USD Business School Name Dispute

[JackJD]

I'm posting the following information because it's quite newsworthy, hasn't received much attention, and it addresses an issue that has come up before with other universities and will certainly come up in the future somewhere in the USA. Any university in the country, including SDSU, can run into such an unfortunate disagreement. So, I hope people do not use this as a reason to say bad things about USD.

This dispute involves naming rights for USD's School of Business...heirs of a donor seek the return of a donation made several years ago now that the school has announced the naming of the Beacom School of Business. Both sides won't budge and a lawsuit has been started so that the dispute can be resolved.

The link to the USD student newspaper, The Volante:
http://media.www.volanteonline.com/m...mlemailedition

[propar80]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

Interesting situation.

No smack against USD what-so-ever. But if the money is returned and the B-School is not named after Mr. Beacom, the foundation at USD can all but cross T. Denny off the "potential donor list" in the future.

Go Jacks!!

[JackJD]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

It'll come down to the paperwork and any express conditions placed on the gift. Usually it's pretty tough to un-give a gift. It's clear the foundation is taking the position that Sanford has the naming rights and the other gift made by the Sioux City donor can be used for other purposes...not sure if I understand the foundation's position but it seems it is making a distinction about naming a building v. naming a program.

[Nidaros]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

It'll come down to the paperwork and any express conditions placed on the gift. Usually it's pretty tough to un-give a gift. It's clear the foundation is taking the position that Sanford has the naming rights and the other gift made by the Sioux City donor can be used for other purposes...not sure if I understand the foundation's position but it seems it is making a distinction about naming a building v. naming a program.

Being a legal layman, I would tend to agree. I only got the CPA Law Review in terms of legal training so watch out ,but I did learn a little about written agreement(s) and its contents that are very important in this case. I would think that both agreements will have to be part of a proceeding in order to settle the matter. Ms Buhler apparently has something going in her favor since she has refused to settle out of court. I would not do that if you could get recouse in a court room.

Some one in the foundation should be worrying about their job, as these things should not happen. The time frame of both gifts was not decades apart, so someone should have been on the ball here and made the distinction between program and building naming to both donors. It did not happen so it looks like one for Judge to preside over and its interesting that the USD Foundation wants to file in the South Dakota Court system and avoid Federal Court. Maybe JD can elaborate on why they choose to go that route.

[BTownJack]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

Let's not forget USD's foundation director resigned recently. He likely could have seen something like this looming on the horizon and got out of there while he could.

[Nidaros]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

You mean Ted Muenster? I believe he is very close to Jim Abbott and has been his political side kick for decades. The announcement was so normal, but no doubt this affair could have been a factor.

[Jack4Life]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

I know that public education needs the large donors. The problem that I have personally is naming buildings after the donor. If the person has been a long time educator or long time supporter of the school, that is one thing, but just because someone comes in and wants to give a large sum of money and then want their name on the building, I have a problem. Looks like this is what is happening here. I am not singleing out USD here either. This happens nationwide. There is a Sioux City resident who was honored last year and was known as Mr Anonymous. That is the type of giving that I like to see and then name the building or program after someone who has given a liftetime to the institution or to the field of study.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

The issue of designated purpose donations is not limited to just edcuational institutions, but for all charitable institutions. The issue usually arises in the context of money designated for a specific purpose, but the purpose no longer existing. An example would be if a donations was made to find a cure for diabetes, research is done for years and the cure is found. Then what, you can't let the money in the foundation just sit there because that is such a waste. Is the purpose then to provide the cure to anyone that develops diabetes, or is the purpose to find a cure for another disease.

The naming rights issue has come up in the past in regards to athletics, I believe the question involved the naming of "X" field in already named "Y" stadium. It would take to long to find the actual cases involved, but my guess is that both sides in this case already have them. Nidaros is correct that wording will be important, but may not be determinative of whether it is settled or not. Sometimes a client wants to make a point, they want to win, but if they make the point and lose they aren't that upset.

[JackJD]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

Just a few observations to add: First, I think Ted Muenster's retirement was long anticipated by many. Muenster had been very successful in private business and was ready to kick back (and could afford to do so) when he was asked to head up the foundation at USD. I think he did that partly because he's very loyal to that institution and partly because he enjoys building something. Although I am only speculating, it is my gut feeling that the dispute had nothing to do with Muenster's retirement.

We may find that the problem is because documents are not certain enough...there may be some ambiguities etc. Sometimes even the best contracts can be questioned if unanticipated circumstances arise.

