Researchers with Yale's unions have just completed a new report on systematic insider trading at the University. It'll be interesting to see what Public Affairs comes up with as this story develops...I'm betting on "The Unions need to focus more on the bargaining table," and "Yale is a non-profit institution, so how can we be accused of trying to make money?" Here's how Conroy handled the San Jose Mercury News: Thomas Conroy, Yale's deputy director of public affairs, confirmed Baker's involvement. However, he said Baker's role was disclosed to the other members of the investment committee at the time and dismissed the report as contract-time politics. ``This is how they negotiate,'' he said. Conroy, Levin, Culver and others might be better positioned to know how the unions negotiate had they shown up at the negotiating table... From the report: The IRS Form 990, a public document that must be filed by Yale University, asks: Schedule A, Part III 2. During the year, has the organization, either directly or indirectly, engaged in any of the following acts with any of its trustees, directors, officers, creators, key employees, or members of their families, or with any taxable organization with which any such person is affiliated as an officer, director, trustee, majority owner, or principal beneficiary? (a) Sale, exchange, or leasing of property? (c) Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities? (e) Transfer of any part of its income or assets? If the answer to any question is "Yes", attach a detailed statement explaining the transactions Yale has opted not to answer the question, marking neither "yes" nor "no" on its IRS Form 990 filed for every fiscal year from 1990 to 2000 (the most recent submitted). Instead, Yale has attached the following statement in lieu of answering the questions: Other than the payment of reasonable and not excessive compensation and/or reimbursement of expenses for principal officers and trustees, this institution knows of no significant transaction between it and any such person or any corporation with which any such person is affiliated other than transactions in the normal conduct of its activities. All such transactions are conducted at arm's length and for good and sufficient consideration. (Yale University, IRS 990, Year 2000 Schedule A, Part III, Line 2, Statement 16) Yale's statement fails to offer reassurance that individual transactions are legal and have not provided trustees with excess benefit. As one tax law training manual explains about this section of the Form 990: While the lines covering the particular transaction in question in such cases would be answered "yes," their "innocent" nature would be explained in the attachment that, as noted, is to be made for any question answered "yes." … Indeed, if the filer answers any of the lines 2a through 2e "yes" and does not attach a statement explaining the transaction, a reader might suppose that the filer was not disclosing aspects of the transaction that it believed would embarrass it.[6] Putting aside all other considerations, full disclosure is always the best and strongest defense against the charge of inappropriate self-dealing. Yale's refusal to disclose the interested transactions outlined in this report presents cause for concern.