I'm shocked I tell you.
Florida State University is privatizing its athletics department, shielding it from public-records requests and treating it like a corporation rather than a traditional state university department.
The school touted the move as an opportunity to streamline the relationship between the athletics department and Seminoles Booster, Inc., the fundraising arm of the athletics department. The change alters a set-up that gave a booster group an unusually prominent role in fundraising for an athletic department, granting considerable power to a third-party group.
Awesome
FSU is taking advantage of the provisions of Florida Statute 1004.28, which was enacted by the Florida legislature back in 2002. This statute provides the authority for "University Direct Support Organizations", which are Florida "non-profit" corporations "organized and operated exclusively to receive, hold, invest, and administer property and to make expenditures to or for the benefit of a state university in Florida." These direct-support organizations are authorized to, among other things, "enter into agreements to finance, design and construct, lease, lease-purchase, purchase, or operate facilities necessary and desirable to serve the needs and purposes of the university, as determined by the systemwide strategic plan adopted by the Board of Governors.
These direct-support organizations are required to have an annual audit performed by a CPA and file such audit within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year, to the Auditor General and the Board of Governors for review. Interestingly, the statute provides that the identity of donors who desire to remain anonymous shall be protected, and that anonymity shall be maintained in the auditor’s report. More importantly, the statute states, "Other than the auditor’s report, management letter, any records related to the expenditure of state funds, and any financial records related to the expenditure of private funds for travel, all records of the organization and any supplemental data requested by the Board of Governors, the university board of trustees, the Auditor General, and the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall be confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) [Florida Public Records Law]."
Thus, if Seminole Boosters, Inc. is a FSU direct-support organization, and it completely takes over the role of the FSU Athletic Department, presumably all of the coaches will be employees of Seminole Boosters, Inc. instead of FSU. The only records related to the coaches that will be subject to disclosure are records related to their travel expenses. Emails, phone records, and similar types of documents that were previously considered public records subject to disclosure will no longer be obtainable under the Public Records Law. At first glance, this seems inappropriate for a public university; but if no state funds are involved in the operation of the Athletic Department, I'm not sure I have a problem with the exemption from disclosure allowed by the statute. If private funding supports the FSU Athletic Department, should it be subject to greater public disclosure requirements than the ND Athletic Department? Don't forget, the annual audit of Seminole Boosters, Inc. is available under the Public Records Law. Can the same financial information regarding the ND Athletic Department be obtained via a public information request?
A link to the statute is provided below.
That the athletic department of a public University is completely separate from state funds?
Where are the kids getting housing, education, laundry, and janitorial services from?
How is the University development funds not impacted by the booster decision to build a brand new football facility?
Whose land are they using to play their football games?
I’m sure they’ve found ways to try and separate the money but money is fungible and this is highly problematic. Who does the AD report to? Who hires them? Who insured the kids are student athletes and not employees? Where do their tutors come from?
since 1929. I'm not an attorney, but I am very familiar with Florida's structure as I was an employee of their athletic department corporation (known formally as the University of Florida Athletic Association) for 8.5 years. My understanding is that there is a state law in Florida that allows athletic departments to receive a special status that allows this private, not-for-profit corporation to exist separate from the university.
I believe FSU's move is mostly to bring Seminole Boosters under the purview of the athletic department as they had previously been operating as a third party wielding a large amount of power, especially in fund raising. My guess is they will follow the same or very nearly the same structure that Gator Boosters Inc operates under the UFAA, in which the Executive Director of Gator Boosters reports to the UF AD.
For those that are interested in looking at this further, the UFAA has their articles of incorporation and bylaws available on their website (floridagators.com).
I believe Georgia also has similar laws on their books as their athletic department (UGAA) is strucutured almost identically to UF's.
those who don't understand the setup, this change is actually an effort to bring more University control to the boosters. Many would argue that boosters have control of athletic departments across the country, but no where was that more true than FSU. The boosters paid for everything at FSU and did it independent from the university. This should bring additional checks on the power of FSU boosters.
I say this as someone who actively roots against FSU in nearly* every chance I get.
*perhaps they are playing Michigan.
The privatization of state school AD's is due to the school being a state-run entity.
that posters who actually know what in the hell they're talking about will weigh in ...
How can a unit of a governmental entity "privatize" in such a way so as to avail itself of protections not available to governmental entities while also retaining other benefits uniquely available to governmental entities entities, such as liability caps and shields, tax benefits and God knows what else.
If it is permissible for such an entity to have the best of both worlds under current laws, I'm led to wonder whether it should be.
I have exactly zero knowledge in ho any of this works but the athletics at USNA are almost totally funded by the Naval Academy Athletic Association. More info at link.
I have only skimmed some of the material you provided.
I'll reiterate that I don't claim any expertise in the relevant areas of law, but these statements give me pause:
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is not a government agency or instrumentality and is not part of the United States Naval Academy or the United States government. The United States Naval Academy, nor the United States government, has any obligation or liability for the actions, decisions, commitments, or liabilities of the Naval Academy Athletic Association.
My cursory reading of the material and in particular these excerpts on serves to reinforce my non-expert thoughts that this arrangement is problematic, from multiple perspectives.
From a legal perspective, the NAAA almost certainly operating as an agent of USNA, including when it schedules intercollegiate athletic events in which USNA participates.
That strikes me as basic agency law: the agent (NAAA) acts on behalf of the principal and the principal is legally liable for the acts (and omissions) of the agent that are undertaken (or omitted) on behalf of the principal.
The principal cannot avoid its legal obligations by contracting with a third party to undertake those obligations.
But they have been doing it for a long time. Maybe no one had a reason to challenge it but...
just ask Steve Spurrier.