Detroit Free Press Sues Michigan State University

The Detroit Free Press sued Michigan State University on Tuesday, asking a judge to order the school to turn over gift agreements with two of its largest donors.

The suit, filed in the state Court of Claims, alleges Michigan State violated state open records laws when it first denied a Free Press request for its agreements with the two donors, Mat Ishbia and Steve St. Andre, and then when MSU President Samuel Stanley denied an appeal for the records.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2022/06/21/free-press-sues-msu-donations-mel-tucker-salary/7689276001/

Waiting for the suit against UofM ....

The Detroit free press is the enemy of the people.

Trapper Gus wrote:Waiting for the suit against UofM ....

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

Turtleneck wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Waiting for the suit against UofM ....

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

Well until the Free Press does an investigation of how UofM is paying its coaches I guess we will not know, and we know they won't do that.

I believe the lawsuit is about the specifics of the agreements between MSU and the relevant donors rather than generally being about how coaches are paid. I think that is important information and should be public.

"The public has a right to know what promises MSU has made in exchange for these gifts and MSU and these alumni have publicly celebrated their generosity. There is nothing 'private' about these agreements."

The lawsuit notes that when universities get donations, the school and the donor sign legally binding contracts, "which spell out the conditions and binding promises made by both parties, donor and public institution."

Turtleneck wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Waiting for the suit against UofM ....

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

Look at turtleneck over here siding with total fake news

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

Look at turtleneck over here siding with total fake news

I have been corrupted by the lying media, Travis. I need help.

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

My point stands, until I see the Blue Wall Press going after the same stories with UofM this is just MSU bashing by the Blue Wall.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

My point stands, until I see the Blue Wall Press going after the same stories with UofM this is just MSU bashing by the Blue Wall.

Your point only stands if UM satisfies the same conditions. 1) compensation provided by private donors 2) no public disclosure of the compensation agreements. This seems very hard for you to understand. It seems like a pretty reasonable ask on the Freep's part and you making it about UM is decidedly weird. I guess your so-called data-driven rationalism doesn't survive naked homerism. I look forward to your reply where you just repeat what you said above while simultaneously celebrating yourself.

You wouldn't understand, Turtleneck. He's an engineer.

Turtleneck wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Waiting for the suit against UofM ....

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

While I’m not disagreeing with you, what do you think that will do to future donations or people who don’t want the spotlight for their generosity.?

I also see this as an intimidating move by the free press against philanthropy towards MSU.

Turtleneck wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

My point stands, until I see the Blue Wall Press going after the same stories with UofM this is just MSU bashing by the Blue Wall.

Your point only stands if UM satisfies the same conditions. 1) compensation provided by private donors 2) no public disclosure of the compensation agreements. This seems very hard for you to understand. It seems like a pretty reasonable ask on the Freep's part and you making it about UM is decidedly weird. I guess your so-called data-driven rationalism doesn't survive naked homerism. I look forward to your reply where you just repeat what you said above while simultaneously celebrating yourself.

Free Press wrote:Other Michigan universities, including Wayne State University and Eastern Michigan University, have disclosed similar gift agreements under the state's open records law.

If Michigan has revealed the contracts with doners it would seem the Free Press is not revealing that information.  (Just read the article instead of ragging about your dislike of my posting style. - This is a joke, just to be clear)

Here is a story the free press did on Ross. It was very positive. We’ll see how this turns out.

At the University of Michigan, a number of powerful donors command the highest perches in finance, real estate and venture capital. But the university's president said in an interview earlier this year that he doesn't feel compelled to follow the guidance of his top individual benefactor.

"I’m always open to taking a phone call from Steve and getting advice, but he’ll tell you the fraction of time I actually listen to his advice is not 100%," current U-M President Mark Schlissel said of billionaire real estate developer Stephen M. Ross, who has pledged $328 million to the university.
And that’s why we have a great relationship," Schlissel said. "He feels comfortable offering the advice and I love to hear it and think about it because he’s a smart guy, but the fraction of time I go ahead and do what he asks isn’t as high as you think."

They weren’t as nice to T Boon Pickens in the article.


