Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Well, now it's more clear why the U. of California needed that money:

From today’s LA Times:

“For the last decade, University of California leaders systematically failed to disclose to UC's governing board the details of pay packages and perquisites granted to senior executives, despite policies requiring such disclosure, according to an audit released Monday.”

In other words, UC administrators spent University money on themselves without notifying thier nominal bosses (the regents), the legislature, or the public. Think about this in the context of a private company for a second; say you owned a business, and the hired help spent the business money on themselves without notifying anyone. In such a case, it could be embezzelment, plain and simple.


“The report also noted that some compensation for a number of employees, including the extra income for Dynes, [the current University president] was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Officials said amended W-2 forms would be submitted.”

Again, in the context of a private company, that could be tax evasion.

Just sayin’

Addendum: The amount of money involved in the story above was not disclosed by the LA times. According to the NY Times story, "University of California Backs President," published May 18, 2006 (no active link at this time):"A state audit found the extra compensation accounted for $334 million."


No comments: