More Coverup at CUNY?

One of the issues in Petraeusgate is who is paying for this hire: the taxpayers or private donors? In her email of July 1—the last communique from the administration to Petraeus that we know of—CUNY Dean Ann Kirschner writes:

Chancellor Matthew Goldstein has provided private funding for your position, which will be paid through the CUNY Research Foundation.

Previously the administration had claimed that Petraeus’s base salary would be “supplemented” by private donations that had yet to be secured. Now, the administration suggests that the position in its entirety is to be covered by private funds; the funds have been secured; and they’ll be administered by the Research Foundation (RF).

My friend Alex Vitale, who’s a sociology prof at Brooklyn College, is going to be blogging about the RF later today, so I don’t want to get too much into that.

But here’s the short and the skinny. The RF is a semi-private arm of CUNY that, among other things, administers the large research grants that CUNY faculty secure from institutions like the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Health, etc. For administering those grants, the RF in concert with individual CUNY colleges charges something in the neighborhood of 50% of the grant’s value—on top of the grant itself.  So if a professor applies for $100k from the NSF, CUNY will add an additional $50k or so to the grant application to cover the costs of administering it. That’s standard practice at most universities; it’s how they make a lot of their money. Administrators at the RF and the colleges then use that money to pay for everything from the RF’s operating costs to the colleges’ operating costs. Again, standard practice.

But here’s the deal: that money also provides a kind of discretionary fund for CUNY administrators to support their pet projects. Like, say, hiring an expensive general with fancy tastes and little appetite for work?

Let’s go back to that July 1 email: “Chancellor Matthew Goldstein has provided private funding for your position, which will be paid through the CUNY Research Foundation.”

The wording is admittedly elusive, perhaps strategically so, but the clear suggestion is that Goldstein got private donations for the hire, channeled them through the RF, and Petraeus’ salary (and graduate assistants, and travel fund, etc.) will come from that.

But in that July 2 letter that New York State Assemblyman Kieran Lalor sent to interim chancellor Bill Kelly, Lalor wrote:

According to the CUNY spokesman, Petraeus will be paid from the University’s Research Foundation. However, there are no grants or donations specifically earmarked by donors to pay for Petraeus. That means the salary will come from the Foundation’s general funds.

That statement hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

Who is this mysterious CUNY spokesperson? What specifically did s/he say? And to whom did he say it?

Turns out it’s Jay Hershenson, CUNY’s Senior Vice Chancellor for University Relations. He said it to Lalor’s chief of staff Chris Covucci.

Today, Gawker reporter J.K. Trotter followed up with Covucci: “Did Hershenson explicitly state that Petraeus’s salary would come out of unearmarked funds?” he asked in an email.

Covucci replied:

Yes, when I spoke with him last Monday that was what he said. It took some prodding to get that out of him, but I directly asked if the Research Foundation or the University had received any donations earmarked for Petraeus’ salary. He said no. I asked if that meant they would be using unearmarked funds in the Research Foundation. He said yes.

Unearmarked funds.  What does that mean?

It could mean general gifts from donors that were not stipulated for any purpose.  If that’s the case, those of us who’ve charged CUNY with diverting resources to this hire that could have been better spent elsewhere are correct.

Or it could mean funds secured from the administrative overheard of grants that were provided by private foundations (say, the Ford Foundation or the Rockefeller Foundation).  If that’s the case, those of us who’ve charged CUNY with diverting resources to this hire that could have been better spent elsewhere are again correct.

Or it could mean funds secured from the administrative overhead of grants that were provided by the government. If that’s the case, those of us who’ve charged CUNY with diverting resources to this hire that could have been better spent elsewhere are again correct—and the money is in fact coming from the taxpayers.

What it does NOT mean is that private donors have given money in order to pay for this hire.

So here is a simple follow-up question for the media: Are these unearmarked funds from private donors, from the overheard of grants from private foundations, or from the overhead of grants from the government?

One other question for the media.  Specifically, the New York Times. In 2009, when Eliot Spitzer taught a course at CUNY, the Times raised its eyebrow because he was being paid $4500. The highest adjunct rate. Petraeus is due to make $75,000 per course. Why hasn’t the Times said a word about this?

And if you haven’t signed the petition against the Petraeus hire, please do so now.

3 Comments

  1. Jen Gaboury (@jengaboury) July 10, 2013 at 9:07 pm | #

    I believe the RF cut is closer to 10% — which changes exactly none of this. Thanks for your ongoing work on this beat! – J.

    • John Krinsky July 10, 2013 at 10:17 pm | #

      On my NSF grant, I believe it was 53%.

      And once again, Corey, thanks.

Leave a Reply