Looks like the free press stopped short of asking what Ross wants in his agreement

DWags wrote:Here is a story the free press did on Ross. It was very positive.  We’ll see how this turns out.

At the University of Michigan, a number of powerful donors command the highest perches in finance, real estate and venture capital. But the university's president said in an interview earlier this year that he doesn't feel compelled to follow the guidance of his top individual benefactor.

"I’m always open to taking a phone call from Steve and getting advice, but he’ll tell you the fraction of time I actually listen to his advice is not 100%," current U-M President Mark Schlissel said of billionaire real estate developer Stephen M. Ross, who has pledged $328 million to the university.
And that’s why we have a great relationship," Schlissel said. "He feels comfortable offering the advice and I love to hear it and think about it because he’s a smart guy, but the fraction of time I go ahead and do what he asks isn’t as high as you think."

They weren’t as nice to T Boon Pickens in the article.


Looks like the free press stopped short of asking what Ross wants in his agreement

There is a fair amount of coverage about one gift from Ross in this Free Press article which the IRS says broke tax laws, however it does not say that UofM disclosed the contract details and all the details in the article come from court cases.  

Ross in Tax Court

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Is UM in the same situation regarding donor agreements? I really don't know but that would matter. I side with the Free Press on this. The agreements should be public.

While I’m not disagreeing with you, what do you think that will do to future donations or people who don’t want the spotlight for their generosity.?

I also see this as an intimidating move by the free press against philanthropy towards MSU.  

A gift can be made anonymously. I take that to mean that while the terms of the gift might be subject to public disclosure, the source of the gift is not.

Overall, and I have said this before, I am uneasy about private donors funding operations to this extent at public colleges and universities. Athletics is one thing, but I would hate to see this creep into academics. Donors have long provided critical operational support for sure, but there are growing political voices (so more ideological than practical in my opinion) arguing this is the best path forward to cut spending at public colleges and universities. The more this becomes the norm more programs and services can be scaled back or moved onto the chopping block without private funding. The other aspect that makes me uneasy is operational control or influence. What is given up to donors when they make agreements of this size? Is any control or outsized influence ceded to donors? I think we can agree that it is not unimaginable for a person making a sizable size to want something in return, and at a time of hyper-competitiveness in college athletics, some departments might be willing to make that exchange. Do we want that? Sure, I would love some goof to serve on coaching searches at UM and blow up their athletic department from the outside, but I would prefer that not happen at MSU.

Overall, if we want to live in a democratic society, the public has the right to know what goes on with public institutions. We should be careful about what we allow public institutions to shield from the public. Public oversight is a good thing, even when its over the places we cherish.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Your point only stands if UM satisfies the same conditions. 1) compensation provided by private donors 2) no public disclosure of the compensation agreements. This seems very hard for you to understand. It seems like a pretty reasonable ask on the Freep's part and you making it about UM is decidedly weird. I guess your so-called data-driven rationalism doesn't survive naked homerism. I look forward to your reply where you just repeat what you said above while simultaneously celebrating yourself.

Free Press wrote:Other Michigan universities, including Wayne State University and Eastern Michigan University, have disclosed similar gift agreements under the state's open records law.

If Michigan has revealed the contracts with doners it would seem the Free Press is not revealing that information.  (Just read the article instead of ragging about your dislike of my posting style. - This is a joke, just to be clear)

I read the article. You are not the first person in the thread to quote the article. I don't disagree that if UM failed to publically disclose the terms of any similar agreements, and the Free Press did not make the same request, the Free Press is now acting in bad faith. That would absolutely be an example of Blue Wall behavior, and might even have a place in the Blue Wall Hall of Fame. However, since I don't have that information, I am not comfortable making the issue about UM. Your posting style is fine. It's not even remotely bad as Guest's style.

Info should be public at a public school. Seems straightforward to me

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

While I’m not disagreeing with you, what do you think that will do to future donations or people who don’t want the spotlight for their generosity.?

I also see this as an intimidating move by the free press against philanthropy towards MSU.  

