Daily Campus

Originally posted by

Cristin Lavelle

These trustees are not appointed by George Bush. They do not owe him anything - rather, it sounds like George may be the one owing them a favor.

Family names like the Hunts, Altshulers, the Dedmans, the Sewells, the Coxes, and the Fords are synonemous with SMU itself. These families have been wild supporters of academia, athletics, capital campaigns, and the students on SMU's campus for decades. As such, there are several individuals on the Board of Trustees with these surnames. I would want these people to offer their long-term SMU perspective, as they have demonstrated selfless devotion to the school. They were champions of SMU long before most of these retired, out-of-state Methodist Ministers started voicing their unfounded growing concerns with my university. SMU would not be the university that it is today without the zealous support of some of our flagship families and I would be offended if the University, in any way, suggested that their opinions would be disregarded in the Bush Library debate.

Laura Bush is an entirely different matter and it is completely understandable why agreed to step away during the Library debates.

It is not an entirely different matter. Laura Bush stepped away becasue of her personal stake in the matter. These particular board members, as very large Bush donors, may also have a personal stake in this matter. The Board has to make this decision based on what is best for the school, not on what is best for the Board's members. It is a simple conflict of interest. This zealous support from these families, as you mention, has been support for their university, not for themselves personally. Whether these members would remain neutral or not, the conflict of interest still exists. And voicing their opinion is always acceptable, but having a vote while the conflict exists is another matter entirely.

Response to Scott:

Scott wrote "These particular board members... may also have a personal stake in this matter." He [and the commentary's original authors] should not make skeptical judgements as to whether or not they have a personal stake in the matter.

And then- Scott wrote: "This zealous support from these families, as you mention, has been support for their university, not for themselves personally." This statement only proves my point that the families have repeatedly acted in the best interest of the school. They have given us no reason to believe otherwise.

It is reasonable to assume that these names, following suit with Mr. Hunt, will likely donate even more money, in order to build the library. That is not personal benefit- that is giving their money away!

Originally posted by

Cristin Lavelle

These trustees are not appointed by George Bush. They do not owe him anything - rather, it sounds like George may be the one owing them a favor.

Family names like the Hunts, Altshulers, the Dedmans, the Sewells, the Coxes, and the Fords are synonemous with SMU itself. These families have been wild supporters of academia, athletics, capital campaigns, and the students on SMU's campus for decades. As such, there are several individuals on the Board of Trustees with these surnames. I would want these people to offer their long-term SMU perspective, as they have demonstrated selfless devotion to the school. They were champions of SMU long before most of these retired, out-of-state Methodist Ministers started voicing their unfounded growing concerns with my university. SMU would not be the university that it is today without the zealous support of some of our flagship families and I would be offended if the University, in any way, suggested that their opinions would be disregarded in the Bush Library debate.

Laura Bush is an entirely different matter and it is completely understandable why agreed to step away during the Library debates.

Originally posted by

Cristin Lavelle

These trustees are not appointed by George Bush. They do not owe him anything - rather, it sounds like George may be the one owing them a favor.

Family names like the Hunts, Altshulers, the Dedmans, the Sewells, the Coxes, and the Fords are synonemous with SMU itself. These families have been wild supporters of academia, athletics, capital campaigns, and the students on SMU's campus for decades. As such, there are several individuals on the Board of Trustees with these surnames. I would want these people to offer their long-term SMU perspective, as they have demonstrated selfless devotion to the school. They were champions of SMU long before most of these retired, out-of-state Methodist Ministers started voicing their unfounded growing concerns with my university. SMU would not be the university that it is today without the zealous support of some of our flagship families and I would be offended if the University, in any way, suggested that their opinions would be disregarded in the Bush Library debate.

Laura Bush is an entirely different matter and it is completely understandable why agreed to step away during the Library debates.

Scott wrote "These particular board members... may also have a personal stake in this matter." He [and the commentary's original authors] should not make skeptical judgements as to whether or not they have a personal stake in the matter.

And then- Scott wrote: "This zealous support from these families, as you mention, has been support for their university, not for themselves personally." This statement only proves my point that the families have repeatedly acted in the best interest of the school. They have given us no reason to believe otherwise.

It is reasonable to assume that these names, following suit with Mr. Hunt, will likely donate even more money, in order to build the library. That is not personal benefit- that is giving their money away!

In response to your concerns, there may be no reason to be skeptical about Laura Bush either. That does not eliminate the conflict of interest. The fact is, there is a reason to analyze this critically. And where these Board members have donated to the Bush campaign/inauguration as they have, there is every reason to question whether there is a prid pro quo here, regardless of who the individuals are. There is nothing unusual about this practice, and it is nothing personal to any of the Board members. It is a matter of business ethics.

Addressing your next comment, their previous donations went to benefit the school. This is different. They MAY be benefitting personally from this. This vote is different from other donations. Again, they have a conflict of interest in this vote, that did not exist when they donated in the past. This is not an issue that can be taken lightly. Any one of these Bush donors can say whatever they want about the Library. But as Board members, they should not vote on the issue. Again, this is nothing new, and not about lack of trust. Additionally, while some of the named Board members are among founding SMU families, others, i.e. Donald Carty, are not. But again, they all have a conflict of interest. If your son were on trial for murder, you would not be allowed on the jury, even if you had never been dishonest in our life.

Originally posted by

Cristin Lavelle

These trustees are not appointed by George Bush. They do not owe him anything - rather, it sounds like George may be the one owing them a favor.

Family names like the Hunts, Altshulers, the Dedmans, the Sewells, the Coxes, and the Fords are synonemous with SMU itself. These families have been wild supporters of academia, athletics, capital campaigns, and the students on SMU's campus for decades. As such, there are several individuals on the Board of Trustees with these surnames. I would want these people to offer their long-term SMU perspective, as they have demonstrated selfless devotion to the school. They were champions of SMU long before most of these retired, out-of-state Methodist Ministers started voicing their unfounded growing concerns with my university. SMU would not be the university that it is today without the zealous support of some of our flagship families and I would be offended if the University, in any way, suggested that their opinions would be disregarded in the Bush Library debate.

Laura Bush is an entirely different matter and it is completely understandable why agreed to step away during the Library debates.

One more thing. "Out of state ministers voicing unfounded concerns with your university"?? This is not YOUR univeristy, it is OUR university, including many of those who do not see things your way. I am not a Texan, so does that mean I have no right to express my concerns with YOUR university? And if your think these concerns are unfounded, you have not read any of the articles or comments very carefully, or examined the breadth of the voices raising these concerns, especially in regards to the Institute. Read the article written by the SMU statistics professor. It is far from unfounded.

Originally posted by

Mark

Ok, we get it, you're all former or current ministers. BUT YOU DO NOT OWN THIS SCHOOL, NOR DO YOU MAKE DECISIONS CONCERNING THIS SCHOOL.

That being said, Have a nice day.

But apparently you own this school? You get to make decisions concerning it? Since you do not, and you are here voicing your opinion on the matter, as the authors of this editrial are, what makes you any different from them? So, you have a nice day as well, and enjoy the free speech that this forum has provided, as we welcome all reasoned opinions on this subject.