Here is a step-by-step instructional guide on how to get free and legal copy of Windows 7 from Stevens Institute of Technology. Also, I’m sure you can follow the second half of this once you obtain an account to Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance (MSDNAA) from your educational or professional institution.

My good friend Brian Feraudo who told me about this last week and I completed the installation on my new laptop last night. I still have some drivers to download for my finger print reader but for the most part, everything seems to be working perfectly. Although I’m not a big fan of Microsoft using the A-Team music in the background as they use little girls and cartoon-ish animals in their commercials but Windows 7 is definitely a great product worth getting — especially since it’ll be free.

Here are the steps (after the break):

It took a ridiculously long time for MMS to be enabled on the iPhone but it is finally here. Here’s how to enable it on your phone if you haven’t done it yet.

1. Download iTunes 9.0.1 (if you don’t already have it).

2. Connect your iPhone 3G or iPhone 3GS to your computer and open iTunes.

3. Once the iPhone MMS update is available, you will see the following message on iTunes: “An update to the carrier settings for your iPhone is available. Would you like to install it now?“. Click “Update Settings“.

4. After you click “Update Settings“, iTunes will show the following message: “Your iPhone carrier settings were updated successfully“. Click “Ok“.

5. Reboot your iPhone 3G or iPhone 3GS. Hold down your power button until the Slide to Power off button appears, slide to power off. When your iPhone is off, press the power button to turn it on again.

You should now have MMS on your iPhone 3G or iPhone 3GS!

Note: This won’t work on the iPhone 2G.

As extensive and as thorough of a breakdown between the two lawsuits between the Attorney General and Stevens Institute of Technology as you’ll find anywhere courtesy of Professor Wharton as he published earlier, hope he doesn’t mind be re-publishing his stuff here.

I haven’t read both the suits yet but I figure if Wharton has summarized it this well, there is very little chance that I’ll have more to add on it. Read this well and educate yourself.

The sources can be found at the bottom of the post.

Executive Summary

The State of NJ through the Attorney General is charging that Hal and Babbio acted outside of their responsibilities as president and Board members (Babbio being chair and Hal serving on the Board as well). The AG questions the legality of the BoT creating selective, if not secretive committees under the BoT and they’re not complying to inform the full BoT of the financial issues of the college and the compensations and benefits package packages of Hal Reveche. These benefits include an excessive salary for Hal (done under illegal practices, through a special committee and against the college’s bylaws) and low interest loans, car allowances and other benefits. In addition, that the Endowment, scholarships and other funds were misused and misapplied for unrelated finances and that the accounting books were “mismanaged.”

Synopsis:

-That Hal has expansive powers as president and voting member of the Board of Trustees (conflict of interests concerns), but this was due to the BoT agreeing to expand his powers and that he’s served as member of financially related committees for the college and that he exercised further control over subcommittees related to employee related matters, including professors (ah, somewhat unusual for a college prez btw)

-That Babbio as chairman of the BoT allowed under his watch for the BoT and its committees to engage in misconduct, including their failing to inform and disclose to the Board his and the president’s actions. Among these actions included “aggressively” expanding and modifying the college’s research activities, curricula and interfere in student body and faculty concerns. Among these, the Stevens Growth Plan which the president and the chairman “violated” donors and the Board’s spending restrictions. This was, against the “scope” of their powers.

-Other actions included their allowing Stevens to operate with “grossly-negligent internal controls and accounting practices” that raised cause for concern by the college’s independent auditor to find that the college had “below acceptable” fiscal controls. They also “misrepresented and inadequately” disclosed information to the Board about spending and borrowing practices and did not implement in adequate fashion the Growth Plan since Hal and Babbio offered “misleading and incomplete” information. But this is mostly due to the Board having “oversight failures” because of “poor corporate governance practices and policies.” An example included specific committees with only specific individuals (among them Hal and Babbio).

-That Babbio, among others on the Board, controlled Hal’s compensation through a special committee, which “was created in an unlawful matter” and they had conflicts of interest since the same members of this committee also served on the Audit or Investment Committees.

-That over a number of years, most Board committees failed to disclose to the full Board of their actions, including providing and maintaining minutes and withheld material information from the full Board (including Hal’s compensation, failed to report the Stevens Administration’s “mismanagement and misappropriation of charitable trusts”). In other words, the financially related committees of the BoT did not fully disclose information to the full Board.

-That the Compensation Committee “buried an independent compensation consultant’s analysis demonstrating that Defendant Raveche’s total compensation was excessive.” Among them, allowing loans to Hal without the full BoT’s approval required by Stevens’ bylaws. And that the full BoT was not informed that the financial committees “altered” spending, investing and accounting practices for charitable trust related to the university endowment. Thus, the BoT’s “dysfunction has permitted the ongoing misconduct of Defendant Raveche and the Stevens Administration…Due to the Stevens Administration’s financial mismanagement, Stevens’ financial disclosures remain inaccurate and unreliable.” The IRS “has been auditing Stevens” and that the Administration’s “mismanagement causes waste.”

-In 2000, the Endowment was $157 million, whereas today it is worth less than $115 million and that credit agencies have “downgraded Stevens due to its financial and economic problems.”

-Among Hal’s expenses and “excessive compensation” and benefits – $100,000 in 2007 for “expenses” in addition to loans that were “below-market interest rates,” housing benefits, tuition and auto subsidies as well as his “over and above” $1 million salary. Thus, the State seeks “compensatory damages for harm caused to Stevens” and to “compel Defendants’ breach for certain charitable trusts, restricted assets and harmed caused to the Endowment…

Based on the following allegations:

1) Hal and the administration “breached their fiduciary duties” by “grossly negligent” spending and borrowing practices”

2) Hal and the administration “misrepresented information to the Board regarding their spending and borrowing practices”

3) Hal and the administration’s Growth Plan and financial management has been “grossly-negligent”

4) Hal and the administration “mismanaged charitable trusts and restricted assets of the Endowment” (a couple of scholarships are mentioned in this section, among them the Clement M. Bonnell scholarship where Stevens violated Mr. Bonnell’s restrictions by tapping into funds early before maturity and giving the scholarship to a computer engineering freshman and not a senior Mech E major, which was the intention of the gift; in years following 2001, other Mech E majors were recipients of the scholarship, but the scholarship was not supposed to be a part of an aid package along with loans and other awards, but students “received no additional monetary award at all” which was not the intention of the family’s donation).

5) “Stevens’ violation of the donor’s intent and mistreatment of the Taylor Trust” (which gets messy here, but basically they allege that the college violated trust laws).

6) “The Board failed to monitor and diversify the Endowment portfolio in violation of it’s fiduciary duties and UMIFA” (which means that the BoT should exercise diligence in making and deciding investments (mentioned earlier with the BoT versus special committees and that the BoT could not make sound judgments with little information being passed down from committee to the full BoT)

7) Babbio and other BoT members “excessively compensated” Hal “beyond it’s powers” with bonuses, loans, and benefits (the BoT is “prohibited from loaning funds that is both an officer and a trustee, like Defendant Raveche” because of it’s nonprofit status and bylaws and if it did allow it, “it could only do so if two-thirds of the entire Board voted in favor of the loan”

Thus the following are the Counts:

Count 1) “Failure to maintain books, records, and accounts” against Hal and Babbio

Count 2) “Grossly-Negligent Spending and Borrowing” against Hal

Count 3) “Grossly-Negligent Financial Management of Stevens” against Hal

Count 4) “Mismanagement of Charitable Trusts and Restricted Assets” against Babbio and Hal

Count 5) “Misuse of Charitable Trusts and Restricted Assets” against Hal and Stevens

Count 6) “Misuse of Endowment Assets” (under NJSA 15A:6-12) against Babbio

Count 7) “Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Obedience” against Hal, Babbio, Stevens

Count 8 ) “Breach of Duty of Candor, Loyalty, and Good Faith” among certain BoT members

Count 9) “Failure to Monitor” against Babbio

Count 10) “Breach of Fiduciary Duties of UMIFA” against BoT, Stevens

Count 11) “Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Awarding Excessive Compensation” against Babbio

