DisneyGate and TU -Questionable Spending at Speech and Debate Leaves Team in....

[zstyles]

"Questionable" Spending at Speech and Debate Leaves Team in Disarray...

I just ran across this story somehow online...LONG read but very interesting..would be interesting to get opinions on this from TU Alum or people outside the school..

"While our University is not public, it is an interesting question of whether or not our University should hold itself to public universities' commitment to respecting student's Constitutional freedoms."

http://media.www.sixthirtyone.org/media/storage/paper1391/news/2009/01/21/News/Disneygate-3596168.shtml

[TURobY]

I'm not sure what to make of it. I know Dean Taylor can appear harsh, but the descriptions they made of her sound suspect to me. I've been in several disagreements with her, but I've never had her cut me off mid-sentence. In fact, quite the opposite, as she approached our disagreements in a very professional and business-like manner.

I'll have to do further review and get back with you on it.

[Conan71]

That's a long read, care to give busy people a summary?  The writer needs to learn to summarize a little more, not write a police report.

[TURobY]

That's a long read, care to give busy people a summary?  The writer needs to learn to summarize a little more, not write a police report.

I just spent 15 minutes summarizing the entire thing, and pressed post. And my account login timed out and cleared the box. Nooooooooooo!

Okay, I'm going to be very brief in my response, because I don't have time to re-write it:

Student used University funds for conference trip. Conference was re-scheduled and student couldn't get refund on trip, so he went on trip anyway, using it as a chance for sociological study. They present the reciept for expenses and they are re-imbursed. Next academic year, a member of the organization disagrees with the purpose of the trip and raises an issue. The Dean of Students finds out and launches an investigation. The student alleges that his defense was essentially ignored by her, while she alleges that financial misconduct has happened. Eventually, the student is expelled and fined $6,000.

The author posits that this wouldn't have happened at a state school because students are protected by the First Amendment. According to recent Supreme Court decisions in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) and Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin v. Southworth, Scott, et al. (2000), public universities have no right to dictate or dispute the manner in which sponsored university organizations spend their allocations, provided that such organizations use their funding-directly or indirectly-to pursue their stated missions.

[zstyles]

Well it also states that there was bickering on if they should even pursue this case, closed door meetings etc...it also shows that the ombudsman was the judge and jury and not a true definition of a ombudsmen...there are some really strange things that went on with the deans and how they must have gotten some heat on this and really took on a life of its own...take some time and skim it over...its actually a pretty decent piece of writing...

[cannon_fodder]

Short version:

Student founded a debate team.  They did really well.  They went on something like 8 trips each being supported by the University representing tens of thousands in outlays.

To reward good members, the student group planned a trip for 4 of them to attend a leadership conference in Disney World.  

The group leader (the "student") bought a non-refundable package for $5K with out of pocket money.  The conference was canceled and he could not get a refund on his travel plans which were via a third party.  The Student didn't want to just be out $5,000.

Instead of going to the University and trying to figure out what they could do, they invented a reason to go to Disney.  The debate team went to Epcot Center and talked to foreigners and watched people shop for a handful of days.  They called this studying Sociology and claimed it greatly increased their academic understanding and presumably somehow fulfilled the mission of having a good debate team.

The receipts were submitted.  They were rubber stamped.  They were reimbursed.  

A member of that student organization the next year saw the notes and receipts from the trip.  He thought it was BS and brought it to the attention of the school.  The school reviewed the information and thought sending 4 members of a debate team to Epcot to watch foreign people was not appropriate.  They reviewed other information and nitpicked a ton of the kids previous reimbursements (including one where a friends company, for whom he worked, catered an event for the organization and he forgot to get a receipt.  So the next time he was at work he wrote some up and submitted them).  

The Author claims the University used poor procedures to "prosecute" the case.  Per the article the accused was not presented with evidence, formal charges were not presented, etc.  Essentially, the procedure the University of Tulsa uses is not an open Judge and Jury system as seen in an open court.

