Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Lawyers question UA logo sharing with Razorback Foundation

Started by NuttinItUp, February 18, 2018, 11:47:05 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

arthurhawgerelli

Quote from: ricepig on February 18, 2018, 11:50:22 am
The ADG has been reading 17,000 emails, I think they want something in the Sunday editions for their money spent reading them. The last two attempts to try to make up some controversy have been lame.

Don't you mean the ADG@LR?

ricepig


 

WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: Inhogswetrust on February 20, 2018, 07:10:37 am
Only IF a suit is filed.
Only suit that should be filed is against the Board of Trustees for breach of duty to the University of Arkansas System.
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

NaturalStateReb

Quote from: NuttinItUp on February 18, 2018, 11:47:05 am
Apparently, the Razorback Foundation has free use of University of Arkansas trademarks that others must pay to display. ("an arrangement set by "oral" agreements and university policy that outside attorneys find lacking")

More details and a longer explanation:

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/18/lawyers-question-ua-logo-sharing/


Maybe the lawyers in the room will understand this better than I, but I don't really see the controversy here. It seems like the foundation that is set up to help the UA raise money should be allowed to use the UA logos and trademarks if the UA lets them.

Ultimately, the trademarked logo is the university's property.  It's up to them who can use it and what, if anything, they charge for such use.

This isn't really about the logos; it's about whether the Razorback Foundation and the University of Arkansas are so intertwined that the RF is covered by the Freedom of Information Act.  That's why all the interest in the buyouts is there--if Jeff Long parked university money in the foundation, even briefly, then the foundation became a holder of public funds subject to FOIA.
"It's a trap!"--Houston Nutt and Admiral Ackbar, although Ackbar never called that play or ate that frito pie.

jvanhorn

Actually what this is is the best example of the "good old boys" network at work scratching each other's back.  Is it legal?  I have no idea, but I am sure between the lawyers and courts we will find out, just not anytime soon, lol or, as the saying goes, time will tell.

WoooPigBrewie

If the Democrat-Gazette were going to file suit, they would have likely already filed...

Go after the Board...sit back...watch it play out...

It would be #Juicy
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

Karma

Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 01:15:20 pm
If the Democrat-Gazette were going to file suit, they would have likely already filed...

Go after the Board...sit back...watch it play out...

It would be #Juicy
It's just an FOIA suit. It happens all the time.

ricepig


ricepig

Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 01:15:20 pm
If the Democrat-Gazette were going to file suit, they would have likely already filed...

Go after the Board...sit back...watch it play out...

It would be #Juicy

Are they included in the recent ASC ruling prohibiting suing the state?

Jackrabbit Hog

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 01:48:24 pm
Are they included in the recent ASC ruling prohibiting suing the state?

Possibly.  That decision has thrown lots of causes of action into a very uncertain status.
Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on June 29, 2018, 03:47:07 pm
I'm sure it's nothing that a $500 retainer can't fix.  Contact JackRabbit Hog for payment instructions.


WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 01:48:24 pm
Are they included in the recent ASC ruling prohibiting suing the state?
Not sure.

Sue the Board of Trustees members personally, in one suit, for breaching the duty owed to the University System. 

So, technically, not the University System itself.

Possibly a way around?
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

Karma

Quote from: Jackrabbit Hog on February 20, 2018, 01:50:45 pm
Possibly.  That decision has thrown lots of causes of action into a very uncertain status.
That decision relates to suing the state for financial damages I believe. Shouldn't impact FOIA which is non-monetary.

 

WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: Karma on February 20, 2018, 02:16:37 pm
That decision relates to suing the state for financial damages I believe. Shouldn't impact FOIA which is non-monetary.
Good point on FOIA.

I think we were talking about the Board of Trustees.

I posted earlier in the thread about the Private Benefit Doctrine.  Can someone explain to me how the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas System (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit) is not continually violating the following:

Private benefit: "A 501(c)(3) organization's activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose," said Richard Crom, Staff Assistant for IRS Exempt Organizations Customer Education and Outreach office. "Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization (other than the 501(c)(3) organization) more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one."

Inurement: The concept of inurement states that no part of an organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of a private shareholder or individual who, because of the person's relationship to the organization, has an opportunity to control or influence its activities.

"A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization)," said Crom. "Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees." He added that prohibited inurement includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.