Count 12) “Awarding Ultra Vires [beyond the scope] Loans” against Babbio

Count 13) “Enjoinment of Forgiveness of Ultra Vires Loans” against Stevens (that the college “may not loan Defendant Revache funds)

Count 14) “Breach of Fiduciary Duties for Receipt of Excessive and Unlawful Compensation” against Hal (that he received an excessive salary that was done by the BoT under false pretenses)

Count 15) “Declaratory Judgment Regarding Taylor Trust” against Stevens

Count 16) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty” against certain BoT members

Lawsuit LINK: http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases09/pr20090917a-complaint.pdf

Countersuit by Stevens against the AG – easier to read and 30 pages (arguing that the AG has overstepped her bounds with the lawsuit):

http://www.winningstrat.com/pdf/stevens.pdf

[Edit] If you are interested in seeing the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General click here - [download id="6"]. Thanks to Professor Wharton again for the primary source. [/Edit]

I have a feeling Stevens doesn’t want this to be a prolonged, dragged out process as they have already highlighted in their briefing earlier for a private, confidential arbitration — which would be a huge win for the Institution but makes you wonder what they have to hide? It could just be a case of hiding bad PR for a private school that has developed international reaches over the past decade and the longer this is out in the media, the more it hurts their standing.

Anyways, here is an email that was just sent out the entire Stevens’ community regarding the legal action that was filed by the Stevens Institute of Technology Board of Trustees. Stevens definitely tries to make a very legitimate case that the Attorney General has overstepped her boundaries but is that enough justification to try and cover up their financial misappropriation of endowment funds and excessive compensation to people like President Hal Raveche.

TO: Students, Faculty, Alumni and Staff
Stevens Institute of Technology

FROM: The Board of Trustees

RE: Action Filed by the Board of Trustees
Against the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

DATE: September 17, 2009

The Board of Trustees of Stevens Institute of Technology yesterday filed legal action in the Superior Court of New Jersey to enjoin New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram from imposing unreasonable and unwarranted demands on the Board with respect to the independence and governance of the Institute.

The Board did not take this action lightly. After lengthy discussions with the Institute’s attorneys, the Board came to the unanimous conclusion that the Attorney General had substantially overstepped her authority demanding that her judgment be substituted for that of the men and women of the Board.

The Board concluded that the Attorney General’s demands had to be vigorously contested to protect the best interests of the Institute.

It was the Board’s unanimous belief that to allow the Attorney General to unilaterally impose herself on matters concerning the future of the Institute, and to allow her to substitute her judgment for that of the members of the Board, would be a clear violation of the fiduciary, moral, ethical and legal obligations that the trustees have to the Institute, its students, faculty, staff and alumni.

We have posted our legal filing and the announcement of our actions on the web at www.stevens.edu/sit/board-of-trustees-statement.cfm. Of course, we will keep you abreast of all important developments as they occur.

The Board asks that you keep an open mind in the debate in the public arena that is inevitable and to check back from time to time at our web site for updates on information we can release about the progress of the proceedings.

The Board has resolved not to let this matter become a distraction from the remarkable success that Stevens has enjoyed in its 140-year history. We hope that it will not detract from continued progress at one of America’s leading research and technological universities.

[Edit] – Here are the lawsuit filing papers by Stevens and the Administration. [download id="5"]. I love how the following line appears in the first few pages describing Stevens. “It has forged relationships with foreign educational institutes which span the world, and it has become recognized as a significant partner to the United States government in the war on terrorism.” Nothing like implying a little fear of terrorism in lawsuits to try win a case. [/Edit]

I really wonder how much this is political gamesmanship but you have to think this was a long time coming but the financial problems Stevens Institute of Technology has had in the past. It’s a little ironic this gets announced on the day that Stevens held a humanities forum on the corruption of Jersey politicians and politics.

Plenty of angry sentiments amongst the students from what I have gathered so far but I can’t say it’s all one sided. Some people definitely don’t like the timing of this announcement with an election coming up in about a month or so but we’ll see what kind of impact this really ends up having when all is said and done.

