Letter: State agents sold Southern University campuses

This letter comes to comment on your report on the strike out of higher education during the last legislative session (Advocate, Jan. 3). The report covered efforts by some higher education systems to cope with continuing budget cuts.

Among other things, it noted the commendable action of LSU athletics in financially helping the academic enterprise of the university and the recruitment of former students and the expansion of online offerings by the University of Louisiana System.

These actions contrast with the one you reported for the Southern University System, as far as its actual nature and impact are concerned.

Indeed, the reported “financial reorganization plan” and its purported centralization of “back office” operations are not so, even though these terms are fed to the public.

Since 2011, (see “SU takeover a power trip” (The Advocate, Aug. 24), the SU System has had complete control over the financial and information technology operations on SU campuses, as attested to by available documents.

This takeover has done nothing to support the campuses, strengthen them, or save money for them — despite the peddling of unsubstantiated platitudes, such as “business model,” “brand,” or “efficiency.”

After connecting the dots, including political ones at the state level, it appears that the October approval of a “financial plan” by the SU board of supervisors was to empower President Ronald Mason and his partners to consummate the giveaway of Southern’s campuses to a private entity for which he has been advertising since 2009.

A so-called “Master Services and Licensing Agreement” which President Mason introduced and the board approved on Oct. 28, 2011, literally gives the publicly owned SU campuses to Education Online Services Corp.

This “contract on” SU campuses has it that EOServe will advertise and recruit for the online programs of the campuses and collect 70 percent of the revenue, with 30 percent going to the SU System (not the campuses).

The contract also states EOServe will continue to receive 40 percent of the revenue for any online student who decides to enroll in a regular campus program.

It forbids SU campuses from having any partner for online programs other than EOServe, while EOServe continues to do business with other institutions or programs, including recruiting away students in SU programs for these entities.

The contract forbids SU campuses from developing online or distance learning resources by themselves! Further, it forbids them from using extensive, free online resources!

Incredibly, the contract that has been in effect since last year is an illegal one, as it has not been approved by the Office of Contractual Review despite official, public documents showing that it involves million of dollars.

Diola Bagayoko

distinguished professor of physics

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Thurston_Howell_III - 03/04/2013

There seems to be a lot of incompetence going on at Southern. Why? because of the blatant nepotism going on up there. It's too political. Trying to pattern itself with Louisiana politics. Until you rid the university of crooks like Tony Clayton et al, you will never see growth and progress.

2) Comment by saleemhasan - 11/02/2013

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that campus security has been compromised. When Jindal claims "Revenue Shortfall", it is healthcare for the poor and higher education funding that gets cut. Similarly, when SU state funding gets cut, the president still gets his 450K and the assortment of redundant vice president positions that he has created get their salaries. -------- The expendables are the services to the students - campus security, registration/enrollment, financial aid, internet services and utilities. What continues to rise is the number of managers (who sit around in air conditioned rooms) and what continues to decline is the number of support and technical staff that actually does the work.

3) Comment by phil - 11/02/2013

Inspector General

4) Comment by DiolaBagayoko - 11/02/2013

In the event where someone is wondering why I did not bring this matter of this truly illegal contract to the attention of state authorities, the answer is that I HAVE. As for federal ones, I am not sure as to which one could have a standing in matters of “agents of a state selling assets of that state,” irrespective of the reality that it is a racial minority group that will pay dearly for this sale, now and FOR DECADES. As for references to a “University that cannot keep its visitors safe,” I can only express my regret that a visitor was not safe on an SU CAMPUS. CAMPUS SECURITY LAPSES, REGISTRATION, FEE PAYMENT AND OTHER PROBLEMS ARE BOUND TO OCCUR AND POSSIBLY NCREASE WHEN FUNDING IS SLASHED YEARS AFTER YEARS AND WHEN PRESIDENTS AND OTHERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SELECTED BASED ON POLITICAL PRIORITIES AND NOT THEIR ABILITIES OR THE NEEDS OF THE CAMPUSES. However, the above safety shortfall situation notwithstanding, one should not be a trivial victim of a dubious circle like the following: Let an appointing authority (the Governor in this case) select persons to manage some campuses in a system and let the authority anoint a president for that system; next, let the funding authority (the Governor and the legislature) systematically under-fund the referenced campuses – even though the System President is allowed to siphon off significant amounts of money out of the meager appropriations for these campuses; then, blatant shortfalls of these campuses, if any, are by design. To use them to discard these campuses is perhaps THE GREATEST INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE of the constituents of these campuses and to the vital interests of their communities now and in the future. This practice is common in politics: Malign or cripple (with bad appointments and budget cuts) an institution or agency one does not want blame that institution or agency for (being crippled) POOR PERFORMANCE in order to discard it self-righteously and sometimes with the applause of those whose highest interests, unbeknown to them, are being hurt.

5) Comment by saleemhasan - 11/02/2013

If it is conclusively demonstrated that the contract does not conform to state rules of bidding and OCR approval and contains the described anti-Southern terms, the president and the system finance head should be summarily removed regardless of the short-term financial cost to SU. At least to me, it would be sufficient evidence of the disloyalty and the utter incompetence of these administrators.

6) Comment by phil - 11/02/2013

Call a state (or federal) agency and complain if this is truly an illegal contract.

7) Comment by spqr - 11/02/2013

This is a university that cannot keep its visitors safe, either.

8) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 11/02/2013

That's what happens when your administration is too dumb to design their own online training program. This is a university that still has its students file into an auditorium for a whole day to register for classes, rather than utilize modern technology to register online. Southern is ran by people who should not be administrators. This is but one more example. You should get some distinguished administrators there, professor.