Главный исполнительный директор IBM Corp. Вирджиния (Джинни) Рометти вошла в команду из 16 бизнес-лидеров, которые будут консультировать избранного президента США Дональда Трампа, пишет The Wall Street Journal.
Избранный президент США Дональд Трамп создаст форум для обсуждения реализации своей предвыборной программы с представителями крупнейших американских компаний. Как сообщает Politico со ссылкой на переходную команду господина Трампа, форум по стратегии и политике создан для того, чтобы президент мог «в честной и небюрократической манере» получать информацию «от лучших и самых выдающихся людей из мира бизнеса».В форуме примут участие председатель совета директоров компании Blackstone Стивен Шварцман, руководитель JPMorgan Chase & Co Джеймс Даймон, глава компании BlackRock Ларри Финк, глава General Motors Мэри Барра, директор The Walt Disney Company Роберт Айгер, исполнительный директор Wal-Mart Даг Макмиллон и еще 10 других представителей бизнеса.«Члены форума будут ответственны за предоставление президенту своего личного мнения,— с учетом их уникальных знаний частного сектора,— о том, как решения правительства влияют на экономический рост, создание рабочих мест и производительность»,— добавили представители…
Победитель выборов президента США Дональд Трамп учредил Фонд стратегии и политики, призванный обеспечить прямой доступ представителей крупного бизнеса к президенту США.
The private equity titan's net worth has more than doubled in the last five years.
(Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg) As one of Wall Street’s richest and most powerful titans, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and CEO of Blackstone (and #45on FORBES 400) seems a pretty unlikely voice for the economically dispossessed. But in front of a room full of journalists last night, he said he understood why many in [...]
Чистая прибыль американской инвестиционной компании Blackstone Group по итогам первых девяти месяцев 2016 года составила 1,479 миллиарда долларов, что на 20% больше показателя за аналогичный период 2015 года, сообщается в отчетности компании.
BEIJING (Reuters) - When Blackstone Group Co-founder and Chief Executive Stephen Schwarzman was asked by the president of China's elite Tsinghua University to design a major initiative for the...
On Tuesday, The Associated Press published a sweeping new investigation into the mingling of Clinton Foundation donors and official State Department business. It has since come under fire for conceptual and structural flaws. By limiting its investigation of the Clinton Foundation to specific financial contributions that led to direct and specific benefits for donors, The Associated Press left itself vulnerable to criticism that no verifiable “quid pro quo” could be established from its findings. By trying to cram its findings into a small box, it distorted what it found, and missed the bigger picture. If the AP had conceived of the donations as just one of many exchanges of money, prestige and reciprocal back-patting that bind global elites, its case against the Clintons would be considerably stronger. So, with that vision in mind, we’ve done a write-through of the AP’s story ― a heavy edit that relies in many places on their words and reporting, but casts the article in a broader light. The parts in bold come directly from the AP. The rest are our additions. You’re welcome, AP. WASHINGTON ― At least 101* people who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Hillary Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 101 donors contributed as much as $326 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and at least 20 gave more than $1 million. Among those granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and representatives of Gulf state governments working to undermine negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors. The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs. Some of Clinton’s most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband’s political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half of her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records. The case of Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest “microcredit” for poor business owners, may be among the most instructive. Although critics such as GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump charge that the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, fueling perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton, the reality is that the overlap is a function of a worldwide capitalistic system in which oligarchs, corporate CEOs and celebrity heads of state mingle to form a global elite that dictates a global agenda. This can sometimes take the form of quid pro quos, but it is more often a subtle form of exchange, in which exclusion from or inclusion within an elite club depends as much on whom you know as the size of the check you can write. The use of the Clintons in this way, and their willingness to be used, is ‘crony capitalism’ in a very clear form. James Galbraith, University of Texas The Clintons did not create this system, but they have become central players within it. It is a cozy world inhabited by a select coterie of political, business and media elites, where tomorrow’s news is often the product of a not-so-serendipitous conversation between a TV pundit and a corporate CEO who were introduced by a foreign minister they both know. In addition to “talking shop” ― exchanging the tips of their respective trades ― they speak about solutions to social ills they rarely encounter directly, typically entertaining ideas within a narrow spectrum of proposals that do not threaten their world view. So many such encounters occur at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland ― more commonly known as “Davos” ― that the gathering has become a descriptor for a certain breed of cosmopolitan, international elite: the Davos set. Hillary and Bill Clinton are stars of the Davos set; so is Muhammad Yunus. [Yunus] met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank’s board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him. “The use of the Clintons in this way, and their willingness to be used, is ‘crony capitalism’ in a very clear form,” said University of Texas economist James Galbraith. “It’s a matter of forming your views of merit on the basis of what wealthy people and their acolytes advise you, and on the basis of personal connections made over the years. Connections that are not made with people who are not wealthy.” American affiliates of [Yunus’] nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank’s nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation - a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution’s annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000. But Clinton didn’t need checks from Yunus to know who he was. In fact, the Clintons have a longstanding friendship with Yunus and admiration for his microcredit work that predates any financial contribution he made to the Clinton Foundation. Then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton highlighted Yunus and Grameen Bank as a model for harnessing the “power of the government … to create market forces that work” in an interview with the Rolling Stone during his 1992 presidential run. Clinton had met Yunus several years prior in an encounter organized by a friend of Hillary’s, Clinton told Rolling Stone. Hillary Clinton first met Yunus in 1983, as first lady of Arkansas, she said in a January 2009 speech, at the start of her term as secretary of state. She had invited him to visit Arkansas so she could learn about ways microfinance ― a broader field of low-income banking of which microcredit is a part ― could relieve poverty in the state. AP said Muhammad Yunus got access to HRC in '09 as a Fdn donor. But here she is with him in '90s before Fdn existed pic.twitter.com/3xvc7OcJLF— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) August 24, 2016 As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department’s foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton’s tenure. By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton’s top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh’s government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money ― a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case. “Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way,” he asked Verveer. Yunus sent “regards to H” and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend. Clinton ordered an aide: “Give to EAP rep,” referring the problem to the agency’s top east Asia expert. Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh’s prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert “ASAP.” Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that “the situation does not allow me to leave the country.” By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank’s board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: “Sad indeed.” Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton’s arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank’s effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that “we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank.” Grameen America’s Asch noted that all foundation donations were made by Grameen entities and not personally from Yunus. The trouble with Clinton’s actions is not that she intervened on behalf of Yunus, a friend who predated her term as secretary of state. In a sea of hundreds of millions of dollars in foundation contributions, the six-figure contributions from institutions Yunus ran likely did not stand out. It is that their longstanding friendship ― and shared membership in the Davos club ― blinded Clinton to the credibility of the malpractice claims against Yunus. Clinton simply asked her staff to intervene on his behalf without any apparent request to check into the allegations first. Despite Yunus’ protestations, the investigation into his business activity was not without merit. The Norwegian government objected to Yunus’ reallocation of $100 million meant for microloans in Bangladesh, after finding that Yunus had improperly moved it from his bank to a separate entity he owned. But Yunus only restored $30 million of the donation to the fund it had been earmarked for, according to the Danish-made documentary film “Caught in Micro Debt.” When Norway expressed its concerns over Yunus’ handling of the money, he appealed to the country’s aid ministry to ensure that their rebukes did not reach a wider audience. “If the people, within and outside government, who are not supportive of Grameen, get hold of this letter, we’ll face real problems in Bangladesh,” Yunus wrote in a letter to the director-general of the Norwegian aid ministry, which was revealed in the documentary. Beyond Yunus’ alleged financial misdeeds, there is ample scholarship casting doubt on the scale of the success of the very microcredit techniques that are the source of his prestige. As microlending operations have grown, they have become vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous individuals, who have turned many into for-profit, high-interest enterprises that trap poor borrowers in a never-ending cycle of debt. The left likes the attention to the poor, whereas the right like the individual responsibility aspect of a loan rather than a grant. Dean Karlan, Yale Yunus’ Grameen Bank itself appears to have avoided accusations of this kind. Yunus nonetheless felt obligated to condemn the trend in a 2011 op-ed in The New York Times. But even many experts who respect the achievements of microcredit and believe Grameen is a force for good overall argue that the strategy has failed to live up to its promise as a pathway out of poverty in developing countries. Microcredit “seems to have consistent benefits for keeping people out of extreme poverty,” but not allowing them to escape poverty entirely, said Kentaro Toyama of the University of Michigan, who has studied the practice. Why then does Yunus continue to enjoy such acclaim for his microfinance work? One answer may lie in Bill Clinton’s 1992 comments to Rolling Stone about finding antipoverty policies that work within the free market rather than trying to upend or counter it. The tiny loans have gotten traction with the Davos set, because the idea “appeals to all sides of the political fence,” said Dean Karlan, a global poverty reduction specialist at Yale who expressed a view similar to Toyama’s about the practice’s efficacy. “The left likes the attention to the poor, whereas the right like the individual responsibility aspect of a loan rather than a grant,” he said. “It is a good example of markets working to make the world a better place.” In this way, microcredit has the advantage of indulging the Davos set’s self-serving conviction that there is no global problem that free markets cannot solve if properly oriented. That exonerates these elites from confronting the fact that the same capitalist system that has enriched them may be responsible for some of the world’s worst human suffering ― and that resolving those ills would require them to make more profound sacrifices than a tax-deductible donation that conveniently provides access to the world’s most powerful couple. Toyama attributes the popularity of Yunus’ microcredit among the philanthropic crowd to something much simpler: low risk and guaranteed return in the form of interest payments and perceived poverty reduction on the ground. “You get your money back,” he said. “You really don’t have to do anything other than take a small hit on interest you might make on other means.” By contrast, deeper anti-poverty measures like funding high-quality education in the developing world ― which has the potential to lift people out of poverty rather than merely alleviate it, as microfinance does ― require lots of “money, effort and extremely good management and leadership,” according to Toyama. “All of those things are very hard and things wealthy people are reluctant to give to because it never pays itself back in the short term,” he said. In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke. The Schwarzman meetings are typical of how elites are able to get better access to government officials and service than those who are not honored guests at the Kennedy Center. The visa issue Schwarzman needed assistance with was quite likely legitimate. His ability to get the personal assistance of the secretary of state does not add up to a bribe exchanged for a visa. But it reflects a stratified society in which the rich and well-connected can easily call in government favors to resolve issues that might require painstaking navigation of bureaucracy for ordinary citizens. Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone’s charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment. When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama’s transition team. Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation. “The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism,” Lugar said. But even if the Clintons are no longer formally involved with the foundation or its finances, the friendships and status they cultivated as celebrated members of the global elite will persist. As a result, the favoritism Clinton showed as secretary of state will likely continue if and when she occupies the White House. *The AP excluded donations from foreign governments who ended up getting meetings, “because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.” That makes no sense. Nearly all of the other meetings Clinton had ― with a nonprofit doing global AIDS work, for instance ― were also part of diplomatic duties, as was overseeing the visa process. The question is not whether the duties fall within or without the scope of a secretary of state, but whether she favored one such duty over another as a result of this web of relationships. So we fixed this for the AP by adding foreign governments back in. As a result, we have removed the proportion of visits by donors that the AP calculated. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