I wouldn’t expect this to be a speedy process but this certainly livens up Senior year as if Hoboken didn’t already have enough going on. Credit to Professor Wharton for linking the article – I’ve attached the entire piece but only partially available on the main page. Click the headline to read the entire article.

Stevens Institute of Technology makes pre-emptive move as attorney general prepares to sue the school

Attorney General Anne Milgram plans to file a lawsuit Thursday against Stevens Institute of Technology, charging the school with fiscal impropriety and seeking to remove its top two leaders, a spokesman for her office said tonight.

Spokesman David Wald said the state’s two-year investigation also discovered misappropriation of endowment funds and excessive compensation.

Seeking to pre-empt any damage to the Hoboken school’s reputation, Stevens filed its own lawsuit against Milgram today, according to court papers. The school’s suit asks for any case to be pursued through confidential arbitration.

The lawsuit also accuses the attorney general of overstepping her authority by threatening legal action against the private school if it did not alter its business practices.

Milgram met with Stevens’ board of trustees on Sept. 2 to outline her case. According to the school’s lawsuit, she said she was planning “devastating” legal action that would raise “accreditation and other issues,” as well as seek leadership changes and independent oversight.

At that point, according to Stevens’ lawsuit, Milgram said she would press her case unless the board agreed within two weeks to make “non-negotiable” changes.

“The board’s view is that the attorney general has wildly overstepped her authority by trying to substitute her judgment for that of a Board of Trustees that is composed of sophisticated men and women,” said Pete McDonough, spokesman for the board. He said the leadership Milgram questioned has turned Stevens into “an educational powerhouse.”

Stevens’ lawsuit, filed in Superior Court in Hudson County, argues the changes Milgram asked for would strip the board of trustees of its power to run the school, which specializes in engineering, computing and hard sciences.

The proposed changes “are designed to wrest control of management and oversight of Stevens from the lawfully constituted Board of Trustees and cede that authority to the Attorney General,” the lawsuit says.

Wald declined to discuss the state’s settlement offer, but he said Milgram has legal authority to oversee and file legal action against nonprofit corporations like Stevens. He said the state was seeking to remove school president Harold Raveche and board of trustees chairman Lawrence Babbio.

“We had hoped the board would act in the best interests of the university instead of filing this frivolous lawsuit,” Wald said.

Wald did not specify all of the state’s charges against Stevens but pointed to Raveche’s 2008 salary of more than $1 million as an example of excessive compensation.

According to the school’s lawsuit, Milgram’s allegations of misconduct are inaccurate, have already been corrected or are not illegal.

Questions have previously emerged about Raveche’s salary, which passed the $800,000 mark several years ago. The school also gave him almost $1.5 million in low-interest loans to buy and renovate a house on the Jersey Shore and a ski retreat in Vermont.

When Raveche arrived at Stevens in 1988, the chemist and former dean charted a course of steady expansion. He invested heavily in new buildings, emerging academic and research sectors and athletic fields. Since 1988, Stevens’ student body has more than doubled to 5,700 undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students, according to school officials.

But in 2004, after about a decade of aggressive growth, questions about Stevens’ finances started bubbling. A faculty committee asked veteran professor Donald Merino to look over the school’s books after Raveche proposed more hefty spending. Merino found several skeptical reports from the ratings agencies Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, which questioned the school’s sizable debt and operating losses, including a deficit of $8.5 million in 2003.

Since then, the credit agencies have been more positive, noting strong demand from the niche of students Stevens serves. In 2007, Standard and Poor’s said improved financial oversight would likely translate into better performance.

McDonough said the Middle States Commission on Higher Education praised the institution’s improved oversight in a report several years ago. The commission accredited the school in 1927 and re-accredited it last year, according to its website.

School leaders fear a lawsuit could damage the school’s reputation, affecting grant applications, government contracts and student recruitment.

“A lawsuit by the Attorney General would be particularly devastating at this juncture because Stevens had planned to undertake a major capital campaign, by which Stevens is trying to build its endowment through major gifts and to develop and increase annual giving by alumni and friends,” the school’s lawsuit reads.

Source: NJ.com - Stevens Institute of Technology makes pre-emptive move as attorney general prepares to sue the school