Bernard Rapoport, Guest Columnist
Daily Texan
December 4, 1995

The Daily Texan has run several lengthy articles in which various members of the UT community opine that there are conflicts of interest between the responsibilities of William H. Cunningham as chancellor of the UT System and his membership on the board of directors of Freeport-McMoRan Inc.

As chairman of the UT System Board of Regents, I wish to state in some detail my reasons for believing that no conflict exists.

One way that ethical problems such as conflicts of interest could arise would be if a public official's various private business relationships are unknown to the public. This has never been the case with regard to the chancellor. His financial disclosure statements filed with the Texas Ethics Commission have always been complete, accurate and in full compliance with the law.

While financial disclosure is a fundamental first step and one that Cunningham has always been scrupulous about observing, it is clear that disclosure does not in itself eliminate all potential conflicts of interest. One must also avoid involvement in any decisions in which one's various roles and relationships may conflict. Cunningham has also scrupulously adhered to this principle.

Cunningham has never had a financial interest in any of Freeport's relationships with the University, and his ability to carry out his public duties, first as president of the University and now as chancellor of the UT System, has not been impaired by any of his business relationships, including his service on the Freeport board.

Freeport's and Robert and Louise Moffett's relationships with the University consist of: 1. being donors for the molecular biology building, student scholarships and other UT programs; 2. having one wing of the molecular biology building named for the company and the building itself named for the Moffetts; and 3. sponsoring basic research in the Department of Geological Sciences, all of which research is available for publication in scholarly journals elsewhere.

The chancellor has no personal financial interest in any of these relationships.

It might be thought that the results of the geology research represent a potential financial gain for the company, but this is highly unlikely. The contract involves basic research, not applied research, and the results are openly available. The company employs its own scientists to do applied research such as prospecting for minerals.

Through this contract, UT faculty and students have the exciting opportunity to explore a remote region whose geology had never before been studied in detail. Geologists across the United States are following with great interest the progress of this research, as Professor Mark Cloos can explain to anyone in the UT community who is interested.

Regardless of any potential for the company to benefit, it is clear that there could be a perception of a conflict of interest if Cunningham had been involved in arranging the research contract. It has been stated many times that he has had no involvement in initiating or negotiating this contract, and I wish to emphasize that now.

The contract was negotiated by faculty members and administrators in the department of Geological Sciences and the College of Natural Sciences, and it was approved by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. This occurred while Cunningham was president of the University, but the contract was approved through the standard procedures for such contracts, and he was not and has never been involved. All the paperwork associated with the research contract bears this out. These documents are available to anyone who wants to see them.

With regard to the donations to the University from the Moffetts, Cunningham has served the University by helping them understand the critical financial needs of the institution. They have responded to these needs through the years with extraordinary generosity. Their benefactions support endowments in many areas -- Plan II, natural sciences, geology, law, business, engineering, computer sciences, architecture and men and women's athletics.

These endowments support faculty chairs and professorships as well as numerous student scholarship funds across the campus and, of course, a major gift in support of construction costs of the new molecular biology building.

Far from interfering with his public duties, Cunningham's association with Freeport and the Moffetts has helped to further his ability to fulfill a primary responsibility of any president or chancellor -- securing private sector support for academic programs and facilities and for other critical needs such as student financial aid.

In recognition of all these benefactions to the University, it was most appropriate that the molecular biology building be named for the Moffetts and that one wing be named for Freeport. The Board of Regents unanimously approved this recognition in 1994. This decision created no conflict of interest for Cunningham.

Further, it would be unreasonable to assume that there may be a financial gain for Freeport or the Moffetts because of having a name on a building at the University.

I emphasize again: There has been no conflict of interest because all the chancellor's relationships with Freeport and the Moffetts have always been a matter of public record, their chancellor has never personally gained from any of their relationships with the University, and his ability to fulfill his public duties has not been impaired in any way.

Finally, I have dealt on an almost daily basis with Chancellor Cunningham for some five years. The totality of his commitment to the UT System is evidenced in every word and action he has ever had with me.

On a personal basis, I regret that so much attention and time had to be given to this so-called problem. Based on my first-hand knowledge, there is no problem. The time could have been better spent dealing with substantive issues.

Rapoport, a Waco businessman, has been chairman of the Board of Regents since 1993.