Boston University Back-Tracked on Conflict of Interest Guidelines

The Boston Globe reported how Boston University has back-tracked on its conflict of interest policy for its board of trustees. In April, 2004, the board approved new and more stringent guidelines, which barred financial relationships between trustees' companies and the university unless such a relationship "has been found to be of exceptional necessity to the university."
However, apparently the new guidelines were never implemented, and in December, the board enacted new relaxed guidelines that would allow such a relationship if it "has been found to be of clear benefit to the university." The new code of ethics resulting was only distributed to university staff last week.
In 2004, the chair of the board, Alan Leventhal, heralded the "very high standard" set by the "exceptional necessity" requirement. But the Globe reported that this week, Stephen Burgay, Vice President for Marketing and Communications, said that the board's audit committee found that the "exceptional necessity" requirement would be "unworkable."
The example given was that Boston University did $6 million in business with Lehman Brothers, while its Vice Chairman, Howard L. Clark Jr, was on the board.
Some trustees whose firms did business with the University have left, e.g., Gerald S. J. Cassidy, whose lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates, got $1 million from Boston University last year.
However, Frederick H. Chicos, President and CEO of Chickering Group, which has been bought out by Aetna, is still on the board. Chickering is the only company allowed to provide health insurance to students. It received only $36,000 from the University last year. How much it got from University students for premiums is unknown. Also remaining on the board are executives for Barnes & Noble, and John Hancock Financial services, both of which did more than $1 million worth of business with the University.
One Boston University Professor commented that University officials' claimes that "they were trying to improve the public image and make people think they were cleaning up the place" were a "misrepresentation."
My comments are that allowing board members with such conflicts of interests makes it unclear whether they will put their companies' or the universities' interests first, and whether the university will put their companies' interests or its mission first.