Posted on 07/25/2002 11:43:17 AM PDT by kattracks
Paul Krugman, the New York Times' rabidly anti-Bush columnist was way off base in writing about the role then Governor George Bush played in an arrangement between Texas and the University of Texas Investment Management Co. (Utimco).
Krugman, who once collected a cool $50,000 from Enron for doing nothing (they just wanted to capitalize on his ... er ... celebrated name, he claims), made a series of allegations in a July 17 Times column that "are not accurate" says William H. Cunningham former chancellor and former chairman of the board of regents of the University of Texas System.
In a blistering rebuke to Krugman published in the Austin American-Statesman which carried the Krugman column, Cunningham set the record straight.
- Krugman charged that "Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to disclose" all matters related to investment and income.
Fact: "Not true. Gov. Bush was not involved in any decisions related to rules governing university endowments. Any changes in rules were recommended by the vice chancellor for asset management and the chancellor to the entire Board of Regents for their consideration."
- Krugman wrote that Bush "privatized university assets by transferring them to a nonprofit organization known as Utimco."
Fact: "Not true. Utimco was authorized by the Texas Legislature and was created by the Board of Regents. Mike Millsap, vice chancellor for government relations, and the chancellor were the primary advocates at the Legislature for the creation of Utimco.
"While Bush signed the legislation that authorized the creation of Utimco, the only contact on this matter that anyone from the UT System had with Bush's office was a meeting with Alberto Gonzales, the governor's general counsel. Gonzales requested that the university accept language in the proposed legislation that would strengthen prohibitions against conflict of interest. We found this suggestion helpful and agreed to Gonzales' recommendations, which were incorporated into the legislation that authorized the creation of Utimco.
"Nor were university assets ever never "transferred to Utimco," as Krugman wrote "The authority to manage the investments was transferred to Utimco, not the assets themselves; and the Board of Regents retains possession of, and fiduciary responsibility for, the assets," Cunningham explained.
- Krugman charged that University endowment money "was put under the control of Utimco's Chairman, Tom Hicks."
Fact: Once again, not true, Cunningham writes. "Hicks was a member of the Board of Regents as well as chairman of the board of Utimco. As chancellor and chairman of the board of regents and members of the Utimco board, we attended all of the Utimco board meetings. Every private equity investment decision was thoroughly reviewed by the Utimco staff and then vetted before the entire board.
"Hicks made no effort to dominate investment decisions, nor did he ever vote to approve an investment decision that was not recommended by the Utimco staff. In addition, all members of the Utimco board were required to complete a conflict of interest questionnaire prior to making any private investment decisions.
- Krugman charged that due to Bush's alleged changes in investment rules "these investments were hidden from public view."
Fact: "Utimco does not operate in secret. Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with the state open meetings law. Detailed reports on Utimco investments are made public, and all Utimco activities are subject to audits by the state.
"Some investment details are exempt from disclosure under the state open records law, such as some proprietary investment strategies belonging to private-sector companies with which Utimco does business. This is not an unusual type of exemption under open records laws. The Utimco Web site (www.Utimco.org) provides a wealth of information about the company and its operations."
- Krugman wrote that the investments that were created by Utimco "seemed to have done quite badly."
Fact: "Utimco has made a large number of investments," Cunningham explained. "While some of them have not turned out as well as the board had hoped, others have been quite profitable. Utimco's overall investment record has been profitable for the people of Texas. The most recent data indicates that during the first six months of 2002, the University's general endowment fund had lost 2 percent, which was substantially better than most market indexes over the same period.
"Utimco has been a tremendous asset to the state of Texas and we are confident that it will continue to be in the future," Cunningham added.
About all that Krugman appeared to get right in his piece was the spelling of his name, which in view of the frequent inaccuracies in his frenzied anti-Bush columns repeatedly pointed out by such critics as columnist Andrew Sullivan, probably isn't worth $50,000 any more. Or .50 cents, for that matter.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bias is enough.
(I'm not holding my breath)
If anyone needs any further evidence that the NYT is nothing but a DNC mouthpiece, this is Exhibit A.
Exhibit B:
That's two for two today alone for the Slimes.
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
As former chancellor and former chairman of the board of regents of the University of Texas System, we understand the details of how the University of Texas Investment Management Co. (Utimco) was created and how it has been operated. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's assertions in a column that appeared July 17 in the Austin American-Statesman with relation to Utimco and actions by George W. Bush when he was governor, and Tom Hicks when he was chairman of Utimco, are not accurate. We will outline Krugman's statements and then provide factual data.
* "Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to disclose" all matters related to investment and income. Not true. Gov. Bush was not involved in any decisions related to rules governing university endowments. Any changes in rules were recommended by the vice chancellor for asset management and the chancellor to the entire Board of Regents for their consideration.
