HB 971: A bill restricting where LA athletic programs can travel...unless you're LSU

[cajunfanatico]

Common sense

I kinda doubt common sense is used as a defense when intrepreting law.

From: ULS President <ULSPresident@uls.state.la.us>
To: teemo <teemo@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:40 pm
Subject: RE: The use of the Louisiana name by a univerity

Dear Mr. Morris:

Thank you for your email.

The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System created a policy in 1998 that established guidelines for the way a university refers to itself. The policy clearly states that none of our universities should use 'University of Louisiana' or the abbreviation 'UL' without including either the name or abbreviation of their geographical location; also the policy is silent on using 'Louisiana' as a stand-alone reference. We continue to support this policy, but it has no enforcement effect on how external parties refer to the university.

Sincerely,
Dr. Sandra K. Woodley
President

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...reates-false-i

[cajunfanatico]

And who still uses AOL? LOL

[stodgdog]

I kinda doubt common sense is used as a defense when intrepreting law.

"Silent" on the issue does not mean legal.

[The Historian]

That's my understanding of where we are today. If I'm wrong, as I often am, someone can correct me.

I posted this yesterday. This is what I believe Carter may be referring to in saying you are "self-sustaining"

More and more of our budgets are comprised of a greater and greater percentage of tuition transfers, as tuition and fees have increased and state support has decreased. For example, if $8 million is transferred next year for each school and 75% of the university budget is from tuition and fees then only $2 million is actually "taxpayer support", or 25% of the $8 million.

Rather than transfer the full $8 million, $2 million in auxiliary services monies can be moved to athletics. This can include revenues from various sources on campus, including profits generated by food services. $2 million in taxpayer support monies can then be replaced in expense streams that were once tied to revenue from those auxiliary services monies. This is essentially what has been happening at UL-Lafayette the past few years and what Tech should probably do moving forward.

Tech could eliminate the amount it transfers in non-tuition general fund dollars and replace it with auxiliary fund monies. Then replace the auxiliary fund monies with what was going to athletics in non-tuition general fund dollars. Both universities are in a position to do so. Almost every other university in the UL system is not.

Also, each school could ask their student bodies to pass a student fee to make up the $2 million difference. The state does not prohibit student fees to go directly to athletics. In the past 7 years, both the ULM and UNO student bodies have voted down proposed fees that would have gone directly to athletics for budgetary purposes. What the state prohibits is the transfer of an amount greater than the limit imposed by the Board of Regents (with some limited exceptions). Making up this hypothetical $2 million difference would not put either school over the limit.

[cajunfanatico]

Common sense.

Apparently, it is OK if your administration breaks the law by your own interpretation of the law. Is that correct?

Sure, I have no problem with it because first, I believe the law is poorly written (supported by the opinion of an attorney some of your own fans contacted) and I believe the whole thing was a farce foisted on us back in 1984. There are plenty of examples in the United States of parties who believe they have been wronged bringing their case to the fore by disobeying laws meant to control them.

"After having read the Policy it is rather ambiguous legally. Firs it says that institutions "should" adhere to the policy not "shall". But then it specifically says that the use of the "University of Louisiana" without the "at ..." is prohibited, but this is part of the policy that "should" be adhered to. This may be double talk to laymen but to a judge it isn't. There is a world of difference between "should" and"shall".

The Policy says the the Act specifically also "authorized the Board of Trustees and Board of Regents to approve the change of name of any university within the System to the "University of Louisiana at (its geographic location)" provided no less than two institutions make a request for and are approved to change the institutional names.

Since the act left it up to the Boards to approve the name changes, unless you guys can find anything else in the Statute, then only the Boards can enforce the policy.

Now that is only one lawyer's opinion and you can probably find at least one if not ten who disagree."

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...n-t-win/page11

[cajunfanatico]

"Silent" on the issue does not mean legal.

Nor illegal, I imagine. I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

[sportdawg]

----Remember when You guys changed your name and when UNO changed its name? Well the exact method was used by USL and with YOUR VOTE and the others of the board it was passed and we changed the name and even graduated alumni under the University of Louisiana on their diploma---now this is the way it happened and I challenge you to research it----I am sure we can get someone to post the chronology for you---this is the true understanding of the history!!!

