Penta Poles

Penta Poles a Problem in Seward, in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, in the U.S.?

Think globally, act locally...

This is an opening salvo. More to come...

Overview (from SRI consulting):

Pentachlorophenol (penta), chromated copper arsenate (CCA) and creosote are the three major wood preservatives used in the industrial market. In recent years, demand for alternative wood preservatives such as alkaline copper quatenary and copper naphthenate has been increasing. The global wood preservatives industry is going through major changes. Creosote consumption in the United States has remained stable over the last decade. CCA use in the United States will be phased out in consumer products. In Western Europe and Japan, creosote consumption for wood preservation has declined by about 50% over the past ten years. Penta is no longer used in Western Europe and Japan and is banned in many countries (examples include Austria, India, Indonesia, Sweden and Switzerland). Several other countries are proposing a similar ban. In the European Union, its use is so severely restricted that the strict dioxin limit took penta out of the market. In the United States, the use of penta is limited to wood preservation only by certified applicators.

From the Bridge:

Residents ask Xcel Energy to stop installing penta-treated utility poles
by Jeremy Stratton (December 29, 2008)

Last spring’s warm weather brought something less desirable for Laura Muessig: an unpleasant scent that she described as “like lighter fluid for an outside grill.”

Muessig approached her Seward neighbors and found that they, too, were suffering from the odor. Eventually, they identified the culprit: a pesticide-treated utility pole, installed in the late winter by Xcel Energy to replace an old one.

The pole ... just one of 15 that were replaced last year in Seward. (Two more will be replaced in Seward by April 15, according to Xcel.) Last year, Xcel identified 753 poles for replacement, the majority in Minneapolis, as part of its regular ongoing maintenance. 227 had been installed by early December.

Under its current contract, Xcel uses poles treated with pentachlorophenol, a pesticide known as PCP or “penta.” Used widely during the middle of the 20th century, penta is a known toxin that is currently approved for specific use as a heavy-duty wood preservative in utility poles and crossarms.

Seward residents want the “penta pole” removed and the use of penta-treated poles discontinued in the neighborhood and perhaps even the city beyond. After the emergence of the problem pole, the Seward Neighborhood Group (SNG) board passed a resolution asking that Xcel remove the pole and seek alternative, “nontoxic” materials to be used instead; and that Xcel notify SNG where the other recently installed poles are and give advance notice of when and where poles would be replaced in the future.

Responding to questions from The Bridge, Xcel Energy says it has no plans to discontinue the use of penta-treated poles. “Xcel Energy/NSP has been installing penta-treated poles for more than 40 years,” stated Xcel Senior Media Relations Representative Patti Nystuen in an email. “They are the industry standard, and Xcel Energy has more than 500,000 installed in our eight-state region.”

Most importantly, Xcel cites the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recertification just this fall — “after 20 years of studies” — of the use of penta to treat utility poles.

Neighborhood, Xcel at an impasse

Residents found themselves in an “agree-to-disagree” stalemate at a civil-yet-tense public meeting on Dec. 4 at Matthews Park.

While the meeting was, by and large, the “open and civil discussion” called for by moderator and Seward resident John Irvin, it seemed to end in an impasse, with residents largely mistrusting the EPA’s reregistration of penta — and wondering what the next step is with Xcel on the issue.

Penta

First registered as a wood preservative in 1936, pentachlorophenol was used in a variety of products and processes in the middle half of the last century.

Penta itself is a toxin, and its manufacture produces the byproducts hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and dioxins, compounds that the EPA calls in its reregistration decision “inherently toxic, as well as environmentally persistent, and their presence may increase the ecological risk associated with the use of pentachlorophenol.”

Xcel voluntarily suspended its pole-replacement work from August until November, when the EPA’s decision came through — for which Gordon thanked them at the Dec. 4 meeting. However, Gordon continues to be concerned about Xcel’s use of penta-treated poles, and he is “trying to figure out what authority we have as a city,” he said. “I don’t know if we have any.” Like others, Gordon questioned the validity of the EPA’s findings.

“The credibility of the EPA isn’t that great,” he said. “A lot of people don’t trust it, but it’s also the fallback for that kind of thing. The response I get is: ‘It’s EPA approved.’”

The Xcel and industry case

The recently confirmed approval is key to Xcel’s defense of penta-treated poles, but Xcel and industry representatives sought to reassure concerned citizens at the Dec. 4 meeting in other ways, with an explanation of the creation and use of the pesticide and poles.

Alan Srock, director of design and construction for Xcel, gave an overview about its 40-year use of penta-treated utility poles, which make up 95 percent of its 500,000 poles currently in service.

Price is also a factor; Xcel sends out a request for proposals seeking the cheapest poles, Srock said during the meeting. Xcel currently buys its poles from the supplier Koppers, whose representative Troy Calabrese attended the Dec. 4 meeting. Calabrese said a penta-treated, 40-foot class-four pole costs about $275; Nystuen said in her email response that $350 is a more accurate number.

According to Calabrese, penta poles are treated at a volume of .38 pounds per cubic foot — the lowest possible retention, he pointed out.

John Wilkinson, of penta producer KMG and the Penta Council, introduced himself as “the bad guy” and further defended the chemical, citing the recent reregistration, the decades of “comprehensive review of toxicological studies.” He reiterated the EPA’s conclusion that utility-pole uses of penta are not likely to present a significant acute or chronic risk to people [or other organisms]; that the small amount of penta that may leach out of poles is unlikely to pose risks to humans via exposure; and that significant residential exposures to children are not anticipated.