Sounds like someone needs to educate the Board members on these violations.  I would sure hate for the IRS to agree that they have systematically continued to violate this doctrine and revoke the University System's 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Could you imagine?
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

ricepig

Quote from: Karma on February 20, 2018, 02:16:37 pm
That decision relates to suing the state for financial damages I believe. Shouldn't impact FOIA which is non-monetary.

Try to read before posting, our discussion, while off topic a little, was on him suing the BOT for not doing their "fiduciary" duties, for lack of a better description. I wasn't inferring anything as far as a FOI suit.

Karma

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 02:46:12 pm
Try to read before posting, our discussion, while off topic a little, was on him suing the BOT for not doing their "fiduciary" duties, for lack of a better description. I wasn't inferring anything as far as a FOI suit.
The whole thread was about the divergent positions the foundation takes with respect to trademarks and FOIA. I don't tell you how to collect your rent checks, I don't need your help with legal matters or posting on hogville.

WoooPigBrewie

 
Quote from: Karma on February 20, 2018, 02:50:26 pm
The whole thread was about the divergent positions the foundation takes with respect to trademarks and FOIA. I don't tell you how to collect your rent checks, I don't need your help with legal matters or posting on hogville.
Now, now.  This disagreement is likely my fault.

I was attempting to bring up an issue that needs addressing, but likely did it in the from forum.
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

ricepig

Quote from: Karma on February 20, 2018, 02:50:26 pm
The whole thread was about the divergent positions the foundation takes with respect to trademarks and FOIA. I don't tell you how to collect your rent checks, I don't need your help with legal matters or posting on hogville.

No it wasn't, read more, post less.


Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 11:41:02 am
Only suit that should be filed is against the Board of Trustees for breach of duty to the University of Arkansas System.

Jackrabbit Hog

Quote from: Karma on February 20, 2018, 02:16:37 pm
That decision relates to suing the state for financial damages I believe. Shouldn't impact FOIA which is non-monetary.

Trial judges are starting to dismiss a variety of suits against the state since that decision was handed down; they're not sure what is okay and what is not, or whether anything is okay.  It was an incredibly poorly written (and reasoned) decision, and it will take another one - or possibly a constitutional amendment - to bring some clarity to the situation.
Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on June 29, 2018, 03:47:07 pm
I'm sure it's nothing that a $500 retainer can't fix.  Contact JackRabbit Hog for payment instructions.

(notOM)Rebel123

Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 02:07:47 pm
Not sure.

Sue the Board of Trustees members personally, in one suit, for breaching the duty owed to the University System. 

So, technically, not the University System itself.

Possibly a way around?

What did they do, or fail to do, that qualifies as "Breech of duty owed to the University system"?
"Knowledge is Good"....Emil Faber

Karma

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 02:56:19 pm
No it wasn't, read more, post less.


How about I just read less of your posts and we are both happy.

WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: (notOM)Rebel123 on February 20, 2018, 03:30:24 pm
What did they do, or fail to do, that qualifies as "Breech of duty owed to the University system"?
As indicated above, the University maintains a 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.  As a result, also indicated above, they are required to adhere to certain guidelines.

Pulling from my previous posts, here are some examples (definitely not all):

A 501(c)(3) organization's activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose. Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization (other than the 501(c)(3) organization) more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one.

While certainly the Razorbacks are part of the System's exempt purpose, it is difficult to see how our Board members have not served the private interests, or private benefit, of ANY individual or organization more than insubstantially.

Example of Individuals:
Houston Nutt, Jeff Long, Bret Bielema, Mike Anderson, Chad Morris, etc.

Example of Substantial Private Benefits:
Buyouts, Academic Achievement Incentives, Athletic Achievement Incentives, etc.

Why did Bret Bielema receive a $50,000 bonus for having an APR score over 960? Did all of the academic counselors, advisers, tutors, compliance officers, etc., also receive this bonus?

A quick search of the "Right 2 Know" Democrat-Gazette website revealed that Liz Reyes, Assistant Director of Academics for Football, receives annual compensation of $48,000. 

Thus, it appears that Bret Bielema's $50,000 bonus would be a substantial private benefit. It is $2,000 more than the employee who actually fosters academic success.  Do you think that she received a bonus?  Most likely not.

Up to $200,000 is what Chad Morris stands to make if he meets Academic Achievement Incentives.  Essentially, these "Incentives" are designed to always be attained.  So, there goes another $200,000 to Chad Morris.

Additionally, a 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization). Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees. He added that prohibited inurement includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.

