A University of Minnesota regent, a law professor and a former governor on Friday asked state and federal agencies to investigate U President Joan Gabel's position on Securian Financial's board of directors.
"As a high-profile public employee, President Gabel's service on the Securian Board of Directors constitutes the most fundamental conflict of interest in that one cannot serve as a fiduciary for two entities with millions of dollars in business between them at the same time," said the letter from Regent Darrin Rosha, U law professor Richard Painter and former Gov. Arne Carlson to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.
The trio added: "This arrangement poses the critical question: Who serves the interests of University of Minnesota employees?"
Gabel, in a statement to the Star Tribune on Friday, said the letter contained "multiple inaccuracies and misleading claims," and noted that she went through the university's conflict management processes before accepting a paid position on Securian Financial's board.
Earlier this month, the U's Board of Regents voted 9 to 3 to allow Gabel to take the position. In exchange, she agreed to recuse herself from any decisions on contracts involving the university and Securian Financial or its affiliates. Rosha was one of the three who voted no.
The university pays about $4.6 million each year to Minnesota Life, a Securian Financial affiliate, to cover basic life insurance for its employees, according to a letter written by leaders of the university's Conflict of Interest Program and Institutional Conflict Review Panel. The U transferred its retirement plan administration from Securian to Fidelity in 2020 but still has about $1.3 billion in "legacy business" with it, according to that letter.
The letter by Rosha, Painter and Carlson says that "a senior University administrator" — whom they do not name — "revealed to Regent Rosha that Securian had discussed service on its Board of Directors with President Gabel about 'two years ago.'" That timing, the trio said, was "particularly alarming."
They told the state and federal agencies they "are concerned that this rushed decision appears to be what is known as a 'pay for play' arrangement or a case of self-dealing."