* Bush "privatized university assets by transferring them to a nonprofit organization known as Utimco." Not true.
Utimco was authorized by the Texas Legislature and was created by the Board of Regents. Mike Millsap, vice chancellor for government relations, and the chancellor were the primary advocates at the Legislature for the creation of Utimco. While Bush signed the legislation that authorized the creation of Utimco, the only contact on this matter that anyone from the UT System had with Bush's office was a meeting with Alberto Gonzales, the governor's general counsel. Gonzales requested that the university accept language in the proposed legislation that would strengthen prohibitions against conflict of interest. We found this suggestion helpful and agreed to Gonzales' recommendations, which were incorporated into the legislation that authorized the creation of Utimco.
It is also important to note that university assets were never "transferred to Utimco." The authority to manage the investments was transferred to Utimco, not the assets themselves; and the Board of Regents retains possession of, and fiduciary responsibility for, the assets.
* University endowment money "was put under the control of Utimco's Chairman, Tom Hicks." Not true. Hicks was a member of the Board of Regents as well as chairman of the board of Utimco. As chancellor and chairman of the board of regents and members of the Utimco board, we attended all of the Utimco board meetings. Every private equity investment decision was thoroughly reviewed by the Utimco staff and then vetted before the entire board. Hicks made no effort to dominate investment decisions, nor did he ever vote to approve an investment decision that was not recommended by the Utimco staff. In addition, all members of the Utimco board were required to complete a conflict of interest questionnaire prior to making any private investment decisions.
* Due to Bush's alleged changes in investment rules "these investments were hidden from public view." Utimco does not operate in secret. Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with the state open meetings law. Detailed reports on Utimco investments are made public, and all Utimco activities are subject to audits by the state.
Some investment details are exempt from disclosure under the state open records law, such as some proprietary investment strategies belonging to private-sector companies with which Utimco does business. This is not an unusual type of exemption under open records laws. The Utimco Web site (www.Utimco.org) provides a wealth of information about the company and its operations.
* The investments that were created by Utimco "seemed to have done quite badly." Utimco has made a large number of investments. While some of them have not turned out as well as the board had hoped, others have been quite profitable. Utimco's overall investment record has been profitable for the people of Texas. The most recent data indicates that during the first six months of 2002, The University's general endowment fund had lost 2 percent, which was substantially better than most market indexes over the same period.
Utimco has been a tremendous asset to the state of Texas and we are confident that it will continue to be in the future.
Why check them at all? To the left and their mouthpiece-of-choice, the New York Times ("All the news that fits the script"), the facts don't matter.
Only "the seriousness of the allegations"...
But like all papers, they depend on ads for money, and those move cyclically with the local economy.
Their ad rev is down in line with the economy, to be sure.
But recall the Times is a de facto monopoly in New York. All glam stuff, and ads targeting the middle-to-upper classes, white collar folk, trendoids and chin scratchers have no place to go but the Old Gay Lady.
All that said, the Times' influence locally and elsewhere has been in steady decline for years, as its news/opinion pages slid hard to port.
Where they were once the unquestioned source, now they are seen as the leftist sheet, requiring other sources for balance and back-up.
But since the paper is an inherited, unionized, family-controlled monopoly, they don't have to face financial fallout from the degradation of their copy. Yet.
In your article, you state that you are "not making this up". If not, then you have been snookered by the Democrat lies and are still guilty of not doing your homework."When the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating private-citizen Bush's sale of stock, he not only answered all their questions, but he waived attorney-client privilege so the SEC could talk to ANYONE about ANYTHING before rendering their decision."
THE DOMINANT SUBJECT at President Bush’s rare press conference Monday evening was not new corporate scandals that threaten America’s capitalist economy. It was a 12-year-old stock sale by private citizen George W. Bush. That caused a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) official, who long ago gave Bush a clean bill of health, to ponder the wondrous ways of Washington. That official was not, as National Public Radio suggested Tuesday morning, then Republican SEC Chairman Richard Breeden (appointed by the elder President George Bush). It was SEC enforcement chief William McLucas, now a partner in one of Washington’s most prestigious law firms — and a Democrat.
Now you have the truth. In the future, may I suggest that you could increase your credibility by not automatically regurgitating the lies spewed forth by the Democrats for purely partisan political purposes...don't let your hatred of all things Republican keep you from doing your own investigative reporting.
He really is a piece of ....ummmmm....work.
I would like to know, because it seems to me that they have a duty to their stockholders to maximize their earnings (circulation and ad revenue) by not printing so many errors and DNC talking point stories.
Smartertimes.com documented their abuses daily for a few years, and on more than one occasion people have tried to instigate boycotts against both the NY and LA Times, which are both likely public.
You raise a good point. It doesn't seem completely implausible that a lawyer could gin up a shareholder suit.
THe New York Times Company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol NYT..... $43.70 close today
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.