I would like to thank Sandy Teig, former president of the Memorial Union Board of Directors, for her June 10 letter praising Union managing director Mary Jo Mertens. Teig made great strides in proving the point I have been making all along — that the Board of Directors has turned a blind eye toward questionable business practices by Mertens.

During my time as a Daily columnist, I explained how Mertens admitted to going outside the established request-for-proposals process to get McDonald’s into the Union, specifically asking McDonald’s and only McDonald’s to submit a proposal eight months after the RFP deadline.

I explained how she admitted leaving students out of the loop when she was contracting with McDonald’s. In fact, she even sidestepped the board committee charged with overseeing the franchise selections.

These accusations were substantiated by an interview with Mertens, and by minutes obtained during my-one-and one-half years on the board of directors.

These accusations had at least one student writing the Daily to ask Mertens to either explain herself or resign. She did neither.

Always the optimist, Teig has asserted Mertens’ innocence — an easy road to take when one chooses not to investigate. Her support is not surprising. During my tenure on the board, Teig was fascinated by the phrase “fiduciary duty,” as if she were a three-year-old who had just learned a new word.

Like a three-year-old, she failed to realize exactly what the term encompassed. A duty to investigate would be part of it.

Instead, Teig chose to provide blanket support for Mertens in her June 10 letter: “With every decision, she exhibits great concern for her staff and both present and future clientele.” Sure, if the clientele is McDonald’s, as opposed to students.

“She is highly respected among her peers and by her board of directors and staff.” Yeah, the board of directors ignores her mistakes and most of her staff who have had problems with her have “undertaken other employment.”

“Mary Jo Mertens has led this Union through major renovation projects.” I am assuming Teig means the neon-laden Hy-Vee style Food Court.

“[Mertens] created new and profitable business ventures.” If the Food Court’s books are as empty as its tables, I doubt it is making much of a profit.

“[Mertens] has successfully managed millions of dollars of debt and revenue.”

If I remember correctly, Mertens almost lost the Union’s tax-exempt status when she attempted to finance the construction of the Food Court with a loan that exceeded the limits imposed by the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The Act stated a nonprofit could not use more than five percent of its total construction costs to support private use areas. Mertens’ estimates exceeded the limit by 2.7 percentage points. Maybe Teig means Mertens successfully juggled the books by using the Union’s reserve fund to pay for the franchise areas, then using the loan to replenish the reserve fund.

Finally, Teig chastises the Daily, suggesting that “perhaps the Daily felt that the individual who chaired all board meetings and executive committee meetings where these major issues were dealt with was not a credible source of information.”

I would not say you lack credibility, Sandy — just information and objectivity. Then again, what more should we expect from a woman who once said that the alumni were the “adults” on the board?

Theresa Wilson

Graduate Student Political Science

Law Student, Drake University