![]() ![]() In Idaho’s deal, the University of Idaho would not have to pay the nonprofit licensing fees for its proprietary technology, such as the back-end processes of delivering online courses, according to Walker. “In other words, if (the nonprofit) had something, whether it’s technology, or the capabilities to collect data, or the alumni relations or the corporate relations, … the UA system would have to negotiate to purchase that from (the nonprofit board),” Crass said. ![]() “Neither the University of Idaho nor the State of Idaho have liability arising from a suit for damages against Four Three Education, Inc.”Ĭrass was also concerned that, without majority control of the board, the University of Arkansas would have difficulty negotiating with the nonprofit board to determine any fees that the University of Arkansas would have to pay for services. “After the closing, the University of Phoenix will operate through the new owner, Four Three Education, Inc., which is a separate legal entity from the University of Idaho and from the state of Idaho,” Walker wrote in an email. The University of Idaho would still be isolated from legal liability, according to Walker. That would give the Idaho State Board of Education much more control over the actions of the nonprofit, Four Three Education Inc. In Idaho’s case, though, the University of Idaho Regents - which is the Idaho State Board of Education - would appoint all of the nonprofit’s board members and be able to remove any board members, according to Jodi Walker, University of Idaho spokesperson. That minority control had a whole host of concerns for Crass and other members who voted against the deal, including the ability to negotiate revenue sharing, the ability to stop bad business practices and the ability to negotiate deals for the use of University of Phoenix technology. “And it wouldn’t have control of that entity’s governance because legally, we were told that having a majority of the board would deem it more than a mere affiliate and then it would impact the system’s credit rating.” “My primary reason for voting against it had to do with the fact that the University of Arkansas System would not have control of the governance of that entity,” board member Kevin Crass told me in a phone interview. One of the main sticking points in the Arkansas deal was that the University of Arkansas system would have been able to appoint only a minority of members to the board of the nonprofit, Transformative Educational Services, that would run the University of Phoenix. Idaho’s deal is structured a little differently in a way that mitigates those concerns. But there were a couple of key concerns that killed the deal in Arkansas. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |