A subcommittee of the University of Minnesota’s governing board recommended Friday that Regent Steve Sviggum choose between his job at the U and his post with the Senate Republicans.
In perhaps the most contentious meeting in recent history of the normally harmonious board, Sviggum vigorously objected to the three-regent panel’s assertions that his partisan post at the Senate represented a conflict of interest with his duties leading the university.
Sviggum made personal appeals to the regents, criticized members of the media and called out to the university’s lawyers in the crowd during the hour-long meeting.
“I come to you with a hole in my stomach the size of lake Mille Lacs,” he said. “I haven’t been able to sleep.
“I come here today with my feeling of being a victim, with my feeling of being an underdog,” he added.
The former House speaker defended his mid-January decision to take a job as the executive assistant and communications director for the Senate Republican caucus, and said the regents were wrong in their accusations that it was a conflict of interest that couldn’t be resolved.
Sviggum also said he conferred with the university’s lawyer and the board’s leadership – who gave the OK, he said -- before taking the position. He even offered take a lie detector test over his descriptions of these discussions.
But board Vice Chairman David Larson disputed his claims. “I’m here to tell you that that’s absolutely untrue,” Larson said. “That is completely untrue.”
The ad-hoc committee’s decision, the culmination of a process board Chairwoman Linda Cohen initiated after Sviggum went public with the news, was also based on two legal opinions commissioned by the university that said Sviggum couldn’t keep both jobs.
Sviggum presented his own supportive legal opinion from a confidential attorney.
The opinions from university General Counsel Mark Rotenberg and external attorney John Stout were largely similar and addressed the same issues. They wrote that Sviggum’s dual roles would erode public trust in the university and that it could affect the institution’s autonomy from the state government.
Based on those and other concerns, the committee decided Friday that Sviggum’s positions represented a “fundamental, systemic conflict that cannot be managed or cured by means commonly used to address … conflicts.”
“I and the rest of the regents have an obligation to defend the autonomy and the independence of the university,” Regent David McMillan told the panel. “That is not possible in this situation, I fear.”
The group forwarded the recommendation that Sviggum vacate one of the posts to the full board, which will vote on the matter next week. Regents are unpaid, but his Senate salary is $102,000 annually.
Sviggum is not legally required to step down if the rest of the regents agree with Cohen, and hasn’t said what he’ll do so. Cohen said she hopes Sviggum will abide by the board’s decision, as, she said, he is “obligated” to do.
“I’m a down home farmer trying to do the right thing, and that’s why I’m not going to walk out of here and resign,” Sviggum told the panel.
“Why would I do so when minds are already made up and conclusions have already been made?” he asked the committee.
Sviggum’s impassioned speech and accusations have shaken up the typically placid regents process. Since his appointment last year, Sviggum and former GOP Rep. Laura Brod have livened debate among board members. Those two frequently cast the only dissenting votes.
Sviggum said he understood that he could be a “pain in the butt” on the board, but said it’s crucial to spur vigorous debate.
This is the second time regents have asked Sviggum to step down from a job. The board voted last March to have him choose between a fellowship at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and his position at a regent.