Insiders: Jeff Long (director), Bret Bielema (important employee), Chad Morris (important employee), Mike Anderson (important employee), etc.

While they may certainly receive reasonable compensation, unquestionably, it has risen to the level on UNREASONABLE.

If you added all of the Buyouts, Academic Incentives (designed to always be attained), and Athletic Incentives (designed to usually be attained) across all sports from the last 15 years, the number is likely over $50,000,000.

Who has FINAL approval over all of these decisions? Board of Trustees members.

They need to be held accountable.
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

ricepig

Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 04:29:30 pm
As indicated above, the University maintains a 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.  As a result, also indicated above, they are required to adhere to certain guidelines.

Pulling from my previous posts, here are some examples (definitely not all):

A 501(c)(3) organization's activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose. Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization (other than the 501(c)(3) organization) more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one.

While certainly the Razorbacks are part of the System's exempt purpose, it is difficult to see how our Board members have not served the private interests, or private benefit, of ANY individual or organization more than insubstantially.

Example of Individuals:
Houston Nutt, Jeff Long, Bret Bielema, Mike Anderson, Chad Morris, etc.

Example of Substantial Private Benefits:
Buyouts, Academic Achievement Incentives, Athletic Achievement Incentives, etc.

Why did Bret Bielema receive a $50,000 bonus for having an APR score over 960? Did all of the academic counselors, advisers, tutors, compliance officers, etc., also receive this bonus?

A quick search of the "Right 2 Know" Democrat-Gazette website revealed that Liz Reyes, Assistant Director of Academics for Football, receives annual compensation of $48,000. 

Thus, it appears that Bret Bielema's $50,000 bonus would be a substantial private benefit. It is $2,000 more than the employee who actually fosters academic success.  Do you think that she received a bonus?  Most likely not.

Up to $200,000 is what Chad Morris stands to make if he meets Academic Achievement Incentives.  Essentially, these "Incentives" are designed to always be attained.  So, there goes another $200,000 to Chad Morris.

Additionally, a 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization). Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees. He added that prohibited inurement includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.

Insiders: Jeff Long (director), Bret Bielema (important employee), Chad Morris (important employee), Mike Anderson (important employee), etc.

While they may certainly receive reasonable compensation, unquestionably, it has risen to the level on UNREASONABLE.

If you added all of the Buyouts, Academic Incentives (designed to always be attained), and Athletic Incentives (designed to usually be attained) across all sports from the last 15 years, the number is likely over $50,000,000.

Who has FINAL approval over all of these decisions? Board of Trustees members.

They need to be held accountable.


The University is a 501(C)3? I'm not sure they are. They have a Foundation for both the Fayetteville campus, and system as a whole.

http://501c3lookup.org/Results/

WoooPigBrewie

Before someone slides in with the "But the Razorback Foundation pays for some of these things!", the Razorback Foundation is also a 501(c)(3) organization.  They are required to adhere to the same guidelines above.  It could be argued that the Razorback Foundation Board approval of payments on Buyouts, Academic Incentives, and Athletic Incentives, violates their own duty.

DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

 

ricepig

Quote from: WoooPigBrewie on February 20, 2018, 04:48:51 pm
Before someone slides in with the "But the Razorback Foundation pays for some of these things!", the Razorback Foundation is also a 501(c)(3) organization.  They are required to adhere to the same guidelines above.  It could be argued that the Razorback Foundation Board approval of payments on Buyouts, Academic Incentives, and Athletic Incentives, violates their own duty.



Not really.....

WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 04:47:40 pm
The University is a 501(C)3? I'm not sure they are. They have a Foundation for both the Fayetteville campus, and system as a whole.

http://501c3lookup.org/Results/
I am honestly not sure.

I guess if they are not, then I wasted my time today, ha!

But, regardless, they should be held accountable.
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

WoooPigBrewie

Quote from: ricepig on February 20, 2018, 04:49:57 pm
Not really.....
It think it would make for interesting debate...

What is the Razorback Foundations exempt purpose?

Code 13:
Organization which operates for benefit of college or university and is owned or operated by a governmental unit 170(b)(1)(A)(iv).

Now shifting back to the original discussion, does the language of Code 13 not create an issue in the Razorback Foundation saying they are not subject to FOIA?
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!

WoooPigBrewie

After further review, I am wrong.

The Board is considered a "body politic." 

I sure that comes with some guidelines, but they could always claim "good faith."

Disregard my dissertation.
DIAMOND BOWL BABY!