Argus Editorial

[OK_Jackrabbit]

SDSU must be open about sports revenue

Published: 06/12/05
South Dakota State University's men's basketball team will have a tough time this next season, but what a way to get the Jackrabbits' feet wet in Division I play!

Illinois. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Nebraska. Manhattan.

And now, the announcement that SDSU will play four games at the University of Minnesota, in a contract that goes through the 2008-09 season.

. . .   But there's something else. Any public university needs to be answerable to the public. Athletic Director Fred Oien's response when asked the guarantee amount SDSU would be paid to play at Minnesota?

None. None at all. He refused to say.

Why? To hide a bad deal for SDSU and South Dakota taxpayers?

Let's get real. SDSU isn't exactly at the top of the pecking order here. We're fortunate to get what we can. Any deal with a school such as Minnesota is a good deal.

Expenditures and revenue of a public university in South Dakota are public information. Good or bad. Period. Oien needs a refresher course in state law.

--------

I'm guessing Fred just didn't want the numbers to be taken out of context by a reporter, or his 'refusal' wasn't really a refusal. Maybe he just wanted more time to get a more comprehensive picture of the finances together for the reporter (and the public). There is an administrative budget process involved here, and budgets aren't always that simple to explain.

Unfortunately, you don't win arguments with people who buy ink by the barrel.

[filbert]

Re: Argus Editorial

I've got to side with the Argus here. There's no reason why Fred shouldn't release the guarantee amount (assuming of course, that SDSU is getting a guarantee). And if there's no guarantee, so what?

[SDSUFAN]

Re: Argus Editorial

Ok Rabbit speaks from experience and I trust his take on this matter. I known Fred for some years now and generally he is open about these matters. At the same token, unless required by law, one does not have share financial data. If the information is going to be used in a negative fashion why bother?


The critics here are right in that this information should and generally be made public. Unless the Board of Regents has a policy stating what, where, when and how about the information being released, then No comment can also be appropriate.

Whats the big deal about the guarentee amount? Chris Solari said NDSU got 35k. So what SDSU got really does not interest me.

[filbert]

Re: Argus Editorial

I think mainly the big deal isn't the amount itself, but the continuing perception that the SDSU administration is less than forthcoming about things in general.

Regardless of whether or not this perception is warranted, a good portion of the SD public (including sadly some Argus editorial writers) holds the perception. Fred's refusal to give the Argus the guarantee number just perpetuates it.

Now I'll also recognize the possibility that the Argus is spinning Fred's answer to sound more drastic than it was. Also granted that there are people who will use whatever answer Fred gives to make SDSU look bad.

Still, this really isn't a conversation we should be having right now. At this point the only way to end the discussion is to release the number or give a very good reason why it needs to stay confidential. That's just the media world we live in today.

[OK_Jackrabbit]

Re: Argus Editorial

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of openness and access to public information. I'm a journalism professor and I have 80,000 pages of FBI files in my office that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. I fight nearly every day against those stewards of the people's information who act as if they personally own it.

In this case, though, it seems like a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. I'm not sure it's fair of the Argus to cite (obliquely) the state open records law. Was an open records request made? Probably not. What question was asked, and what, exactly, was Fred's response? Did he say "I won't give you that, ever?" or was the answer more complex? My guess is it was more complex and is merely being spun by the editorial writer as a drastic violation of a principle. I wonder if the reporter who asked the question saw it as a violation of the spirit of the law. If so, make an open records request and get the information. Then if you don't get the information, you can say there is a lack of understanding of the open records law on the part of the administration.

It's kind of drastic for a publication to go right to a high-profile Sunday editorial smack-down when they haven't made it clear whether or not they followed the established legal process to gain access to the information.

[filbert]

Re: Argus Editorial

Yup, so far we've only gotten one side of the story--the Argus' side.

Unfortunately at this point Fred and SDSU are basically backed into a corner where they "have some 'splainin' to do."

My reaction is along the lines of "damage control." I don't know what kind of damage releasing more info about the SDSU-UM contract details would do, but I suspect it would not be as bad as the damage the editorial has already done. That's just me, talking without inside knowledge but with a sense of how these things, big and little, develop.

Whether or not this is abuse of editorial freedom is of course also fair game for discussion. It might be--maybe the Argus editors have some 'splanin' to do too.

[filbert]

Re: Argus Editorial

Another thought: there are two sources for the SDSU-UM contract information: SDSU and Minnesota.

Did the Argus call the Gopher athletic department to try to get the information?

Hmmmmm???????

[Texas_Jacks_Fan]

Re: Argus Editorial

There is no explaning to do, and especially not from Dr. Oien's viewpoint. If SDSU wants to release the amount they will, if they don't, they wont. End of story. Maybe the U of M preferred they didnt discuss. I don't care about the amount and I dont care if the Argus doesnt like it.

[JBNJBQ]

Re: Argus Editorial

I believe it is safe to say that there are still negotiations going on and contracts to be signed for the coming year? Why would SDSU divulge any details of guarantees it has negotiated until all the contracts are signed and sealed for the year? The Argus is not thinking of SD taxpayers interests. It is just flexing it's muscle. It needs to think a little about the consequences of the information it prints. Can you spell NEWSWEEK?

Who wrote the story?