by Ashley Balcerzak and Alec Goodwin This party appeared to have all the ingredients for success, as these things go: cool venue, lots of food and drink, and a mix of corporate sponsors and lawmaker guests... Republicans are denouncing Ohio Gov. John Kasich for ditching his own party's convention held in the state he governs. Of course, he's not the only nationally known GOP leader to skip the proceedings. It gets worse, though: None of Monday's or today's prime-time speakers at the Cleveland confab have donated more than $200 to Donald Trump's campaign or the super PACs that support him, according to an analysis by OpenSecrets Blog of FEC filings through May 31. In fact, as far as we can tell, only nine of the 25 speakers (or their spouses) last night and just seven of the 19 speakers listed for tonight gave money to any federal Republican candidates, PACs, or super PACs during the 2016 cycle -- and that includes the $2,700 that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie donated to his own presidential campaign. (Donors who have given less than $200 aren't named in FEC reports, so we can't say whether the individuals donated at all to the Trump effort.) Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has given the most to other Republican candidates and committees: $22,434. That went mostly to the National Republican Congressional Committee and establishment Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Giuliani's wife gave $567 to Trump's primary opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Coming in at No. 2 is Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and scheduled to speak tonight. White has given a cumulative $16,200 to Chuck Grassley, Joe Heck and the Republican National Senatorial Committee. Also, former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey gave $5,000 to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's leadership PAC, and $1,500 to Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), another Trump primary rival. And, most surprising for a speaker at the GOP convention, Mukasey has given $400 to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. In addition, so far, the Republican National Convention's stage has been devoid of leadership figures who have endorsed Trump. That changes tonight, when House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) are set to speak. This is not a pair afraid to ask for funds, nor do they have a hard time corralling them. The biggest donors to Ryan's campaign committee and leadership PAC since 2000 include employees from Northwestern Mutual (including CEO John Schlifske); Blue Cross/Blue Shield (including former CEO Thomas Hefty); and Koch Industries (with donations from billionaire David Koch). They've given a total of $443,000. McConnell's top contributors since 1998 to his campaign and leadership PAC, Bluegrass Committee, came from employees of the Blackstone Group (including CEO Stephen Schwarzman), Kindred Healthcare (CEO Paul Diaz, for instance) and health insurance company Humana Inc. (from now-CEO Michael McCallister). Their contributions total $729,577 over that time period. The Senate leader also is especially popular with retirees and those in the finance and petroleum industries. Outside groups spent more than $22 million helping McConnell stay in the Senate in 2014, more than double the support his challenger, Alison Grimes, received from outside spending groups. The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition (a dark money outfit that spent $7.5 million against Grimes and received funds from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America and Crossroads GPS, another dark money group, among others) and super PAC Kentuckians for Strong Leadership (backed by Robert McNair, owner of the Houston Texans football team and Lawrence DeGeorge, CEO of LPL Investment Group) played both defense and offense for McConnell. Reps for both McConnell and Ryan did not return requests for comment on their party (or any other) schedules at the convention. We'll continue to keep our eyes peeled. OpenSecrets Blog party-hopped until 1:30 a.m. Monday night, but it was a tad disappointing. ...but things were a little slow. Corporate sponsors took over the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for a bash scheduled to last until 2 a.m., studding the museum with five open bars, a DJ booth and dance floor with flashing lights, not to mention tables and tables filled with dinner, dessert and coffee spreads. The companies behind the festivities (AT&T, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AFLAC, Microsoft and Pepsico) overestimated the attendance numbers, though, giving invitees five floors to roam. When OpenSecrets Blog reporters staked out the party, most areas appeared deserted, with small groups of people clumping around the food tables and bars, the majority of each floor empty. Unfortunately, the event didn't seem to go as planned in other ways, too. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) were scheduled to speak, but according to event organizers, both showed up and skipped out a short time later without doing any stage time. The offices of Cornyn and Wicker did not respond to a request for comment. And while the Hall of Fame overlooks the North Coast Harbor Marina on Lake Erie, the "Rock and Dock" area wasn't hosting any boat-based bashes. The most raucous gathering OpenSecrets witnessed was one of the pop-up shows by political supergroup Prophets of Rage, which includes members of Rage Against the Machine, Cyprus Hill and Public Enemy. The musicians drew a crowd to the Public Square Park even in the stifling heat, shouting lyrics into megaphones with background music blasting through large speakers. Today, Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm, hosted a birthday celebration for former Sen. Bob Dole's 93rd at Morton's steakhouse. We wanted to join in the fun but were politely asked to buzz off with not even a cupcake; others, however, told us that Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Sens. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) were inside, which must have been nice for Alston's clients, including Aetna, ConocoPhillips and Nokia. Other promising plans on today's schedule included the Marathon Petroleum kayak race featuring Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) (which was a fundraiser for Wounded Warriors) and a Dentons celebration with Newt Gingrich. Researcher Robert Maguire contributed reporting. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Plus, Cover Story Features Stephen Schwarzman, Wall Street’s Unstoppable Force **Please include a link to www.Forbes.com/moneymasters in any coverage** NEW YORK (May 11, 2016) — Forbes launches its first ever Money Masters list (Forbes, p. 78, May 31, 2016) featuring the top 40 financiers who dominate the world of money, from banking [...]
After every crisis of the past three decades, Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman has come out a winner. More than $32 billion later, he's just getting started. Inside the mind of a market master.
Чем оказался так заразителен пример американского миллиардера Уорреан Баффета, отказавшегося пользоваться смартфоном? Почему Франция собирается рассмотреть законопроект о «праве отключать электронные устройства»? Выяснить это попытался Ник Клейтон из BBC Capital. В мире наблюдается такая тенденция […]
As you might be expecting from the headline, I am going to be talking about the Panama papers in this article, but the Panama papers revelations are just the tip of the iceberg, so before I get there, I have to spend some time talking about an array of other members of the .1 of the one percent who apparently have no concern whatsoever about breaking the law. I want to highlight this issue not only because I am angry to hear about all this cheating, but because we as a society have to do something serious about it: The costs are just too huge. It is bad enough that governments all over the world are shorted hundreds of billions of tax dollars owed, and the rest of us taxpayers have to bear the consequences. What is just as bad is that legitimate, law-abiding businesses who are doing the right thing are having to compete against the cheaters, making it less likely that good businesses succeed, and making it less likely that most businesses will play by the rules and be good corporate citizens. When governments allow lawbreakers to go unpunished, there will be a lot more law breaking. Let's start with the Koch brothers and their circle of friends who give big checks to organizations that hate government. You don't have to get very far in Jane Mayer's superb book Dark Money to find a list of hyper-wealthy corporate conservatives who are (a) willing to invest money in far right causes, and are (b) lawbreakers on a massive scale. As Mayer makes quite clear, there is a clear connection between the two much of the time. She gives a list several of the richest men who are known to be part of the Koch brothers' network of rich friends and invest in their preferred causes and candidates, and talks about their transgressions. As she wrote about Wall Street financiers Steven A. Cohen, Paul Singer, and Stephen Schwarzman, "All might have been principled philosophical conservatives, with no ulterior motives, but all also had personal reasons to fear a more assertive federal government..." Prosecutors investigating Cohen's firm described it as "a veritable magnet of market cheaters." Singer is probably America's leading vulture capitalist, famous for buying up the distressed debt of countries and cities and then, ironically, using his clout with other government officials to squeeze hard to get those countries to cut off money for education and pensions so that he can make millions in profits. Schwarzman is famous for comparing proposals to tax carried interest at a higher rate to Naziism. Then there was the high frequency stock trader who the IRS has investigated for illegally avoiding paying billions in taxes; Ken Langone, who became well-known during the financial crisis for giving his buddy Dick Grasso $139.5 million to head the New York Stock Exchange, a position from which Grasso had to resign because so many people were outraged by the sweetheart deal; Richard Strong, banned from the financial industry for life following improper trades (can you imagine how corrupt you have to be in the financial industry in order to get banned for life?); Phillip Anschutz, founder of Quest Communications, who tried illegal maneuvers to avoid paying already low capital gains taxes; Richard Devos, founder of Amway, who pleaded guilty to defrauding the Canadian government; Sheldon Adelson, who was investigated for bribery charges to foreign governments and who a series of investigative journalists have linked to Asian mafia figures in his casinos in China. And of course, we can't forget the Kochs themselves, who have been in almost continuous trouble with government authorities for all manner of issues. For a handy summary of their transgressions, check out this remarkable Rolling Stone magazine article: Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire. While they came by their far right politics from their father, who was a founder of the John Birch Society and believed Dwight Eisenhower was a communist, their hatred of the government is certainly driven by the fact that certain government agencies like the EPA expect them to actually follow the law. Mayer notes how many of the Koch associates who share their affinity for right wing, anti-government causes are in the finance industry, but it is not just the Kochs' friends who apparently don't mind breaking a law or three. Depending on which media or think tank estimate you go with, the financial industry has paid between $200 billion and $250 billion in fines to the federal government for all manner of illegal behavior since 2009 -- the robo-signing perjury scandal, the LIBOR scandal, abuses in mortgage securities, the HSBC money laundering for drug cartels scandal, conflict of interest scandals, tax avoidance scandals. Those are a lot of scandals, folks. And the most amazing thing about all this wanton law breaking was that many legal analysts thought these banks were getting off easy compared to the crimes that were committed. Again, though, it isn't just Wall Street, and it isn't just the Koch brothers' friends. There are also a whole set of emerging issues in the tech industry. For example, check out this recent article on the sharing economy: The Sharing Economy Doesn't Share the Wealth. It describes how companies like Airbnb and Uber are figuring out how to avoid paying huge amounts of taxes that their competitors in the hotel and taxicab industry have to pay. And then there is this:The Rise of Commercial Operators on Airbnb. In it, the hotel industry, in conjunction with a team of professors at Penn St, documents how Airbnb is setting up a series of illegal hotels in cities around the country, where the owners of housing operate in every way like a hotel except for having to comply with none of the safety and security and zoning laws by which the rest of the hotel industry operates. Meanwhile, Airbnb is going to Republican state legislatures around the country and trying to get states to pre-empt any regulation of these illegal hotels by cities who might be concerned about the havoc being caused by them. Oil companies, big banks on Wall St, tech giants -- and I haven't even gotten to the Panama papers yet, the massive money laundering and tax avoidance scheme on the front pages of newspapers all over the world. Too many of the top .1 of the one percent, who already have every advantage over everyone else in the world, have become so greedy and so utterly amoral that they are fundamentally eroding our society's democracy, government and sense of morality. If the rules aren't enforced for those at the top, why should anyone else in society have a respect for those rules. This is why it is urgent for government to crack down on the tax cheats, the money launderers, the bankers and big oil companies and tech industry titans who break the law. This is a very big deal. The community banks and credit unions who make their money the old fashioned way by lending it out to people in their community, the people who run honest hotels, the small business people trying to compete fairly in the community: they deserve a level playing field. And the rest of who work hard and play by the rules, we deserve a country where the wealthiest among us have to play by those same rules. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
This weekend, the Yale Corporation will continue to deliberate the names of the two new colleges and the potential renaming of Calhoun College and the title master. In contrast to previous presidents who largely directed such significant decisions, University President Peter Salovey has approached the Corporation with a consensus-based attitude, prolonging decision-making. This article originally appeared in the Yale Daily News. It is near midnight on Nov. 12, 2015, and 200 students are marching on University President Peter Salovey’s house in the cold. Advocating for a more diverse and inclusive campus, they present Salovey with a set of demands. Their list includes, among other things, renaming Calhoun College, eliminating the title of master and naming the two new residential colleges after people of color. Just five days later, Salovey responds to campus concerns with a series of initiatives, one inviting the community to listening sessions with the Yale Corporation on naming. But the three issues remained unresolved. For more than seven months, the 17 members of the Yale Corporation, including Salovey, who chairs each of the body’s meetings, have been deliberating whether to rename Calhoun and eliminate the title of master. They have not yet announced a decision. The Corporation has also been debating what to name the two new residential colleges. This decision has not been reached either. In November, student activists demanded that Salovey address these issues within days. But for such unusual and significant items, who makes the actual decision: the president or the Corporation as a whole? To the surprise of former University leaders dating back 60 years, the answer now seems to be the Corporation. Interviews with Corporation members, former University President Richard Levin and various current and former administrators reveal that past presidents did not see the Corporation as a body that could or should make these types of decisions. Rather, they viewed the Corporation as a feedback mechanism that always accepted presidential recommendations — including on nonroutine issues like these three. “The Corporation simply never would have controlled these decisions,” said former University Secretary John Wilkinson ’60 GRD ’63, who served in the position under former University Presidents Bartlett Giamatti and Benno Schmidt in the 1980s. “[Giamatti] would have pulled out his hair and just started screaming if he were just another member of the Corporation on something this big. He would have had a fit.” But Salovey has taken a different approach. He told the News that upon his ascension to the presidency in 2013, Corporation members expressed a desire to become more involved in difficult decisions — a request he says fits his “collaborative leadership style.” As the Corporation prepares to meet this weekend, he said it is impossible to tell exactly when these three issues will be settled, but that the aim is for them to be resolved by the end of the academic year. When making certain far-reaching decisions, he said he sees himself as just another member of the Corporation and would like the body to reach a consensus at its own pace. “For nonroutine decisions that have broad and long-term implications, I think consensus, if it can be reached, is a better approach than simply asking for a vote on the president’s recommendation,” Salovey said. “So rather than the usual process of coming with a specific recommendation and asking the Corporation to endorse it, in the case of the naming of the new colleges, Calhoun College and the title of master, we’ll instead lay out options for them to consider.” In the months that the Yale community has waited for these issues to be resolved, both Harvard and Princeton have decided to eliminate the title of master and settled their own naming debates relatively quickly. And in these months, the implications of Salovey’s consensus-based approach have become clearer: Some praise it for encouraging thoughtfulness and fostering prudence early in his tenure; others lament that the model has prolonged the decision-making process, distributed accountability across the Corporation and inhibited student access to those with power. POWER WITHOUT PRECEDENT In justifying the Corporation’s control over the three naming issues, Woodbridge Hall administrators often point out that the Corporation named the first residential colleges in the 1930s and that the title of master is included in the University’s bylaws, which can only be altered by the Corporation. To Salovey, the long-term implications of these decisions necessitate extended conversations within the Corporation without the guidance, or restriction, of an overriding administrative recommendation. His aim is for a consensus to emerge. But former University leaders paint a picture of a historically different type of decision-making process for nonroutine issues — one in which Corporation members served as advisers and always followed the recommendations of the president. “It was not about consensus,” Levin said of his relationship with the Corporation. “While there is a healthy relationship between the president and the Corporation, the body is a sounding board for the ideas of the president, dean and officers. They give feedback, but they rarely actually decide the issue.” Levin added that after consulting with individual Corporation members, he would submit recommendations that were virtually never rebuked. Wilkinson and Sam Chauncey ’57 — who served as special assistant to former University President Kingman Brewster between 1963 and 1972 and secretary of the Corporation from 1973 to 1982 — went one step further. According to them, the University presidents under whom they served would have actively controlled the three issues the Corporation is currently deliberating. “Consensus was absolutely never the way it worked,” Chauncey said. “It isn’t like Brewster or Levin or Schmidt or Giamatti would walk in with some background research and say, ‘We have this problem — I don’t know what the hell to do about it so let’s figure it out …’ Trustees are there to receive a recommendation, to talk about it, to make honest criticism and to have a vote.” Granted, the nature of the presidency has evolved over the past few decades. As demonstrated by campus controversies in November, the University sits on a national stage, within which the president can face pressures from both within and without. Still, Salovey said if he were to attend Corporation meetings without recommendations, he would come prepared with broader options for consideration. Chauncey and Wilkinson said the various presidents under whom they served would have made recommendations on Calhoun, master and the residential colleges to which the Corporation would have undoubtedly adhered. “I never saw a recommendation turned down,” Wilkinson said. Chauncey explained that when Ezra Stiles and Morse Colleges were named in the early 1960s, then-University President Alfred Whitney Griswold submitted these two names to the Corporation, which readily approved both. On the contrary, Salovey said in February that he submitted roughly two dozen name possibilities for the new colleges to the Corporation for discussion. William Nordhaus ’63 GRD ’73, an economics professor who served as provost from 1986 to 1988 and a vice president from 1991 to 1992, said that during the time he had access to Corporation meetings as a high-ranking officer, presidential recommendations almost always guided the body. In his experience, the president is the chief executive officer of the University and controls major decisions, while the role of the Corporation is to dissect those decisions before approving them. However, this historically unilateral presidential approach prompted disbelief and opposition from current Woodbridge Hall administrators and Corporation members, many of whom said such a model would undermine the Corporation’s role in University