THE NEXT PROBLEM CREATED BY THESE 'INNOVATION CENTERS' AND CORPORATIZING UNIVERSITIES IS THE ACTUAL STATUS OF UNIVERSITIES AS NON-PROFITS. OBVIOUSLY WHEN A UNIVERSITY EXPANDS TO THE SIZE OF A CORPORATION, STARTS PATENTING AND SELLING ITS RESEARCH, IT IS A CORPORATION NOT A NON-PROFIT. IN BALTIMORE WE HAVE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY HAVING CROSSED THAT THRESHOLD.....IT IS A CORPORATION....AND YET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY MADE CLEAR THEY WOULD NOT PAY TAXES. THEY ALSO STILL RECEIVE BILLIONS IN GRANTS AS IF THEY WERE A NON-PROFIT.
THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM AND ALLOWS YOU TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE MOVING WITH CORPORATE TAXES.....THEY ARE ELIMINATING THEM.
SO NOW, AS A FOR-PROFIT NON-PROFIT WITH ALL THIS OUTSIDE REVENUE REQUIRING ACCOUNTANTS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS WITH CEO SALARIES COMES A CHANGE IN CAMPUS POLITICS. 'IT'S ONLY A GAME' ON NPR ALWAYS ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S SPORTS AND PROTECTIONS FOR COLLEGE ATHLETES. THEY HAVE FOR YEARS POINTED TO THIS COMMERCIALIZATION OF COLLEGE SPORTS WITH ITS HUGE REVENUES WITH STUDENT ATHLETES GETTING NOTHING FROM THE COLLEGE INDUSTRY. I WAS PROUD TO HEAR THEM FINALLY SAY THAT IT IS 'SLAVERY' TO HAVE THESE KIDS COMMITTING TO A GRUELING SPORTS REGIMEN WITH NO FINANCIAL GAIN WITH EVERYONE AROUND THEM GETTING RICH. WE DO NOT ADVOCATE TO PAY COLLEGE ATHLETES......WE ADVOCATE TO TAKE THE BUSINESS OUT OF COLLEGE ATHLETICS. AGAIN WE HAVE THE SITUATION OF COLLEGE STUDENTS BEING USED AS FREE LABOR FOR PROFIT. THEY USED TO DO THAT IN MEDIEVAL TIMES AS PEOPLE WORKED IN APPRENTICESHIPS FOR YEARS UNDER WHAT WAS THEN A CORPORATE ENTERPRISE. THIS IS WHERE THIS 1% IS HEADING AS FAST AS THEY CAN AND YOUR INCUMBENT IS TAKING US THERE. THAT IS WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT AND REVOLUTIONS ENDED BACK THEN AND WHAT LABOR UNIONS IN THE US REVERSED DECADES AGO. WE DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK!!!!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!
WRITE-IN YOUR STATE CANDIDATE THIS ELECTION AND SAY NO TO CARDIN, SARBANES, AND CUMMINGS!!!!
March 18, 2009, 8:28 pm March Money Madness By THE EDITORS New York Times
For millions of Americans, nothing makes for better television than the N.C.A.A. college basketball tournament, which starts this week. The perennial powers, the cinderella teams and those irresistible brackets make for a sweet combination. The network advertisers know it, too. CBS paid the N.C.A.A. $6 billion for an 11-year contract to carry the men’s tournament through 2013.
Of course, this entire commercial bonanza is made possible by the student athletes, who are barred from receiving salaries by N.C.A.A. rules. Should they be paid — just as college students on work-study or otherwise hold campus jobs are paid? If not, are there ways to ensure that more of the revenues benefit the students?
Where the Amateurs Are Ellen J. Staurowsky is a professor of sport management and a graduate chairwoman of the department at Ithaca College in New York.
Despite N.C.A.A. rhetoric, the Division I men’s basketball tournament is no place for amateurs — and business executives know it.
The International Management Group knew it when it tapped into a $3 million college sport market by acquiring the Collegiate Licensing Company last year. Thought Equity Motion, a new media content firm, was on the ball when it signed a deal recently with the N.C.A.A. gaining access to a $3 billion college sport market by ensuring that the Madness of March is delivered to the basketball fans on their iPhones. And of course, the coaches often command salaries of $1 million and more, not including access to private jets, cars and housing subsidies. These are not deals made by amateurs.
Should more money trickle down to athletes who essentially work for the university? Definitely. Even women’s basketball, once thought of as the “real” amateur game in town, has changed. Although the gender gap in salaries between coaches of men’s and women’s big-time basketball programs in the Atlantic Coast Conference and Southeastern Conference are still considerable (the average men’s coach makes about $1.2 million compared to about $443,000 for a woman’s coach), there are some women’s coaches who have a stake in the million-dollar game — most notably Tennessee’s Pat Summit, Connecticut’s Gino Auriemma and Texas’s Gail Goestenkors. And whatever the salary, bonuses for winning are no longer the exclusive domain of male coaches.
So where are the amateurs? According to the N.C.A.A., the “amateurs” are the athletes who play the games. These are the very same revenue-producing athletes who might be on a full scholarship but end up in debt because there is a gap between what the scholarship provides and the cost of their education — a gap, which on average is about $2,500 a year. While the college sport officials, coaches and administrators would not make deals with corporate entities without adequate counsel to advise them and protect their interests at the negotiating table, the “amateur” talent, in order to remain eligible, is barred according to N.C.A.A. regulations from having adequate legal counsel to represent them.
Should more money trickle down to athletes who essentially work for the university? Definitely. Will more money trick down to them? It’s difficult to say. The N.C.A.A. rules defining amateurism have been remarkably resilient over the years despite what the market says.
THE ASSAULT ON UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR'S TENURE AND COMPENSATION WE SEE TODAY IS A DIRECT RESULT OF WHAT WAS AN ABUSIVE SYSTEM OF GRADUATE STUDENTS USED AS THE SURROGATE TEACHING ASSISTANT WHILE THE PROFESSOR DID THE RESEARCH. THIS IS BEEN A LONGSTANDING GRUDGE FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS. IT HAS REACHED A TIPPING POINT IN PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES AND IS NOW POISED TO HIT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AS THIS MODEL MOVES TO PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE POINT IS THAT STUDENTS SHOULDN'T BE IN THIS POSITION AT ALL. WHAT THESE 'INNOVATION CENTERS' DO IS PUT THIS PRACTICE IN OVERDRIVE. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN A STUDENT WORK PROGRAM THAT HAS YOU STAFFING A LIBRARY FOR TUITION AID AND HAVING STUDENTS SHOULDER THE WORK OF THE UNIVERSITY/CORPORATE REVENUE MAKING ADVENTURES.
Graduate Students At Private Universities Petition Labor Board For Right To Organize Unions By Travis Waldron on Jul 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm ThinkProgress
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is revisiting a previous decision that denied graduate students who work as research assistants at private universities the right to organize and collectively bargain, drawing protests from prestigious private universities and their allies. In 2004, the NLRB prohibited the unionization of graduate-student assistants at private universities when it ruled that they were students, not employees of the university.
A NLRB regional director ruled last year, however, that some graduate assistants at New York University have “a dual relationship” that is “both academic and economic,” a decision the would make them employees and gave the NLRB an opening to revisit its decision. Private universities opposed that decision and, in briefs reviewed by the Chronicle of Higher Education, said giving labor rights to student workers would undermine the private graduate system:
“It is no exaggeration to state that the future of American private graduate education is at stake in these cases,” argued a brief submitted by Brown University, which faces the prospect of the board reversing a 2004 decision that prohibited the unionization of its graduate-student assistants.
The American Council on Education joined several other higher-education associations in arguing, “Students enroll in graduate school to complete their higher education, not to work for wages. Their relationship with the university is fundamentally one of a student and teacher, not master-servant.”
Brown’s claim that the system “is at stake” if the NLRB decides in favor of the student workers does seem to be an exaggeration, given that graduate student workers at public universities have had the right to organize and collectively bargain for decades, and those schools continue to grow and prosper. (Public graduate students are governed by state labor laws, not the NLRB.)
The ACE’s claim, meanwhile, that students shouldn’t have rights because they are students ignores that these students do, indeed, work for wages, a fact that would seem to grant them an economic relationship covered by labor law. The NLRB has also previously decided that other workers in graduate schools — such as apprentices — are subject to the National Labor Relations Act. Medical residents are also subject to labor law, though the ACE argues that their precedent does not apply because they have already graduated.
“Nobody who looks at the reality of the current university today can argue that graduate students are not employees,” Kate Bronfenbrenner, the director of labor education research at Cornell University, told the Cornell Daily Sun in 2010. “Graduate students are used as workers in the University — they are hired to fill in wherever there are openings. The faculty doesn’t spend time teaching graduate students how to teach — they use them as employees to do the teaching for them.”
I AM WRITING TO STATE COMPTROLLER PETER FRANCHOT, A CHAMPION FOR THE TAXPAYER.......CORPORATE THAT IS. IT IS HIS OFFICE THAT MONITORS NON-PROFIT TAX EXEMPTION SO I AM ASKING HOW THE CORPORATIZATION OF JOHNS HOPKINS AND UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AFFECTS THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS. NO DOUBT FRANCHOT WILL SAY HE ONLY ENFORCES THE LAWS HE DOESN'T MAKE THEM SO WE WILL SEND THE LETTER TO THE MARYLAND SENATE AND BALTIMORE CITY TAX COMMITTEE ASKING WHERE ARE THE LAWS? IF FRANCHOT, LIKE ATTORNEY GENERAL GANSLER WERE LOOKING OUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND NOT THE CORPORATION THEY BOTH WOULD BE SHOUTING AGAINST THIS QUASI-CORPORATE STATE THAT THE THIRD WAY SEES ALL BUSINESSES JOINING GOBBLING ALL TAX REVENUE.
Johns Hopkins University Mission Statement
The mission of The Johns Hopkins University is to educate its students and cultivate their capacity for life-long learning, to foster independent and original research, and to bring the benefits of discovery to the world.
State Income Tax Exemption
John P. McDonough, Secretary of State
Upon receiving an IRS tax determination letter stating that your organization is exempt from federal income taxes, your organization may also apply for an exemption from state income taxes. The Comptroller of the Treasury is the state agency responsible for acknowledging an exemption from Maryland income tax.
To apply for a state income tax exemption, your organization should submit to the Legal Department of the Revenue Administration Division the following information:
- Request for exemption from Maryland income tax;
- An explanation of the nature, purpose, and scope of your organization;
- A copy of the IRS tax determination letter;
- A copy of your organization's by-laws; and
- A copy of the latest financial statement of your organization.
The request for a state income tax exemption and the supporting documentation should be forwarded to the Comptroller of the Treasury, Revenue Administration Division, 110 Carroll Street, Annapolis MD 21411 and to the attention of the Legal Department. The telephone numbers of the Revenue Administration Division are 1-800-MD TAXES (638-2937) and 410-260-7980.
YOU CAN BET THESE GUYS HAVE NO INTENTION IN MAKING THESE NEW QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR TAX PAYING. THESE PARTNERSHIPS ARE A MODEL FOR ALL BUSINESS CONNECTIONS AND A FAILURE TO TAX THESE UNIVERSITY INNOVATION CENTERS NOW WILL SET THE STAGE FOR CORPORATE EXEMPTION FROM TAXES. THERE ARE THOSE WHO FEEL THAT CORPORATIONS SHOULDN'T PAY TAXES BUT I DARE SAY IF YOU AND I ARE LEFT PAYING FOR ALL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, WARS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE, WHEN CORPORATIONS USE AN OVER-SIZED AMOUNT OF ALL, THE ENTIRE ECONOMY WILL BECOME BASED ON CORPORATE AND SHAREHOLDER PROFITS......WHICH IS THE THIRD WAY POINT AND HAPPENING NOW.
MARYLAND SENATE BUDGET AND TAXATION COMMITTEE
NATHANIEL J. McFADDEN
Democrat, District 45, Baltimore City
- Miller Senate Office Building, Room 422
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3165, (301) 858-3165
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3165 (toll free)
fax: (410) 841-3138, (301) 858-3138
BALTIMORE CITY TAXATION, FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Carl Stokes, Chair (410) 396-4811
Date: August 26, 2012
To: Maryland State Comptroller Franchot - Tax Exemption
Maryland Senator Nathaniel McFadden - Budget and Taxation Committee
Baltimore City Councilman Carl Stokes - Taxation and
From: Cindy Walsh
RE: Rethinking tax exemption for 'corporatized' universities
The State of Maryland is in the process of incorporating technology or innovation centers into their academic structure with the expressed mission of providing market value for research done on the campus and by extension reaping financial gains for the university from those products and patents. Whereas a great many citizens in Maryland plan to fight and reverse this trend, it is prudent to have laws in place that recognize this move from a non-profit academic university to one of a profit-making corporate subsidiary. It is wise to define not only this development and marketing mission in the description but also the size of the institution as universities have always been singular institutions with maybe a few off-site satellites and what is being created now are regional and if left unchecked nationally positioned institutions. This is clearly not the intent of a non-profit designation. If an organization if left to grow without restriction simply because it uses profits to grow the organization rather than pay dividends, then we all know the final result will be an eventual privatization of an organization built purely on taxpayer money. Which is no doubt the objective of this process.
Our organization would like an explanation as to how the Federal, State, and local governing bodies are working together to create a restructuring of tax designation for these quasi-governmental agencies.