Why is a USL athletic Hall of Fame member arguing with guys on another team's message board?

[sportdawg]

---Glad Laffayette is not included and that was clarified today----Cajuns self sufficiency must be the difference!!

[cajunfanatico]

I posted this yesterday. This is what I believe Carter may be referring to in saying you are "self-sustaining"

More and more of our budgets are comprised of a greater and greater percentage of tuition transfers, as tuition and fees have increased and state support has decreased. For example, if $8 million is transferred next year for each school and 75% of the university budget is from tuition and fees then only $2 million is actually "taxpayer support", or 25% of the $8 million.

Rather than transfer the full $8 million, $2 million in auxiliary services monies can be moved to athletics. This can include revenues from various sources on campus, including profits generated by food services. $2 million in taxpayer support monies can then be replaced in expense streams that were once tied to revenue from those auxiliary services monies. This is essentially what has been happening at UL-Lafayette the past few years and what Tech should probably do moving forward.

Tech could eliminate the amount it transfers in non-tuition general fund dollars and replace it with auxiliary fund monies. Then replace the auxiliary fund monies with what was going to athletics in non-tuition general fund dollars. Both universities are in a position to do so. Almost every other university in the UL system is not.

Also, each school could ask their student bodies to pass a student fee to make up the $2 million difference. The state does not prohibit student fees to go directly to athletics. In the past 7 years, both the ULM and UNO student bodies have voted down proposed fees that would have gone directly to athletics for budgetary purposes. What the state prohibits is the transfer of an amount greater than the limit imposed by the Board of Regents (with some limited exceptions). Making up this hypothetical $2 million difference would not put either school over the limit.

Nice summation and possible solutions TH, thanks for taking the time to give those thoughts.

Dr. Joseph Savoie caught a lot of flak from a lot of Cajun sports fans because of his seeming unwillingness to max out our athletic subsidies year after year.....even though our athletic budget was growing rapidly. And I understand their frustrations, but there are obvious risks operating in the Banana Republic of Louisiana.

If one looks at Savoie's work history, he spent a number of years before becoming president of the university working as a legislative liason and from what I understand he was very well liked by that body. I suspect that those years gave him access that he may not otherwise have had and it was because of information being passed along to him he was better able to prepare the university for today's rough ride.

That's just speculation on my part, of course. Though one thing I am confident of is that we have not yet seen bottom on this thing. We all better be fleet of foot.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Are we self-sustaining? No. But Ragin Cajun athletics, as it relates to subsidies provided by the state in which the university resides, I believe is the second-lowest subsidized program in all the mid-majors.

That's my understanding of where we are today. If I'm wrong, as I often am, someone can correct me.

You are wrong.

http://theadvocate.com/sports/latest...on-budget-cuts

[SlickRick]

You are wrong.

http://theadvocate.com/sports/latest...on-budget-cuts

If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right! LOL!

[cajunfanatico]

You are wrong.

http://theadvocate.com/sports/latest...on-budget-cuts

Oh, I may indeed be wrong, but will say that those who have looked at what the Advocate posted versus their examination of state-audited yearly reports contend that the Advocate's reporting is both shoddy and self-serving. If you wish to hang your hat on what the paper out of the Red Shaft has to say, have at it. We know they're on our side.

[cajunfanatico]

You are wrong.

http://theadvocate.com/sports/latest...on-budget-cuts

I was wrong. Boise State's subsidy according to the data I saw wasn't zero.

Here's the % of subsidy numbers:

Boise State - 25.82
ULL - 26.53
LaTech - 50.06
ULM - 39.43

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

[Cool Hand Clyde]

I was wrong. Boise State's subsidy according to the data I saw wasn't zero.

Here's the % of subsidy numbers:

Boise State - 25.82
ULL - 26.53
LaTech - 50.06
ULM - 39.43

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Yeah, that's bogus. The link I provided comes from the legislative auditor's report.

[cajunfanatico]

Yeah, that's bogus. The link I provided comes from the legislative auditor's report.

They're officed at the Advocate?