governance. Chauncey said that even though the title of master is in the University’s bylaws, Brewster would have publicly announced whether he wanted the title altered and the Corporation would have fallen in line at its next meeting. But Corporation Fellow Charles Goodyear IV ’80, who has served with both Levin and Salovey, argued that the Corporation “owns these [three] decisions.” “That is not the way governance works,” he said. “If the president said we’re naming a college after Adolf Hitler before we met, would the Corporation say he’s a strong president so we agree with him? Absolutely not … The people of the Corporation historically are not shrinking violets, and if they are the ones who had accountability for the decisions, they will own it … We aren’t going to be patsies … I wouldn’t want to be a part of that board.” Still, Wilkinson said during his time, the value of the Corporation stemmed not from its decision-making power, but from its ability and responsibility to ask the president probing questions about his recommendations. Yet this former model of dominant presidential recommendations guiding the University seems to have faded, at least for these three decisions. “It depends on the issue, and [Salovey] is great at this: He loves to listen, and he does that extremely well. If there is a strong view from Corporation members, it is unlikely that [Salovey] is going to stand up and say ‘I am going to do something completely different,’” Goodyear told the News in October. SALOVEY'S MODEL Under Salovey, the Corporation has gained a degree of influence through its increased involvement in nonroutine decisions and the pace at which they are made. Salovey said while he is sensitive to members of the Yale community who would like matters to be settled more quickly, the reverberations of these decisions will be felt for generations and necessitate patience. “In my opinion, a weighty matter before the Corporation is not best decided by simply putting it up to a vote and seeing if there is a majority — I think it’s best decided when there has been a full and thorough vetting of that issue where everyone has been heard, and then, a consensus emerges,” Salovey said. Secretary and Vice President for Student Life Kimberly Goff-Crews and Vice President for Development and Alumni Affairs Joan O’Neill said rather than submit official recommendations on these three issues, Woodbridge Hall is looking to frame the Corporation’s conversations as it works toward a consensus. They explained that Woodbridge Hall administrators are providing the Corporation with background information on the three issues, drawing from listening sessions and surveys presented to the Yale community. Seeking to contextualize this shift in the decision-making process, Salovey said that, for routine issues, Corporation decisions are still directed by recommendations from him and other University administrators and that the Corporation’s jurisdiction over the naming of the two new residential colleges was decided under Levin. In explanation, Levin said he did not attempt to determine the names before retiring and that Corporation members are the stewards of the long-term health of Yale, thereby justifying their involvement. Corporation members — who technically are not authorized to speak publicly on Corporation matters — agreed that Salovey has emphasized collaboration. “Salovey is, I don’t want to say a consensus builder because that suggests a kind of softness — not at all — but he really wants an opportunity for people to weigh in,” Senior Fellow of the Corporation Margaret Marshall LAW ’75 said. Salovey, Woodbridge Hall administrators and Corporation members all said it is important to remember that Levin was president for two decades while Salovey is less than three years into the role, which perhaps explains his more inclusive approach. Donna Dubinsky ’77 — who has served on the Corporation since 2006 — said Salovey is more focused on hearing the perspective of the Corporation than Levin was. By the end of his tenure, Goodyear said Levin grew “very confident” and was deeply familiar with the perspectives of various Corporation members. A source who attends all Corporation meetings said by the end of his tenure, Levin became complacent and less focused on obtaining broad alignment. Several individuals interviewed went so far as to say Levin grew “dictatorial” in his approach to the Corporation and faculty-related issues, raising the possibility that Salovey’s style is being judged in a relative, not absolute, context. For now, Goodyear said Salovey appears more focused on collaboration, which may be due in part to his academic background. “He is a consensus guy; he is a psychologist; and he is very adept at [emotional intelligence]. That’s his style, but maybe 20 years from now he’ll come in and say ‘This is what we’re doing,’” Goodyear said. “But I do think [Salovey] is much more likely to canvass the Corporation.” Indeed, Wilkinson said Salovey’s expertise suggests that the Corporation has not seized power from him or that he lacks the courage to make decisions. Rather, it suggests that Salovey is sharing influence willingly, Wilkinson said. Dubinsky said Salovey approaches the Corporation with the mind of a psychologist, while Levin did so through the lens of an economist, enabling Levin to identify tradeoffs and constraints and guide the University through particularly difficult periods. She added that Salovey’s collaborative style fits Yale’s current needs and that the University is fortunate to have “the right guy at the right time.” In choosing a president to replace Levin, the Corporation chose Salovey, a world-renowned psychologist who had previously served as provost and dean of Yale College. Goodyear, who led the presidential search, said a desire to move away from the characteristics of the Levin era did not factor into the selection process. Yet Salovey said upon his ascension to the presidency, Corporation members expressed a desire to become more involved in addressing complex issues from the start. “Both through a combination of my style and the desire of Corporation members when I interviewed each of them … we are willing to have a more freewheeling discussion in the Corporation room on important issues that might not involve their reacting to specific recommendations,” Salovey said. As chair of Corporation meetings, Salovey said he has and will continue to express his opinions on current naming issues. And interviews with Corporation members suggest his opinions do carry significant weight because he is the president of the University. But there is an important distinction between Salovey sharing his point of view with the Corporation and submitting a recommendation for the body to ultimately abide by. And even Salovey emphasized that, for unusual matters, while he is not afraid of making recommendations, it is not his prerogative to dictate what the body decides or to formulate a timeline for the Corporation’s decision-making. “As president of the University, I can organize the discussion; I can provide materials in advance; I can express an opinion,” Salovey said. “But I think it would be a mistake to push for answers before the group is ready.” MORE TIME, LESS ACCOUNTABILITY This year has been the first real test of Salovey’s leadership style. The naming of the two new residential colleges, the potential renaming of Calhoun and the potential elimination of the title of master are arguably the most far-reaching and complex decisions Salovey has faced since assuming the presidency. “I have been on the Corporation for 10 years, and very few things we have grappled with have been at this level,” Dubinsky said. The Corporation’s increased influence over these major decisions