Public universities deal with transparency issues, too

When thinking about government transparency, people often forget that public universities fall under that umbrella. But the burden of transparency does fall on universities. And so does the inevitable confusion about what should be disclosed and what should be kept private.

University of California and California State University administrators have taken seemingly contradictory stances on two bills dealing with donor privacy. Administrators are arguing for a bill that gives them the right to continue sharing alumni contact information with credit card issuers and other corporate partners. They are at the same time opposed to a bill that would lift the anonymity of certain donors, claiming this would have a chilling effect on contributions.

Administrators say these are “Two very different issues,” akin to “Apples and oranges.” Senator Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat, says it is “Blatant hypocrisy.”

Earlier this week, I wrote about the Referendum 71 case, where the Supreme Court ruled that Washington state was to make public the names of people who voted to get Referendum 71 back on the ballot. I implied that the line between matters of transparency and matters of privacy could be thin, gray, nonexistent, or incredibly confusing. In this case, however, the two ballots seem to be on opposite sides of the line.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying in South Carolina schools

Most people expect schools to focus on education, but in South Carolina institutions of higher education, the money goes to lobbying.

A recent report has exposed taxpayer-funded lobbying in South Carolina school, with Clemson University lobbying more than any other public or private institution in the state at $1.7 million in the last decade. It’s easy to see how it got to that point when the school has a full-time lobbyist in D.C., a separate contract with a lobbying firm, and it pays its top lobbyist over $180,000.

Has it paid off for the university? Lobbying helped the university:
*Land a $45 million Energy Department grant for wind research in November
*$3 million in federal funding for the International Center for Automotive Research
*Get Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Energy Secretary Steven Chu to visit Clemson.

Clemson may be the biggest spender, but it is not the only one. Claflin University, a private institution in Orangeburg was the second-highest spender, spending $970,000 from 2000 to 2009. And University of South Carolina had a contract valued at more than $200,000 a year over the past five years with a lobbying firm, and currently employs two full-time state lobbyists each making more than $100,000 a year.

One criticism of taxpayer-funded lobbying is that members of Congress who represent the institutions already work to get federal funds for them. This is true for Clemson University:
*Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., successfully requested $1 million for Clemson’s veterinary institute this year
*Representatives Bob Inglis and John Spratt got $1.4 million for a Clemson cyber-institute last year.
Since it seems that lobbying isn’t necessary to a school’s financial wellness, lobbying expenditures are especially noteworthy when universities continue raising prices and tuition.

It’s unclear how this information will influence future school spending. But is obvious that, from now on, schools will have an greater sense of accountability to taxpayers: journalists have let them know that they can find out information, and citizens have let them know that want it.