From university foundations to publicly funded development organizations, there is an emerging environment where government alliances often operate in the financial shadows.
“Quasi-public entities” have popped up by the dozens in recent years as state and area governments delegate responsibilities like increasing tourism, says Leonard Van Slyke, a Jackson attorney who specializes in freedom-of-information issues.
Without legislative action, some agencies receiving significant public funds or raising money on behalf of public entities argue their records are not subject to public scrutiny, Van Slyke said.
What constitutes a quasi-public entity is unclear under the law, and just how much information they have to divulge is yet another gray area.
“If they are a private entity that receives significant public support or they perform the duties of a public body, they fall into the realm of a quasi-public entity,” Van Slyke said.
In such event, he thinks a court would allow the public access to their records.
However, many organizations Van Slyke considers quasi-public claim they are private entities and not subject to open records laws.
The Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi – a smoking cessation organization that is funded by an annual $20 million payment from tobacco companies as part of Mississippi’s landmark $1.4 billion settlement of the 1990s – posts annual audits on it Web site.
However, the partnership, which is locked in a battle with Gov. Haley Barbour over its annual payments, won’t release its executives’ salaries because it is a nonprofit organization, said spokeswoman Sharon Garrison.
Barbour wants to direct the partnership’s money through the state Legislature where there would be more oversight of what he considers public money. Legislation is pending to appropriate the money.
The partnership points to a reduction in tobacco use and the success of its programs in recent years and says the money should be left alone.
The question over public money reaches from universities to local governments.
Mississippi State head football coach Sylvester Croom’s “salary is subsidized by private giving so it would not show up in his state-approved salary,” said Mississippi State spokesman Mike Nemeth.
“It comes from the athletic department’s private giving.”
When asked how to get access to the salary the Bulldog Club foundation pays Croom, Nemeth said: “I’m not sure that it couldn’t be done, but I’m sure that it would have to be a legal recourse.”
Other entities working for the public are tight-lipped as well, especially when it comes to executive salaries.
FOIA REQUESTS DENIED
The Associated Press requested by e-mail to the president and financial officer of the Area Development Partnership in Hattiesburg a list of salaries and travel and entertainment expenses for 2005.
The Area Development Partnership is “a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life .. through community and economic development,” its Web site says.
The partnership is under contract with both Lamar and Perry counties and should be held to open record standards, Van Slyke said.
The organization rejected AP requests for information on salary, travel and entertainment expenses “because FOIA is not applicable to Area Development Partnership, a 501(c)(6) corporation,” said Pat Hicks, a secretary for Frank D. Montague Jr., the attorney that represents the ADP.
Mississippi State also would not produce copies of its coaches’ contracts under the Freedom of Information Act.
“They consider (the salary) a part of the confidential contract with part of the external agency,” Mississippi State spokeswoman Maridith Geuder said.
The AP mailed a Freedom of Information request on Feb. 16. As of this week, the university’s legal counsel had not responded.
Under the law, public bodies have 14 days to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
A 1998 opinion by the attorney general’s office says funds collected by university foundations are not public “until such time they are paid over to the universities.”
The opinion does not make clear whether giving the funds to a university employee, such as a coach, would open the records to the public.
Jan Schaefer, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jim Hood, said the attorney general’s office has not rendered opinions on whether entities such as the ADP and Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi are subject to open records laws.
She said the most relevant opinion on the issue primarily deals with university foundations.
That opinion says public funds are those “received, collected by, or available for the support or expenditure of, by any state department, institution or agency, whether such funds be collected from taxes or from fees … or from some other source.”
Questions about quasi-public entities reach well beyond Mississippi.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has said it will rule on whether the University of Louisville Foundation has to disclose the names of its individual donors.
A lawsuit filed by The Courier-Journal of Louisville in 2001 claims the names of donors should be public because they could influence university officials.
Van Slyke says many organizations that could fall into the realm of quasi-public entities shun open records requests in Mississippi and it’s only a matter of time before someone here sues.
Agencies argue records cannot be scrutinized
Originally written By: Holbrook Mohr
The Associated Press
The Associated Press