has had sizable consequences. It is unclear to the Yale community who is to be held accountable on these issues, several former administrators and students said. Meanwhile, as the Corporation’s official agenda has grown in scope, the frequency with which the body meets has not increased — inevitably slowing decision-making. Goodyear, Chauncey and Wilkinson all said Salovey’s approach has both stalled the process and made it more unpredictable. Even Salovey agreed. “There is no doubt that striving toward a consensus takes more time than simply putting matters up to a vote,” Salovey said. “I’ve been wrong more often than right when I’ve hazarded a guess about when issues will be decided. It is very difficult to predict when [these] issues are going to be decided by them.” Thirty-eight of 40 students surveyed said the University should be moving more quickly to resolve these three issues. “It’s time to put these things to rest,” Jacob Bennett ’16 said. Salovey said that he agrees the naming debates have received much attention — both inside and outside the Corporation — and that the time has come, or will come soon, to “move on.” Unlike ongoing efforts to choose the names and masters of the two new residential colleges, Wilkinson pointed out that Stiles and Morse had both matters settled years before they opened through the influence of administrative recommendations. He also lamented that under Salovey, individuals who are physically detached from campus increasingly control major University decisions. “The consensus model is not going to work very well when you’re talking about a multibillion-dollar Corporation,” Wilkinson said. “Corporations like this need a firm hand and firm leadership. What worries me is that Corporation members, no matter how good they are, are only guests of the University.” In addition, the Corporation only has a small amount of time to discuss naming issues at each meeting. Each board meeting spans just three days, and the body’s confidential agenda includes many items outside of naming issues and the title of master. With the Corporation focusing on these three decisions across several meetings, Nordhaus expressed concern from the outside that the body may be neglecting its more traditional responsibilities. “Someone told me they’re not looking at investments because they’re spending all their time on the new colleges,” Nordhaus said. “I worry about that. Someone told me they’re spending time looking at different schools’ actions, and I worry about that. But I don’t see the agenda.” One high-ranking administrator who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject said University employees expected decisions to be made more efficiently under Salovey because he rose to prominence within Yale, and thus understands the inner workings of the University. Instead, the administrator said, decision-making has slowed not only for these three issues, but also in areas like capital campaign planning and the development of broader University strategy. Chauncey said Salovey’s model of consensus management risks robbing Yale of a true leader by distributing accountability throughout the Corporation, adding that other presidents would not have allowed such an increase in the body’s influence. “Every other president would have resigned by now,” Chancey said. “But if a president doesn’t want to make a mistake, the trustees will keep filling the vacuum … It is my belief that an institution like Yale can only progress if there is someone who is willing to take the responsibility of leadership by making recommendations, including those that might run the risk of getting him or her fired.” Salovey said that while he is willing to risk making errors, Corporation members have made their desire to be involved “quite clear.” Indeed, Goodyear said once these three issues are settled, he expects them to be presented to the Yale community as Corporation decisions instead of presidential decisions. That is not the case for typical issues, he said, which represent the vast majority of decisions and are “owned” by the president and his administration. Senior Advisor to the President Martha Highsmith said examples of issues guided by administrative recommendations include the construction of new buildings, increases in the Yale College term bill, the hiring of an officer and the naming of a professor to an endowed chair. It is, of course, too early to say that decisions made by consensus will be more or less effective than those produced by administrative recommendations, as these three issues are the first to truly test Salovey’s approach. While student memory largely extends only to Salovey’s inauguration, University faculty and administrators are still assessing his style in comparison to past presidents. Wilkinson said one benefit of Salovey’s model is that full discussion and deliberation will prevent “knee-jerk reactions.” He cited the actions of Harvard and Princeton concerning the title of master. Dean of the School of Management Edward Snyder noted that while the recommendation-based approach of previous presidents is commonly accepted in research on boards of governance, a more involved, consensus-based approach is as well. Stephen Schwarzman ’69 — the chairman and CEO of The Blackstone Group who donated $150 million to the University in May — said in his experiences with boards of governance, recommendation-based and consensus-based models each have merit. “In my experience, both can work,” Schwarzman said. PEERS MOVE FASTER By relying on consensus for nonroutine decisions, Salovey has ensured that Yale will not move as quickly, or impulsively, as Harvard and Princeton. Both universities decided to eliminate the title of master in the fall as college campuses across the nation were enveloped by conversations about racism and discrimination, and, in the past few weeks, each has addressed a naming issue of its own: Princeton will not rename buildings honoring former president Woodrow Wilson, and Harvard will change its law school seal, which featured the crest of an 18th-century slaveholding family. In comparison, Yale lags behind. Unlike Yale, Harvard and Princeton formed special committees that recommended how to settle their respective naming issues. Similar to the approach of former Yale presidents, the Harvard Corporation and Princeton’s Board of Trustees readily approved those recommendations rather than formulate their own. Able to meet more frequently, these committees made decisions relatively quickly. At Princeton, the 40-person board of trustees was responsible for determining whether to rename buildings honoring Wilson because of his racist legacy. Instead of the entire board settling the issue, however, a trustee committee of 10 put together a formal recommendation. Princeton’s Assistant Vice President for Communications Daniel Day said forming a special committee enabled Princeton to reach a decision faster. The committee had nine meetings between early December 2015 and late March before submitting its recommendation to the entire board, he said. In that same period, the Yale Corporation has met twice. Harvard also adopted a specialized approach. Rather than ask its Corporation to decide whether to alter the law school seal, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow charged a committee of faculty, students and an alumnus with doing so in late November. On March 4, the committee recommended to the Harvard Corporation that the symbol be eliminated. The body accepted the recommendation just 10 days later, resolving the issue in under four months. “The Corporation agrees with your judgment and the recommendation of the committee that the Law School should have the opportunity to retire its existing shield and propose