The University Deans who reviewed it thought it was a misappropriation of $5,000 of University funds so this guy and his friends could go on a Disney vacation.  They kicked him out and demanded restitution.  Upon review, the nit picky crap was mostly dropped and really only the Disney vacation remained an issue.  The appeal avenues all thought the Universities position was correct.  The Student was expelled and had to pay a restitution.  


My take:

1) This piece is 90% one sided.  It is the students perspective.  It has very little from the University's perspective, perhaps because they chose not to comment.  Perhaps because the student perspective is more desirably in a Student newspaper.

This includes what was said in the reimbursement forms submitted.  Why could you not get receipts from the hotel or airlines if not from the travel agent?  Was the Student upfront with the school that they were going to Orlando to talk to foreign people at Epcot?

The story is lacking.

2) If accurate as presented, the University coulda woulda shoulda had a better system in place.  Even if fair, the system can be perceived as unfair.  Perception of justice can be just as important as the reality.

Omsbudsmen as adjudicator is a poor move.  But at an institutional level having the investigator be the judge and jury is the norm.  A University is not a Democracy, the students only have the power granted them by the institution.    Though I entirely agree a more transparent system would be preferred by yours truly. 

I also agree that if the Handbook was not adhered to by the school, they should have to do it over.  The Handbook is basically a contract between student and University.  If they can throw it at the Student, he should have the chance to throw it back at them.

3) This is not a constitutional issue on any level.  Student organizations of public Universities are free to spend their appropriated funds in fulfillment of their goals as they see fit - true.  But in this instance it was NOT a public University, these were NOT appropriated funds, and even if they were - a personal vacation to Epcot could still very well be a misuse of said funds.

The cases cited by the author are entirely off point:

IN the U of Wisconsin case there were student fees in question.  Mandated fees the students paid that were required to be used in viewpoint neutral ways.  Students brought suit because they were being forced to fund viewpoints they did not agree with - a potential 1st Amendment issue.   The holding was that the University could not use student fees to fund student organizations that utilized political speech unless it was done on a viewpoint neutral manner.  

The U of Virginia case asked if a University could withhold funds from a student run religious organization that it would otherwise grant to a student organization (bear in mind the the U of Virginia's founder penned the phrase "separation of church and state") .  This again involved the spending of student activity fees.   The Court held that the University (specifically the activity fees end) is  a limited public forum and the arbitrator of that forum can not encourage a particular viewpoint in that forum.   Thus, the University could not choose to censor one viewpoint and allow others - including that of religion (also means all religions and anti-religions are open to funding equally).

The present matter does NOT involve student funds, is not a matter of content, and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.  

Also, University of Tulsa has a law college.  Please use legal citations.  It would have taken 2 minutes to go the law library and properly cite to those cases.  Or even fake a citation, something useful.  MLA would be fine.  Something other than just listing the cases.

4) The kids admit the original primary motivator for the Disney trip was not academic nor to foster the Debate Team.  It was to reward good members.  A dubious use of school funds to begin with.

There is little doubt that after learning the catalyst for University reimbursement went away a quick ruse was devised to get that fully funded trip to Orlando.    I don't really blame him.  But no one would seriously think going to Epcot and talking to foreigners and watching them shop would be a legitimate academic inquiry for a debate team.  Frankly, it's not even a very good story line.

A more prudent course of action would certainly have been to contact the proper parties and tell them what happened and seek advice on how to remedy it.  I doubt the Student thought the proper course of action was to create a bullsh!! reason to go to Orlando on University money.  I simply don't buy the story that he thought this was a legit use of school funds.  I believe that it was not an intentional scheme to defraud the University to start with (if they send students to Orlando as rewards, so be it) - but it turned into such when it appeared like he would be burned.

5) Without more detail, it is hard to comment on the merits of the punishment.  Expulsion seems mighty serious.  But if they thought it misappropriated funds as alleged, it is totally warranted.  I'd be very interested to see the other side of the story, but no University would comment on such a thing.