There's a part of me that's right in line with Jack4Life's feeling on naming facilities in general. There's another part of me that says what the heck, why not? It's always gone on (Coughlin Campanile; Coughlin Alumni Stadium). I know it now seems like people are "buying" their naming rights as opposed to honoring someone by naming a building after them (e.g. Stanley Marshall HPER Building; Briggs Library). I think in the end I come down on the side of letting people name buildings. In the USD business school, Sanford wants to honor a very valued member of his team who really helped Premier Bankcard grow and make lots of money. I'm not going to object if someone comes forward and says they would like to donate a huge sum of money for a building needed by SDSU and they'd like their name on it.

Geez, Jack4Life, I was ready to write the check and name a new building after you! Our of respect for your feelings, I'll just keep the money. (It was going to be the Jack4Life, Nutsy, Hort's Memorial Outhouse.)

[Jack4Life]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

Geez, Jack4Life, I was ready to write the check and name a new building after you! Our of respect for your feelings, I'll just keep the money. (It was going to be the Jack4Life, Nutsy, Hort's Memorial Outhouse.)

Hey, Old-Timer, what are you doing up so late?

I appreciate the thought, but just take my name off and leave it for Nutsy-Hort's ... I's still like to see you part with some of your money.

I follow what you are saying, but still have a difficult time with building/program naming. SDSU is not exempt from this issue. I know the day is coming where we could be going to the "XXXX/Coughlin Alumni Stadium" or playing on the "XXXX Field", but I still feel educators or people who have given their lives to the institution or the field of study should be honored. I have made my feelings known to many of the Udot supporters, and I need to stay consistent when it comes to my alma mater. I guess maybe I will have to consider it might be time for me to change.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

The discrepancy may be due to not clearly defining what the terms in the contracts mean, and the fact that the same term can mean different things in different contracts. Donor 1 seems to assume that the money they gave was for the program that was housed in a building with Donor 1's name on it. USD seems to assume that Donor 1's donation was for the name of the building that house's, most likely, more than one program. Donor 2 believes they have naming rights to a program, and that the program exists in many locations, including the building with Donor 1's name.

I don't believe this necessarily reflects poorly on USD's foundation or that they did not have their eye on the ball. There are so many possible permutations on the language and understandings involved in regards to intent, building, program, etc. that USD may have done everything absolutely correct, and Donor 1 still may feel wronged by USD's actions. Because I have so little factual information, I will wait and see how this plays out.

[Jack4Life]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

The discrepancy may be due to not clearly defining what the terms in the contracts mean, and the fact that the same term can mean different things in different contracts. Donor 1 seems to assume that the money they gave was for the program that was housed in a building with Donor 1's name on it. USD seems to assume that Donor 1's donation was for the name of the building that house's, most likely, more than one program. Donor 2 believes they have naming rights to a program, and that the program exists in many locations, including the building with Donor 1's name.

I don't believe this necessarily reflects poorly on USD's foundation or that they did not have their eye on the ball. There are so many possible permutations on the language and understandings involved in regards to intent, building, program, etc. that USD may have done everything absolutely correct, and Donor 1 still may feel wronged by USD's actions. Because I have so little factual information, I will wait and see how this plays out.

I agree here. Heck, if you remember, Bill Clinton asked "What do you mean by the word 'is'?" Contracts can be defined many ways with the same wording.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

I agree here. Heck, if you remember, Bill Clinton asked "What do you mean by the word 'is'?" Contracts can be defined many ways with the same wording.

And as goofy as it sounds, in the context of the previous questions it was actually necessary to answer the question asked.

[Jack4Life]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

And as goofy as it sounds, in the context of the previous questions it was actually necessary to answer the question asked.

Whatever. Startin' to lose me now...I have a good friend who is an attorney and does a lot of contract work. I mentioned the above issue with the foundation to him and he just shook his head. There is no way that every possible contigency can be laid out in an agreement.

[Nidaros]

Re: USD Business School Name Dispute

The discrepancy may be due to not clearly defining what the terms in the contracts mean, and the fact that the same term can mean different things in different contracts. Donor 1 seems to assume that the money they gave was for the program that was housed in a building with Donor 1's name on it. USD seems to assume that Donor 1's donation was for the name of the building that house's, most likely, more than one program. Donor 2 believes they have naming rights to a program, and that the program exists in many locations, including the building with Donor 1's name.

I don't believe this necessarily reflects poorly on USD's foundation or that they did not have their eye on the ball. There are so many possible permutations on the language and understandings involved in regards to intent, building, program, etc. that USD may have done everything absolutely correct, and Donor 1 still may feel wronged by USD's actions. Because I have so little factual information, I will wait and see how this plays out.

I deleted my prior messages because I am, no doubt in error about my assumptions and like you I dont have facts either. 1st row,I respect what you and JackJD have said so far. You both no doubt have encountered real situtations with ambiguities in agreements and contracts. You guys know what its all about. Maybe I should say its unfortunate that this situation did happen. I think I am safe in saying that.