I just want to make a few of corrections and additions to the story.

1. You didn't mention that the price for many books on the CSU Sacramento campus are among the highest to be found in a comparison of the exact same books at other stores. The prices are so high, in fact, that some kids are not even buying books for class to their educational detriment. Maybe you didn't mention that because anyone who has bought from the Hornet Bookstore knows it already, but its worth mentioning because not all students will take the time to make that comparison.

2. You didn't mention that Follett makes it intentionally difficult for students to obtain their books elsewhere by refusing to disclose the ISBN or other unique identifiers to students over the phone. A student has to come into the store and get it themselves off the book - if its in stock - in order to get that information so they can order elsewhere. Follett says that their reason for doing this is to prevent giving incorrect information. Others believe it is a ploy to generate revenue. By refusing to give that information over the phone, students will come in and most likely buy the book here. Prior to Follett taking over the bookstore, ISBN's for all textbooks were available on the website.

3. I am NOT saying that UEI or Follett can't have bonafide trade secrets, but I AM saying that I don't think the markup on textbooks (that was established in an agreement with our auxiliary, UEI) should be one of them. The cases that Mr. Aguilar cites do not establish that a markup rate is a trade secret. He can say they do all he wants, but they don't. Just because he is an attorney doesn't make him right. And just because UEI has a nonprofit status doesn't mean it isn't making profit. It only means they don't pay taxes and they call their profit 'retained earnings' on the books. And don't forget that most, if not all, of that profit is paid by the students UEI is supposed to serve. Who is serving whom?

4. You forgot to mention that in other states auxiliary organizations ARE covered by their public records act, and that the 2001 court case implied that it was most likely an oversight in the formulation of the language that caused them to find California auxiliaries not covered. It took many years from the time that law was written to test it and find that loophole in 2001. The intention of the legislature was obviously to have transparancy and accountability for all public agencies. The court said that if they had simply included a phrase such as "state-controlled corporation" like other states did then auxiliaries in California would be covered and we'd have a right to know what they're doing.

5. Whether or not a university auxiliary is, or rightly ought to be, a public agency needs to be reevaluated. It is controlled by the university directly, it manages public funds, it acts to serve the university and the students, and it has nonprofit status because it is supposed to serve an educational mission (whatever profit it makes is supposed to go back into service of that mission). Based on the fact that other states hold auxiliaries to be public agencies, it is reasonable to conclude that they really are a public agency and that the court's finding in 2001 was erroneous or based on a technical oversight in the formulation of the language of the definition of "state agency." Your article says that 'the case defined that auxiliary organzations are protected by proprietary rights.' That's not what it says. It says that auxiliaries are not state agencies as defined in the Public Records Act. The court never said that auxiliaries have proprietary rights. I'm not saying they don't have any proprietary rights, but that's not what the court decision said. Whether markup rate is a trade secret is another matter completely, but in this circumstance I don't believe it should be.

The CPRA states that a "State agency" means every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution.)

Auxiliaries are NOT exempted by the Constitution or any statute. By the terms "other state body or agency" the legislature clearly intended all other entities, except those excluded, are included. The court really screwed this one up, and as a result we have a secret organization, unaccountable and operating on the backs of students. I don't begrude the auxiliary making money to sustain itself and support its educational mission, but I question how well it is doing that when I see these prices we have to pay. I believe the auxiliary is a quasi-public, state-controlled agency, and it ought to be covered by the public records act. It ought to be transparent and accountable as are all other public agencies. Markup rate being charged on textbooks at a public university bookstore should not be a classified as a trade secret.

6. You also forgot to mention that Follett is a private, for-profit company, and what I am most concerned about is that the majority of the markup profit students are paying on textbooks is going into private pockets, leaving this campus and not going back into the university to serve its educational mission or benefit students. This relationship defies the notion of nonprofit. The people entrust this operation to a nonprofit because they want to minimize profit on the backs of students. I am informed that the university gets a kickback from Follett from their profits, but I don't even know how much that is because so far they have refused to tell me anything.

7. You also forgot to mention that Follett invested $2 million into our bookstore's interior design, according to Ms. Hall. They are not philanthropists. A sound business decision is to make an investment in something on which you expect to generate much greater return. Follett is the largest textbook operation in the world, according to their website. They didn't get to be the largest by giving all their money away. They are privately held so we don't know how wealthy they are, but its a safe bet that they are profiting handsomely from operating our bookstore and 700 others. I suspect Follett is generating millions of dollars from our students in profit - enough to recoup their $2 million investment and then some. How much that "then some" is they don't want to let anyone know.

8. At a time when CSU is facing massive budget cuts, less classes, higher fees, less teachers... this same auxiliary is building themselves new executive suites, remodeling the President's house and who knows what else (I'd like to know, but they won't tell!). While teachers are getting 5% raises, university executives are getting 25%, plus all kinds of perks, excluding what they get from the auxiliaries, according to a 2007 report from the California State Auditor. You didn't mention the pay scandal where CSU executive administrators were financially involved with the credit companies they to whom they referred students for financial aid, which The Poly Post reported on in 2007. You also forgot to reference the Hornet's previous article in 2006 discussing the exhorbatant pay perks going to outgoing President Gerth. I have to question how well our administration is serving its educational mission because while students are suffering, UEI is going perk happy, funneling profit out of the system to Follett and trying its hardest to keep it all quiet. UEI ought to be helping the university keep costs to students as low as possible. That just doesn't seem to be on their agenda, but putting profit into Follett's pockets and covering it up is.

9. Ms. Hall claims that the deal with Follett is supposed to be an advantage because they get better deals for buying in quantity. Really? Where are those deals for students? Why do we pay more than other bookstores charge for the same book? Follett may get better deals, but they are apparently keeping the savings to themselves and not passing it on to students. This deal is a raw deal for students, and its being kept a secret.

10. This isn't my personal issue as much as its an issue that all students should be concerned about; I stumbled upon it, I recognize is at a problem, and I am able to try to do something about it, so I am. Yes, I'm upset that the public doesn't have the right to see what our auxiliary is doing, but not because they did something to me. I can actually afford the books. You forgot to mention that I was appointed to sit on the Faculty Policy Committee, which is how I became aware of the Textbook Transparency Act, and then came to find that our bookstore's textbook pricing is anything but transparent. I'm working for all students to pay less for textbooks, and for the public to have a right to know what our auxiliary is doing, the deals it is cutting which students have to pay for, and for accountability of all the millions of dollars that go through this organization.

11. If this deal with Follett is so good, why do our textbooks cost more, and not less? If all they are doing is covering their costs and making a reasonable profit, why are they so afraid to disclose the markup rate? How could disclosure of something so reasonable possibly harm them? I suspect it would harm them because it not reasonable. I suspect that if the public really knew how much they were marking up our textbooks we would be outraged and boycotting the store (not a bad idea, actually). I am speculating about that, but their secrecy on this matter leads one to believe that they have something to hide. If they told us the truth, perhaps we would see that there's nothing wrong with what they are doing at all. Call me outlandish, but I think the public has the right to make that evaluation.

12. My friend who runs a private bookstore says that she normally gets 41% off publishers list price, and that's for small quantities. Large quantity purchases like Follett makes probably get more of a discount. Yet, for many books prices at our store are AT OR ABOVE list price. If Follett is trying to hard to keep costs down for students, they why are our costs higher? If they're doing such a good job at keeping those costs down, one would think that UEI would want to reveal that information to us so we would praise their efforts and appreciate them. If this arrangement were benefitting students, and we could see that, then I would be among the first to thank both UEI and Follett. In a corrupt, selfish, crazy world, it would be absolutely great to find someone doing the right thing and be able to thank them for it.

I believe Mr. Ober is on the right track - one that various faculty members have pursued (unsuccessfully) for years.

University Enterprises is a vast, quite wealthy organization. And the reason it fights so hard for secrecy is not because of trade secrets, it's because of profitability and profits. Lots of profit.

If students are curious about what textbooks are being assigned to particular courses, I suggest contacting the professors directly - or ask the professors and departments to post that information (with ISBN numbers) on departmental websites.

That way students can see if the campus bookstore is a bargain, or something else. And they can decide where to purchase.

Well done, Mr. Ober, on your research. That was a good read. Thanks.