Incoming NMSU President Barbara Couture (Photo by Darren Phillips/NMSU)
If they’re serious about being open and transparent, regents should back legislation that would require disclosure of some donations to the NMSU Foundation
New Mexico State University should be recognized for running a transparent search for its new president. Given the university’s history of stonewalling the public, it was an especially encouraging sign when NMSU webcast visits from candidates and the regents’ selection meeting.
The webcasting of audio and video of the process – and the archiving of that video for people who couldn’t watch live – put to shame the meager steps into webcasting taken earlier this year by the state Legislature.
But there’s an especially disappointing provision in the contract given to new President Barbara Couture that has me worried the university may be taking two steps back for the one big step it took forward.
If Couture stays at NMSU for five years, she’ll receive a retention bonus of $500,000. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the bonus would come from the NMSU Foundation, a semi-separate entity from the university that isn’t required by law to release its donor list.
Essentially, Couture has a fat check waiting for her – courtesy of secret donors – if she sticks around long enough.
This is, of course, nothing new at NMSU and some other institutions across the nation. I called the practice into question in 2007 when the regents started using money from secret donors to help compensate then-NMSU President Michael Martin and then-men’s basketball coach Reggie Theus.
Heath Haussamen
The controversy that ensued – which included a complaint to the AG’s office by me – led to a formal AG opinion that state law doesn’t require such foundations to release their donor lists, even though such organizations are required to do so in some other states.
Martin was given a retention bonus of $100,000 – with 70 percent coming from secret donors – and a $6,000-a-month housing allowance paid for by a secret donor. With the pending check to Couture for half a million dollars, the regents are stepping things up quite a bit.
Illustrating the point
I’m going to toss out a hypothetical here – not because I think Couture or the regents are corrupt, but because I want to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.
Say there was a prominent, rich donor to the NMSU Foundation who has admitted to tossing his money around in order to influence the decisions of public officials. (Oh wait, there is one.) And say that donor had committed to funding, oh, half of the big check that’s awaiting Couture at the end of five years.
But then the regents consider a policy that the donor doesn’t like. So that donor tells them he’ll renege on his pledge unless they vote down the proposed policy.
Or say he wants a university employee fired for some reason, so he goes to Couture and demands that the employee be fired, reminding Couture that he’s responsible for a thick wad of bills that’s awaiting her in a few years.
The possibility of temptation to engage in pay to play with some big-shot developer or other businessperson is made even more possible by a law enacted in 2007 that allows institutions like NMSU to take a larger role in economic development by pursuing any sort of partnership with a private company that could be used to develop new technology, create learning opportunities for students or support university teaching, research or service initiatives.
There’s fertile ground to plow at NMSU. Don’t you think there might be some big-name donors who are looking for a piece of the pie?
This is, after all, the Land of Pay to Play. This sort of stuff has been happening at every level of government in New Mexico.
And New Mexico State University is by no means immune from temptation.
The NMSU regents are playing with fire. I won’t be surprised if it blows up in their face at some point with a major scandal.
Time to step up
State Rep. Joseph Cervantes and Attorney General Gary King are proposing a new statute that would require donors to university foundations to publicly disclose their donations if they bid on contracts at those universities. That would be a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction.
If the regents are serious about increasing openness and transparency, they should formally endorse that proposal. Doing so would be making a public statement that, while they are using money from secret donors to try to keep the new president and other top employees at NMSU, they have no intent of letting such donors use their money to influence public policy or other decisions.