Login  /  Register  | 3 premium articles left before you must register.

UConn's ethics were lacking in payment of Clinton for speech

Published July 04. 2014 4:00AM

To the Sports Editor:

Thank you to Mike DiMauro for attempting to "open the eyes" of his readers to the University of Connecticut's endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations in the form of a $251,250.00 check for a speech at UConn in April of this year.

Yes, the check was technically from a donor family and routed thru the UConn Foundation. I'm sure that the foundation and the university had their smarty-pants lawyers assure them that "technically" both organizations were immune from legal and ethical violations of their responsibilities to their respective organizations, the student body, the taxpayers of Connecticut and, most of all, public opinion. After all, they know that the electorate is stupid and will swallow anything that is spun well.

Let us step back a moment and look at the governing bodies of both institutions to see if, in fact, there are any over-lapping persons involved. Ah, yes. There certainly is overlap. Overlap that I wouldn't classify as collusion, yet I don't personally see their actions to be in the best interests of UConn, our Constitution, the concept of fairness or the values that I had as a student at UConn in the late '50s. I would suggest that the foundation take time to read their own statement of ethics.

UConn president Susan Herbst and other UConn executives are ex officio members of the UConn Foundation's Board of Directors. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that the hierarchy of UConn was fully aware of and perhaps complicit in the donation to Hillary's campaign.

I find their actions repulsive. I feel that some of those involved have violated their fiduciary responsibilities to the university, the state legislature, the student body and sound management in general.

President Susan Herbst, I suggest that you resign.

Ed Cullen, Sr.


News by Town

Most Recent Poll
Did the Supreme Court make the right call in its 5-4 Hobby Lobby ruling?
Yes, the court was right. Forcing the owners to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives they considered immoral violated their religious rights.
No, this was a terrible ruling. Women employees shouldn't be denied coverage for contraceptives because they happen to work for people who object to them.
I'm not sure how I feel. Both sides in the case make good points.
Number of votes: 1922

No current items found