Should a compliance officer be able to accept gifts like loaner cars?
I am sorry if I missed this earlier, but it just seemed that the report from yesterday that members of the OSU compliance office create a conflict of interest by accepting the use of loaner cars. One could possibly assume it helps turn that blind eye when players then also do it. However, I then read on to notice that Iowa, MSU and Michigan also allow member of their compliance department also accept loaner cars. Everybody else in the conference (including Nebraska) does not allow the practice.
To me, this seems a bit fishy. I am not sure why there is not a league mandate to regulate this. If you want the AD to get a car, put it in his comp package and make his payments. It is part of a contract and pretty public knowledge. "Loaners" that aren't really "loaned", but "given" and harder to track doesn't seen right. Not sure of thoughts from the rest of the board.
Slight edit re: Minny
Doom
...because it says Michigan, not Minnesota. There was an earlier thread on this and it got nuked, so I'd expect the same to happen to this one.
Not only was this posted once today and deleted it was posted yesterday too.
Especially compliance people. That's just inviting problems, whether in Columbus or Ann Arbor. If I were Brandon (assuming the article is correct) I'd stop that practice immediately.
Even if done in an ethical way, it casts a shadow of a doubt on your compliance department and is totally unnecessary.
What the two guys above me said . . . .
And compliance people are tasked with monitoring said athletes and their coaches. If you don't think there's a potential for abuse when freebies are given out by prominent local businesses, you have a remarkably optimistic view of human nature.
I'm not comfortable with this practice, especially given that eight of the other 11 schools in the conference have seen fit to outlaw it.
I would assume they are state government employees at the University of Michigan. Would that not mean they are under the same no-gift restrictions every government employee is under? In which case the University may not have felt it was necessary to specify this. Either way it is a clear risk in a conflict on interest / ethics sense, and should not be allowed.
It is a common misunderstanding. The University of Michigan is a public school in that it has some degree of public support (i.e. money from the State of Michigan) and its governance is public. The regents are elected. In contrast a private school like say, one of the Ivy League schools don't receive dollars to run the place and their governing board (call it what you will, board of regents, governors, visitors or whatever archaic term is used) are not necessarily voted in as much as appointed.
The employees of the school including the athletic department are NOT state employees. They don't receive a "state" check and don't have to follow the same civil service guidelines.
But I have to agree that if a person is in the position of having to check up and vet the players for possible compliance issues - they should NEVER put themselves in positions where their judgement can ever be called into question - simple common sense.
Think about that statement. "Who cares? They're employees. Not athletes."
I understand the sentiment, but it's hard to disagree with the "plantation" argument when this mentality is accepted.
These are not amatuers, they're paid career people. Benefits for people already being paid are fine. It's when amatuer athletes enter the scene that it's bad.
I think it's disingenuous that the people assigned to monitor the activities of players are ableto trade tickets to see college football games for cars when the players playing those games are expressly forbidden from trading those tickets themselves. IMO, it's a conflict of interest and Michigan should ban the practice.
have U of M compliance employees traded tickets for cars? Whether it is specified in rules or employment contracts is one thing. Having done so smacks of ethical issues even if it not specified.
http://www.mgoblue.com/victorsclub/car-program.html
Then it doesn't sound the least bit fishy.
If players are getting sweetheart deals from the "sponsors," there is a conflict of interest. If they aren't, there isn't. I am sure Michigan will go to a different system just to make sure there is no appearance of impropriety. Michigan should buy or lease the cars, make them "company vehicles," and have coaches and administrators check them out as they would any equipment.
Does anyone know when the Michigan compliance department started receiving this perk?
It does seem like the compliance/ethics people should not receive any outside payments or perks.
Seriously, why is this an issue? It's a damn company car! Shit, even Michael Scott had one from Dunder-Mifflin. Leave it alone.
The compliance officers get paid well ... have job security if they do their job honorably ... and can afford to buy a car. Go out and buy a car ..... they shouldn't get free vehicles as the players dont get free vehicles. Lead by Example.
but I also think if the dealership is reputable and the deal is out in the open it might actually be a mutually beneficial relationship. The dealership might be less apt to try to bend the rules for athletes, or might be willing to point out players looking for "off the books" deals.
The question I keep thinking about is why a dealership would want to give a free car to a generally nameless, faceless compliance person.
"The question I keep thinking about is why a dealership would want to give a free car to a generally nameless, faceless compliance person."
"B" stands for "bingo" and "booster"....