My copy of the story is scribbled on all over now.  Various quips here and there illustrating great bias and making lame excuses.  Overall, it makes the system the University utilized look amateur (in my opinion), but for me the story doesn't cast much doubt on the fact that the students shaky plans went south and he then came up with a fake reason for a school funded trip to Orlando.  "We had to spend $5000 to go to Epcot to talk to foreigners for the debate team" is just a lame excuse.

[TURobY]

I'd be very interested to see the other side of the story, but no University would comment on such a thing.

Of course they won't comment. Could you imagine the backlash if they had? People would then be complaining that their personal relationship with the University should be private and not broadcast out.

Back story about SixThirtyOne:
The SixThirtyOne is an new publication on campus and is sponsored by the Collegiate Network, which provides assistance including funding and ideological direction to several conservative student newspapers in the United States. It is in direct competition with The Collegian (the main student newspaper on campus), which is given a loan at the beginning of the year from the University which it pays off by the end of the year through advertising and is claimed to have a liberal bias (though I disagree).

[Conan71]

"Instead of going to the University and trying to figure out what they could do, they invented a reason to go to Disney.  The debate team went to Epcot Center and talked to foreigners and watched people shop for a handful of days.  They called this studying Sociology and claimed it greatly increased their academic understanding and presumably somehow fulfilled the mission of having a good debate team.

The receipts were submitted.  They were rubber stamped.  They were reimbursed. 

A member of that student organization the next year saw the notes and receipts from the trip.  He thought it was BS and brought it to the attention of the school.  The school reviewed the information and thought sending 4 members of a debate team to Epcot to watch foreign people was not appropriate.  They reviewed other information and nitpicked a ton of the kids previous reimbursements (including one where a friends company, for whom he worked, catered an event for the organization and he forgot to get a receipt.  So the next time he was at work he wrote some up and submitted them"

Sounds like great training to eventually become a U.S. Congressman to me.

[TURobY]

Well it also states that there was bickering on if they should even pursue this case, closed door meetings...

The whole Student Association section could have been cut to about a paragraph. All that the article needed to say was that it was discussed at an SA meeting, the discussion went into the minutes, the minutes were read by Dean Taylor, and Dean Taylor began an investigation. Beyond that, none of the other information in those two pages was really useful.

The same could be said of much of the article. There was too much focus on mundane details that don't contribute to the story. But, that is just me being nit-picky. It doesn't affect the underlying story.

[zstyles]

Bravo!! These are all GREAT responses that give me another view on the whole story!

[zstyles]

Cannon-Fodder..thank you as well..GREAT GREAT GREAT reply.....you can tell you are a man/woman(whichever) of many thoughts...some better than others

[TUalum0982]

Sounds like the guy is very book smart, but maybe lacking common sense? Even though his proposal was approved, who would think it would be ok to "reward" team members who did well to go on this conference?  I personally wouldn't.  And honestly, his story doesn't really add up.  If I am not mistaken, once you book the airfare and everything, you have to give passenger names right then and there.  The story says, he would receive paperwork in a couple of weeks.  But then they have a meeting to decide which 4 members should go? 

If they wanted to reward themselves for a job well done, they probably should have paid for it themselves.  I did not read the whole thing, but rather the first several pages and what CF wrote and I would agree with CF.  Great job on defeating all those other schools, and founding this great debate team, but it sounds like you made a costly error.

IMO TU needs to have a better system in place to reimburse these types of transactions.  Do they just have some random part time person rubber stamping these things?  This type of thing would never fly at the company I work for.  There are checks and balances in place for a reason! To prevent this type of things.  I also would not expell the kid.  It is not like he went and stole money from the book store or petty cash fund somewhere.  I am going to give him in the benefit of the doubt and assume he thought it was for legitimate purposes, filled out the paperwork to get reimbursed and then months later some jealous student says hey "thats not fair, these guys got reimbursed last year, but not us? what gives". 

I would have just made each individual person pay back their portion of the trip and call it a day.  No need for expulsion IMO.