Newspaper reports on NMSU Foundation controversy

The New Mexico State University Foundation’s practice of keeping information about donors secret is under increased scrutiny today after the Las Cruces Sun-News published an article on the topic.

Today’s article by reporter Diana Alba is about the legislators who will ask the attorney general for a legal opinion on whether the foundation can keep its donor list secret. It’s likely to be picked up by the Associated Press and run, in a shorter version, in other newspapers around the state.

The Sun-News reported that Rep. Jeff Steinborn will probably join the group of lawmakers who will sign a letter asking for the attorney general opinion, but Rep. Joni Gutierrez and Sen. Leonard Lee Rawson won’t sign the letter. Rep. Joseph Cervantes told the Sun-News he hasn’t yet decided whether to sign the letter. I have already reported that Sen. Mary Kay Papen and Reps. Andy Nuñez and Mary Helen Garcia would sign the letter and that Rep. Nate Cote is leaning toward signing it.

For the background on this issue, click here.

University President Michael Martin told the newspaper money from private donors doesn’t influence his decisions and argued that releasing the donor list would deter those who prefer to remain anonymous.

Cote, in an interview with the newspaper, said he’s not accusing university officials of wrongdoing, but said he doesn’t want even the “perception of corruption.”

“It seems to be inappropriate to us to keep donors to officials at a public university private,” he said. “We’re in a new age of letting the sun shine in and letting things be visible to the public.”

Gutierrez won’t sign the letter to the attorney general, she told the Sun-News, because she is “a big anonymous donor” but is “anonymous because of all the right reasons.”

“I just don’t want people to know I’m giving,” she told the newspaper.

Well, now they do.

Steinborn told the newspaper the fact that Martin and former men’s basketball coach Reggie Theus showed up to a meeting this summer at which Las Cruces city councilors approved a controversial annexation request from developer Philip Philippou is pushing him toward signing the letter. Theus waited at the meeting for several hours to speak in favor of Philippou’s project. That came weeks after the university announced increases in compensation for both Theus and Martin that were being paid for by secret donors.

As I reported in June, Philippou says he isn’t the secret donor helping boost their compensation.

Regardless, Steinborn said the situation has concerned many. He told the newspaper that “a lot of people were concerned” by “the potential that university officials would be doing the bidding of a foundation donor.”

Steinborn, who is chairing the government transparency subcommittee of the governor’s ethics task force, said he’s not alleging wrongdoing, but “there’s certainly been a perception that something wrong has occurred, and sometimes in government that is the same thing.”

Martin told the newspaper he attended the meeting to observe “an interesting process in the city in which I live” and said he has been involved in the past with a planning and zoning commission in another state. He said his decision to attend had nothing to do with Philippou being a donor to the university.

What if Fulton is the secret donor?

But another statement by Martin got me thinking. The president said he doesn’t know for certain who is contributing to his contract – which is between him and the university, not him and the foundation – but he can guess. He also told the newspaper about one donor to the university who asked him in the past to take a stand against a proposal to build a casino in Anthony.

That request, he said, came from Stan Fulton, the owner of the Sunland Park Racetrack and Casino.

Fulton, a big donor to the university, has been waging a public campaign to try to buy opposition to the Anthony proposal. Fulton had pledged years ago to give half ownership of his casino to NMSU upon his death. But after the Anthony proposal became public in 2004, he amended his will so that NMSU only gets that estimated $10 million each year if there are no other casinos located in an area that would include the Anthony proposal.

Fulton admitted to me he was trying to buy support.

“We play to win,” he said. “This is a battle, and we’re going to look at it like a battle.”

What if Fulton is contributing to the $70,000 Martin will get from the private sector if he stays through 2012 and his $6,000-per-month housing allowance? Then we would have a board of regents that has allowed a wealthy casino mogul to help pay the university president even though he has admitted to trying to influence a public process with his money.

That would be shameful. I called last year on Gov. Bill Richardson and former Attorney General Patricia Madrid to return massive contributions from Fulton. If Fulton were the donor in this case, I would request the same from the university.

Martin wants the public to trust that he’s not influenced by donors, but how can we know for certain if we don’t know their identities? In the case of Fulton, we have a donor who has openly and inappropriately asked for something in return for the million he’s given to NMSU.

Tell me he doesn’t get more access and influence than the average citizen or student. Martin told the newspaper he has not taken a stance on the casino project. It’s a fact, however, that some regents have answered Fulton’s call and opposed the Anthony casino.

That’s called pay-to-play, folks.

Thanks to the Sun-News for reporting on this important issue.