[89rabbit]

Re: Argus Editorial

I believe it is safe to say that there are still negotiations going on and contracts to be signed for the coming year?  Why would SDSU divulge any details of guarantees it has negotiated until all the contracts are signed and sealed for the year?  The Argus is not thinking of SD taxpayers interests.  It is just flexing it's muscle. It needs to think a little about the consequences of the information it prints.  Can you spell NEWSWEEK?

Who wrote the story?  

I agree with JBNJBQ 100%. The ongoing negotiations was my first thought as well.

Go State! ;D

[filbert]

Re:  Argus Editorial

Texas_Jacks_Fan: If SDSU wants to release the amount they will, if they don't, they wont. End of story.

Well, maybe, to a point. As OK_Jackrabbit points out, there are laws and rules regarding how to request this information. Plus, I may be the victim of journalistic spin here. Still, the editorial really doesn't do anybody any good, one way or another. It makes SDSU look bad and, as I think about it some more, maybe makes the Argus look worse.

JBNJBQ: I believe it is safe to say that there are still negotiations going on and contracts to be signed for the coming year?

This is the best reason I've seen so far to not release the information, at least at this time.

I'm coming around to the view that the people who need the "refresher course" referred to in the editorial may be the Argus editors, who may need a reminder of the difference between a news reporting and opinion. If this were a controversy, it should first have been reported in the news pages and SDSU been allowed to respond. Other sources (i.e. the Minnesota athletic department) should have been sought out. To my knowledge, this was not done.

The problem could very well be as much or more the Argus' inept reporting/journalism/editorializing as it is SDSU's wanting to keep "public information" confidential.

It would be nice if there was an Argus story somewhere saying "SDSU isn't saying how much the guarantee is. AD Oien cited (blahblahblah) as the reason SDSU was keeping the amount confidential. Athletic officials at Minnesota also declined to disclose details of the contract."

It seems that the fundamental problem is that we don't know what blahblahblah is. That's the Argus' fault, not SDSU's. Failing that, I think it is fair to ask the question "did the Argus give SDSU an opportunity to respond to their editorial, or did they simply decide to throw a public temper tantrum about those meanies in Brookings."

So, I've decided that my knee may have jerked the wrong way initially. Seems like we owe the Argus some letters to the editor.

[JackTwice]

Re: Argus Editorial

Ok, now for a slightly different opinion.

I agree that it really doesn't matter what we got paid to play Minnesota in Basketball. I would even agree that there is not likely any law that requires us to notify anyone. Why no outcry about what we are paying the D-2 and NAIA teams to come here and play? Why no question about guarantees last year? It seems a bit odd that the Argus would come out with this now.

That being said. I think this is probably a lashing out due to frustration more than anything. The leadership of our Athletic Department has never been very forthcoming with information since the move to D-I. If the Argus asked, why not just say we can't now we are in negotiations yet, we will release when final. Like OK said earlier you cant win an argument with someone that buys ink by the barrell. So why upset them? They are the major news source for this whole state. They are the ones who are going to help or hurt us swing opinion to the favorable side of D-I. We need to be savvy when dealing with the media because they paint the picture to the rest of the state. To me, that has been our biggest downfall to this point of the transition.

[jacksfaninne]

Re: Argus Editorial

I'm pretty sure we don't announce additions to our schedules until an agreement is done. Since we've announced the Gopher games, I assume the contracts are signed, sealed, delivered. So to tell the Argus we're still in negotiations would only make matters worse. I, too, think we need to be more open. Not being open only provides fodder for the naysayers. I'm sure Fred's approach is well reasoned, but I also think it raises suspicions.

I'm also guessing that information on guarantees is likely available through the state open records laws or the Freedom of Information Act. If that's the case, I agree with Okie Rabbit, why doesn't the Argus just go get it, rather than whine about it in an editorial? Other than it gives them something to whine about, or more likely they're hoping it will save them time and resources down the road having to chase down every tidbit of information they desire by filing requests.

[sdman]

Re: Argus Editorial

Great points, Jack Twice. I have only met Fred one time and he seems like a really good guy. But if his refusal to provide info. to the argus was as standoffish as the argus implies then that seems to be picking a fight with someone who is much bigger and tougher than you are. Not very smart. Maybe he is upset over his legal issues he had awhile back and felt the paper treated him unfairly. I do think the argus has a negative bias against our move to d1 but despite that as the infamous rodney king said "Can't we all just get along?" I am happy to be playing the gophers and look forward to going to a couple of those games. As long as they gave us enough money for gas, hotel and food I don't care what we get. I just want good games.

[GoJacks02]

Re: Argus Editorial

What Oien really needs is a refresher in symmetric public relations - even "no commenting" on the leagal situations that have stemmed during the past year is just bad policy.

There are ways to craft neutral messages that both support the program and show a willingness to resolve issues. Saying nothing, though, is about the absolute worst anyone can do.

Why? Because it leaves the news media open to make their own conjectures - like, for instance "to hide a bad deal for SDSU and South Dakota tax payers". If there's a reason why he doesn't want to disclose the information, then he gives that reason and follows it up with a statement about when that information would be available. Not too hard, and it doesn't anger anyone on the Editorial Boards.

So, yes, I do think this all stems from SDSU's historically secretive nature in response to the media.