0000

“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.