NIU President John LaTourette would have gotten a big red ‘F’ in a public relations course after the press conference he held this week.

Why public figures at this university insist upon trying to cover up blatant wrongdoings of the past is beyond me. Maybe they have a thing for unethical practices. Or maybe they just never were taught to admit mistakes.

The auditor general released a report last week on his findings about misuse of university funds on the president’s house and about other faulty spending practices. Everything in the report was based on facts—facts gathered through purchase orders and various other documents.

The report pointed out several faults, as well as recommendations to clean up the university’s spending procedures. The auditor general is not the first to point out these faults. Legislators have done the same. A Senate subcommittee has investigated the spending practices. The attorney general still is investigating the practices.

And instead of concurring with the state officials charged with such investigations, the president, in a surprisingly out-of-character fashion, publicly debated the findings. Not only did he debate the findings, but he questioned the authority of the auditor general in performing the investigation.

The president’s main defense is that the purchases did not exceed the $25,000 mark, an amount which requires Illinois Board of Higher Education approval. Therefore, he claims, the university did nothing wrong by not reporting the purchases.

While it might be true that individual purchases were made at or below $25,000, the president is neglecting to point out a crucial detail. The twist is how many times these “little” purchases were made without the board’s knowledge.

Documents available to the public show that enough of these measly $20,000 or so in furnishings and remodeling purchases were made to add up to the not-so-measly figure of $100,000. In the business of such ventures, the practice is called “string-purchasing.” Is it legal? Yes. So the president is not completely wrong in saying “NIU broke no laws.” But is such a practice ethical? I think we all can answer that one.

In this fashion, former president Clyde Wingfield had his home refurbished—bit by bit. And as the report stated, these costs were not monitored by the NIU Physical Plant. Work orders for labor and materials were not checked regularly. That’s how the money was spent—through a faulty system riddled with loopholes.

If you were the current president and were informed of these practices by not just one, but several state officials, what would you do? Would you dispute the facts and tell the public “it is not the business of the auditor general” to point them out? Or would you acknowledge that wrong was done, apologize and then promise the public that steps will be taken to correct the situation?

If the majority of you picked the latter choice, that’s good. That would mean every one of you has a decent amount of integrity, and more importantly, an adequate set of brains in your head. I don’t mean to pick on the president, who in the past has not been known to defend the shady practices of his predecessor, but he made a huge error when he said that “NIU broke no laws.” Or that the auditor has “no business” saying the university violated state laws.

Such statements give the public a poor image of the president and of the university. One big addition to the list of potential enemies as a result of the statements is, of course, the auditor general. He isn’t going to be too thrilled to hear that the president of a university, which already is riding on thin ice, has questioned his authority. It’s never a smart move to get on the bad side of the auditor general.

The auditor general, and whoever else hears about what the president said, is going to frown once again at NIU. Number one, for having a president who publicly defends faulty procedures. Number two, for having a president who publicly questions the authority of state officials.

And number three, for having a president who looks at things through rose-colored glasses instead of ‘fessing up and telling the public the truth.