*From the point of view of a full professor
PRIDE
at the College of Business at the University of Southern Mississippi*
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Our core mission reflects taking PRIDE in all we do - Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Discipline, Excellence
A news report you also won’t read unless you see it here is that Adams & Reese have returned to continue the fight to keep the not-so-glossy information about the USM Foundation secret and hidden. Tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees continue to grow at the same time the USM Foundation implores everyone to trust its administrators. All too often, folks want to trust. Unfortunately, they may wake up to find administrators using their money as private “booze accounts.”
Hiding information and delaying its dissemination are hallmarks of mismanagement or fraud. It is in the interests of “leaders,” and therefore in the interests of their subordinates, to hide or delay the dissemination of incriminating information. They will go to extremes to hide and delay.
However, we do not yet have enough information to determine what the USM Foundation is hiding. The courts will decide our access to information in the near future. Nevertheless, I am confident administrators privately claim that they have either fixed or are in the process of fixing the problems. Disclosing ancient history (and isn’t last year ancient history?), they say, would only serve to discourage necessary contributions. Is that really true?
“The Risks of Sunshine,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 29, 2005, suggests something very different: “Not everybody buys the argument that donors will flee to other charitable causes. Thomas M. Clyde, an Atlanta lawyer, has represented the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution . . . "I've never seen any evidence that requiring disclosure really stops donations from coming in," he says.
However, we do not yet have enough information to determine what the USM Foundation is hiding. The courts will decide our access to information in the near future. Nevertheless, I am confident administrators privately claim that they have either fixed or are in the process of fixing the problems. Disclosing ancient history (and isn’t last year ancient history?), they say, would only serve to discourage necessary contributions. Is that really true?
“The Risks of Sunshine,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 29, 2005, suggests something very different: “Not everybody buys the argument that donors will flee to other charitable causes. Thomas M. Clyde, an Atlanta lawyer, has represented the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution . . . "I've never seen any evidence that requiring disclosure really stops donations from coming in," he says.
Next week, we’ll begin the details of the audit reports the USM Foundation didn’t include in its pretty brochure: “Soaring to New Heights . . .”
Dr. D. Harold Doty, Dean,
College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi
College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi