An outside attorney will study the propriety of Steve Sviggum's posts as both a University of Minnesota regent and an employee of the state Senate GOP.

The chair of the U's Board of Regents announced Friday that she will obtain two legal opinions on whether Sviggum's new job as communications chief for Senate Republicans creates a conflict with his unpaid role as a regent.

For the first time, Chair Linda Cohen gave her view on that question, saying that it "appears to me to constitute an employment-related conflict of interest."

The university has hired attorney John Stout of Fredrikson & Byron to draft an opinion by Feb. 24. After considering that opinion, plus another by the U's general counsel, Cohen will either make a recommendation to the board or appoint an ad hoc group to further review the issue.

Last year, Sviggum's job with the Humphrey School of Public Affairs prompted then-Board Chair Clyde Allen to form such a group, which eventually recommended that Sviggum resign from one of his two posts.

That review was objective and fair, Cohen said, but she "wanted to make it even more so" this time, with outside legal advice. "This is a complex and serious matter that warrants our careful review and due diligence."

After Cohen's announcement, Sviggum made an emotional statement to the board, saying that he does not want the publicity and hates to bring "any harm to this wonderful institution of the university." He again argued that "the world is not black and white" and that his two roles can be managed.

"I do not, do not have an unmanageable -- whether it be perceived or whether it be real -- conflict of interest," he said.

Board is 'final authority'

Cohen's opinion is partly based on a passage in the board's code of ethics, which states that "an employment-related conflict of interest exists whenever a Regent's employment relationships may impair independence of judgment." She is asking Stout and Mark Rotenberg, the U's general counsel, whether they agree, and if so, to describe "the degree or pervasiveness of that conflict."

Stout is "widely recognized as an expert" in the fields of corporate and nonprofit governance, Cohen said. His biography notes that he is chair of the Corporate Governance Committee of the American Bar Association Business Law Section.

Cohen said the two legal opinions will "probably" be made public.

Sviggum has advocated for an outside voice in this process, but after Friday's meeting he would not say whether he would abide by Stout's opinion.

In past interviews, Sviggum has said that even if the board determines there is a conflict, he would not step down. He declined to repeat that Friday, saying that he's "trying to be less confrontational." But he added that "at this point in time, right now, today, I would not plan on stepping down."

The board is the "final authority" on conflict questions, according to its code of ethics. But as Cohen noted Friday, there's "no way to force a regent to step down."

This is the second time since Sviggum was elected to the board by the Legislature that his day job has raised a conflict-of-interest question.

Last March, a three-regent panel decided that Sviggum's paid position with the U's Humphrey School presented a regular, unmanageable conflict with his unpaid spot on the board, and recommended he choose between the two posts. He gave up the Humphrey job.

That group recommended that the board revise its code of ethics to prohibit university employees from also serving on the board. The board passed that revision Friday.

A public back-and-forth

Sviggum took the Senate job in January. He told the board Friday that he "did not enter into this decision of employment lightly." He also repeated his assertion that he "vetted" the job with Cohen, Rotenberg and others -- a claim that Cohen and Rotenberg disputed last month in a forceful public statement.

Sviggum "did not discuss the job or consult about it" with the board's leadership, the statement said. "Nor did Regent Sviggum discuss taking this position with the university general counsel or seek his advice about doing so."

Sviggum acknowledged that he did not vet the job, in particular, but asked whether hypothetical positions might work with the newly revised code of ethics. "It was not until after -- after -- talking and speaking about the policy of this board with members of the board... and counsel did I officially apply for the job," he said Friday.

He did talk hypothetically, Rotenberg said in a recent interview, but not about him taking the Senate job or any job. "In order to get any kind of quality legal advice, a client needs to be candid and honest with a lawyer about what they're planning to do."

Rotenberg said that he has counseled regents "numerous times over the years about possible employment and business activities," sometimes providing written opinions that they can add to their files. He and Cohen argue that the board's code of ethics makes clear that a regent ought to seek such consultation when faced with a potential conflict.

"People get to live their own lives," Cohen said in an interview last month. "But if they recognize that there might be a situation where there is a potential conflict, oftentimes they'll talk it over before accepting a position.

"I think most people would say there's a potential conflict here, whether it's actual or not."

Jenna Ross • 612-673-7168