A gift can be made anonymously. I take that to mean that while the terms of the gift might be subject to public disclosure, the source of the gift is not.

Overall, and I have said this before, I am uneasy about private donors funding operations to this extent at public colleges and universities. Athletics is one thing, but I would hate to see this creep into academics. Donors have long provided critical operational support for sure, but there are growing political voices (so more ideological than practical in my opinion) arguing this is the best path forward to cut spending at public colleges and universities. The more this becomes the norm more programs and services can be scaled back or moved onto the chopping block without private funding. The other aspect that makes me uneasy is operational control or influence. What is given up to donors when they make agreements of this size? Is any control or outsized influence ceded to donors? I think we can agree that it is not unimaginable for a person making a sizable size to want something in return, and at a time of hyper-competitiveness in college athletics, some departments might be willing to make that exchange. Do we want that? Sure, I would love some goof to serve on coaching searches at UM and blow up their athletic department from the outside, but I would prefer that not happen at MSU.

Overall, if we want to live in a democratic society, the public has the right to know what goes on with public institutions. We should be careful about what we allow public institutions to shield from the public. Public oversight is a good thing, even when its over the places we cherish.

Trapper Gus wrote:



If Michigan has revealed the contracts with doners it would seem the Free Press is not revealing that information.  (Just read the article instead of ragging about your dislike of my posting style. - This is a joke, just to be clear)

I read the article. You are not the first person in the thread to quote the article. I don't disagree that if UM failed to publically disclose the terms of any similar agreements, and the Free Press did not make the same request, the Free Press is now acting in bad faith. That would absolutely be an example of Blue Wall behavior, and might even have a place in the Blue Wall Hall of Fame. However, since I don't have that information, I am not comfortable making the issue about UM. Your posting style is fine. It's not even remotely bad as Guest's style.

I don't think anyone would disagree about open public records. Maybe it won't intimidate philanthropic people. I certainly hope so. However I really do want to see how they handled what Ross gave. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see the difference here. Also, I'd like to know why our President denied the request. I'm not up on all the laws, so who knows why he'd even consider not doing it.

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

While I’m not disagreeing with you, what do you think that will do to future donations or people who don’t want the spotlight for their generosity.?

I also see this as an intimidating move by the free press against philanthropy towards MSU.  

A gift can be made anonymously. I take that to mean that while the terms of the gift might be subject to public disclosure, the source of the gift is not.

Overall, and I have said this before, I am uneasy about private donors funding operations to this extent at public colleges and universities. Athletics is one thing, but I would hate to see this creep into academics. Donors have long provided critical operational support for sure, but there are growing political voices (so more ideological than practical in my opinion) arguing this is the best path forward to cut spending at public colleges and universities. The more this becomes the norm more programs and services can be scaled back or moved onto the chopping block without private funding. The other aspect that makes me uneasy is operational control or influence. What is given up to donors when they make agreements of this size? Is any control or outsized influence ceded to donors? I think we can agree that it is not unimaginable for a person making a sizable size to want something in return, and at a time of hyper-competitiveness in college athletics, some departments might be willing to make that exchange. Do we want that? Sure, I would love some goof to serve on coaching searches at UM and blow up their athletic department from the outside, but I would prefer that not happen at MSU.

Overall, if we want to live in a democratic society, the public has the right to know what goes on with public institutions. We should be careful about what we allow public institutions to shield from the public. Public oversight is a good thing, even when its over the places we cherish.

Trapper Gus wrote:



If Michigan has revealed the contracts with doners it would seem the Free Press is not revealing that information.  (Just read the article instead of ragging about your dislike of my posting style. - This is a joke, just to be clear)

I read the article. You are not the first person in the thread to quote the article. I don't disagree that if UM failed to publically disclose the terms of any similar agreements, and the Free Press did not make the same request, the Free Press is now acting in bad faith. That would absolutely be an example of Blue Wall behavior, and might even have a place in the Blue Wall Hall of Fame. However, since I don't have that information, I am not comfortable making the issue about UM. Your posting style is fine. It's not even remotely bad as Guest's style.

plus 1 for calling out Guest's style.