a new one,” wrote Faust and Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow William F. Lee in a March 14 letter to Minow. Liana Henderson-Semel, a Harvard freshman, said she appreciates the speed with which Harvard responded to concerns about the law school seal and title of master. A recommendations-based approach seems more effective than one based on consensus, she said, because issues this sensitive should be resolved quickly. Kyle McFadden, a Harvard sophomore, said allowing select members within the Harvard community to formulate recommendations that are ultimately carried out ensures that the direction of the university is determined by those in tune with campus climate. “If the Harvard Corporation were asked to decide these issues independently, I believe a violation of Harvard’s spirit of community would occur,” McFadden said. Though Harvard and Princeton have moved at a faster pace than Yale, it seems that their presidents — both of whom publicly endorsed the committees’ recommendations — were less involved in decision-making than Salovey has been on Yale’s three issues. “The president had no role in the Wilson decision,” Day said. “He was involved in deciding to accept the recommendation, but he was not a formal member of the committee. He wasn’t appointed. The board appointed 10 members, and he was not one chosen.” But Woodbridge Hall administrators insist that the pace at which Harvard and Princeton have moved should not, and will not, impact Yale’s decision-making timeline. Despite its relatively infrequent meeting schedule and the progress of Harvard and Princeton, Highsmith said the Yale Corporation has not held any special sessions independent of scheduled meetings to discuss the naming issues. Salovey said while forming subcommittees can be an effective approach, especially in terms of speed, Yale remains committed to a different course. “Yale has to be Yale and needs to make its decisions in a way that is consistent with our culture,” Salovey said. “I am completely admiring the efficiency with which Princeton and Harvard made their decisions and announcements. But I think we are just on a different path at Yale, with a larger set of interrelated issues arousing stronger feelings.” Thirty-four of 40 students surveyed said the University should learn from Harvard and Princeton’s approach to addressing naming issues. But roughly half of those surveyed, such as Sithara Rasheed GRD ’16, emphasized that Yale could absorb the best practices of its peers while crafting an approach of its own. “We don’t have to behave exactly as they did, but the administration should be engaging with our peers on how to address these issues and learning from them,” Rasheed said. Snyder said the contrast in progress between Yale and its peers has highlighted a potential downside of Salovey’s more collaborative approach. “The cost, of course, is a sense of difficulty in reaching a decision, and that cost side is underscored in people’s minds when they see other institutions moving more quickly — at some point you do need decisions,” Snyder said. A BROADER APPROACH Salovey’s view of the Corporation may be part of a broader approach to the presidency. He said his professional background undoubtedly influences his leadership style. “My work as a practicing psychologist certainly allows me to be comfortable with processes that involve a lot of listening with the dynamics of a group, with trying to lead a group toward a consensus,” Salovey said. In 2013, he established a University-wide cabinet to solicit feedback from vice presidents and professional school deans, demonstrating a penchant for increased collaboration early on. While discussing the role of the cabinet in response to campus unrest in November, Dean of the School of Health Paul Cleary emphasized that Salovey is highly committed to conversation and inclusion. A previous investigation by the News found that the cabinet, originally meant to bring University leaders together, was largely excluded from the development of “Toward a Better Yale” initiatives last semester. Under pressure from the Yale community and the national media, Salovey responded to student concerns in just under two weeks. Perhaps willing to take a more independent approach when under extreme pressure, Salovey’s actions in November suggest he prefers, but does not exclusively require, widespread collaboration. One of the initiatives established in November involved listening sessions between two Corporation members, including Marshall, and the Yale community to discuss naming issues. On the surface, their establishment made sense: the Corporation controls these issues, and listening sessions fit a larger theme of collaboration. Salovey said there was no hidden message behind the sessions. Rather, he wanted to expand the numbers of University governors who heard directly from the Yale community. But one problem with these sessions, Wilkinson said, is that they effectively undermined Salovey’s authority. Giamatti would have never proposed such an initiative and would have actively opposed it, he added. “[Giamatti] would have insisted the senior fellow [who hosted the session] resign,” Wilkinson said. Chauncey explained that past presidents encouraged trustees to dine with students and hear their points of view face to face. But Corporation members never represented the administration publicly in a policy-making role, he said Had the senior fellow hosted a conversation about naming issues in the law school auditorium under Brewster, Chauncey said the president would have quit immediately. “The idea that a trustee was going out with the purpose of bringing back a recommendation would have been unacceptable,” he said. “There were times where trustees would do something like that on their own, and Brewster would say, ‘It’s either you or me.’ Griswold would have done the same thing; Giamatti would have done the same thing; I would have thought Levin was even tougher.” Indeed, these sessions shed light on one potential issue resulting from consensus management: Students no longer have one clear leader to turn to or hold accountable. Noticing the influence Corporation members held over these three decisions, activists told the News last semester that they wanted to speak to those with real power. “[Salovey] understands he has a responsibility to fix things and is on our side, but the problem is he doesn’t have as much power as students think he does,” said Karleh Wilson ‘16, a member of Next Yale, during the height of campus protests last semester. “He needs the support of other people who have more power — the people who pull the strings he can’t pull.” It has thus become unclear, to some students, whether they should approach Salovey or the Corporation to weigh in on highly charged issues. The presidency and historic precedent that comes with it suggest the trail ends with Salovey, but his consensus-based approach and collaborative nature suggest that, in this instance, he is just one of 17 Corporation members with a seat at the table. Regardless of process, Salovey strongly emphasized that he is accountable for all decisions. “Let me be clear: I consider myself the leader of this institution,” Salovey said. “I will own all decisions, whether I made them alone or I made them in collaboration with the Corporation or if they came out of a formal vote. I would be uncomfortable with any kind of notion that I hide behind Corporation decisions. Rather, on nonroutine, long-range decision-making, I would rather use a more collaborative process, but that does not mean I take any less ownership of the outcome.” Read more from David Shimer Read the rest of the story on the Yale Daily News website. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.