As the media has covered the release (not to the public, though) of the donor agreement of the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program in Political Management, there is indeed cause for concern. After over a year of Carleton attempting to break the law (by redacting information that the public is entitled to under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), they finally gave it up to some journalists. Yet, Carleton continues to publically mislead.
Let’s look at their official press release on the occasion, which is where they have been directing citizens. It contains all the usual and self-aggrandizing text, but let’s focus on one paragraph of substance in particular:
The Donor Agreement for the Political Management program provides for a Steering Committee composed of two members selected by Carleton, two by the donor and a fifth by mutual agreement of the parties to the agreement. Although the program’s steering committee was authorized to participate in the hiring process and to approve the budget, it actually had no representation on Carleton’s hiring committees and all final hiring and budgetary decisions were made by Carleton in accordance with our normal academic policies, processes and procedures.
While this may be technically correct, it entirely downplays and misrepresents how the contract works (and how contracts work in general). See here, with section 14 of the contract*:
(RFCP is the Riddell Family Charitable Foundation; this is the donor)
You should look at section 14(d) specifically, where it grants the donor, Clayton H. Riddell and friends (Mr. Manning): “To approve the annual budget, the selection of adjunct faculty and staff. including the Executive Direction and to participate in the faculty hiring decisions:”
This means, in other words, that unless Riddle and his friends (Preston Manning) like who’s been selected, they can veto the budget and hiring and effectively force Carleton to pick people they would prefer. And this makes sense, considering the near 50% right-wing/Conservative/Reform staff I already documented in another post here.
The press release from Carleton gives you the illusion that Carleton has total control, when in fact, according to the contract, the donor (Riddell and Manning) have contractual approval of staff and budget. They have the control, not Carleton.
It’s also worth noting that in the agreement, it isn’t just one lump of money being thrown at Carleton; it’s an incremental funding/donation of 10 years or more. That means that Carleton needs to continuously impress Riddell’s representative, and uphold the contract, or else that funding could be in jeopardy. Whoever has the money has the control.
*If you want to view the whole contract, I’ve uploaded it here. Credits go to Francella Fiallos for providing me with the document.