“The dose is the danger,” Wilkinson argued with environmentally minded residents toward the end of the meeting, insisting that the level of penta in utility poles was not enough to cause risk.

Residents skeptical

Seward residents were unconvinced by the industry presentations. “Nothing I’ve read has convinced me I shouldn’t be very concerned,” said Muessig, adding that there is no study about penta’s use in “dense, urban areas” like Minneapolis. Worries among the assembled included penta leaching into the soil, kids touching the pole, inhalation and “nasty fumes” entering their home all day on warmer days, Muessig said.

Those in opposition point out that penta has been banned (or more accurately: “banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved,” according to a United Nations report) in 26 countries, saying it’s just a matter of time before it’s totally eliminated.

“It’s a quality-of-life, health, environmental and economic issue all rolled into one,” Muessig said. “I was told there are no alternatives, but good alternatives do exist.”

Alternative poles and studies

Seward residents took the issue to the University of Minnesota’s Consumer Protection Law Clinic, which produced a 24-page review of the use of penta-treated poles in residential areas. The study cites 74 references — including EPA documents, industry studies and publications by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — and outlines the source and effects of human and environmental exposure to penta and its “carcinogenic toxins that are byproducts.”

The review concludes that penta “may cause substantial harm to humans and the environment, either through contact, groundwater contamination or inhalation.”

The review also points out the dangers in disposal of penta-treated poles, as well; common methods include disposal in landfills, incineration or recycling for other uses — including reuse by unwary consumers.

Finally, the review outlines alternatives to penta-treated poles, stating that “there are several reasonable, affordable and significantly less harmful alternatives available to replace penta” and “similarly toxic chemicals” like creosote and chromate copper arsenate, which are also used to treat wood poles.

Alternatives include “environmentally friendly wood preservatives” copper napthenate and alkaline copper quaternary, and other materials like concrete, steel, fiberglass and underground cables.

Xcel is considering other preservative options, Nystuen wrote, including creosote, chromated copper arsenate and copper naphthenate.

Xcel’s current request for proposals, “was written in such a way to consider a variety of options … and it also allows the vendors to suggest alternative options,” stated Nystuen.

Not just in Seward

Justin Eibenholzl, environmental coordinator for the Southeast Como Improvement Association (SECIA) said there were some “some pretty big stinkers” (replaced poles) in his area, as well.

Eibenholzl — whose organization was just awarded by the governor for its good-neighbor agreements to reduce emissions by nearby industries — thinks Seward faces an uphill battle, but it’s a battle worth fighting, he said. “Just because they’re in [EPA] compliance doesn’t mean it’s safe,” he added. “There’s a long history of that with dioxins.”

In the short run, Xcel has agreed to replace the problem pole near Muessig’s home, but the story is not over for her. “I’m not quitting until that pole gets removed,” she said, “and all the poles in Seward are removed.”

University of Minnesota Spokesperson
Dan Wolter Offers to Just Say No

____________

[Note: 02/19/09b] corrected version - see below - of original post]

_____________

I thank a friend for providing this comic relief. Such a comfort in these hard times...

Although Mr. Wolter has said no for some pretty famous people, including OurCEO his offer here is quite remarkable:

[From the Daily - fast becoming the nemesis of the Administration. What a free press is for, I thought.]

As Bruininks announced Friday to the Board of Regents, University departments have been asked to work on preliminary budget planning parameters based on 5 percent to 8 percent reductions. It will be the individual departments’ responsibilities to make these cuts.

Department financial officers did not return calls or comment on what specific programs might be cut as of press time. In an e-mail obtained by The Minnesota Daily, University spokesman Dan Wolter encouraged encouraged administrators and communications directors to consult with the University News Service before commenting on potential cuts.

“Should you have something you’d like to share with [The Minnesota Daily] at this point, I’d urge you to consult with me or your News Service representative before responding,” Wolter said in the e-mail. “Also, if you need someone to tell them you’re declining comment, we’re happy to do that.”

[Added 02/19/09a

Tsk, tsk, Dan. Remember the wise counsel of your former boss: "Cheap shots aren't free." And also remember the words of one of the professional journalists around here: "Across the University campus in the past eight years I’ve been appalled by the way student journalists have been treated by faculty, staff and administration."

Look in the mirror, Dan, look in the mirror...]

Big Brother Dan will take care of you naive, innocent, people who might share something embarrassing with the Daily. Let the gang who can't shoot straight do the job themselves?

For an example of outstanding recent work by spokesperson Wolter:

"University spokesman Daniel Wolter said that Bruininks does not comment on his compensation [$733,421 ] but said he was 'quite surprised he ranked as high as he did.'"

[Hmm... I'm not so sure I'd want DW doing a no comment like that for me...]

--------------------------------------

In an email comment on the original post, Dan Wolter pointed out:

" I would like to point out the correction run in the Daily yesterday regarding the email of mine you mentioned. The Daily incorrectly reported that the email was sent to faculty. It was not. It was sent to administrators and communications directors in colleges and administrative units."

I thank Mr. Wolter for his comments. The original post has been modified to reflect his correction and is posted above.

A Straw Man Argument

and

Vague Complaints..

A Reponse to Frank Cerra's piece in the Daily:

"However, I want to state clearly that this University, our Medical School and all health sciences schools must have industry relationships."

Of course they do, Frank. This is a straw man argument and you know it.

There must be complete disclosure of those relationships. There must be limits placed on what is acceptable behavior.

And when the public begins to understand how much some people at the U (and elsewhere) are being paid by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical device manufacturers, there will be some embarrassing questions.

And that is the point of the exercise. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, Frank. You're a doc and you should know that.

Continuing medical education should NOT be funded by industry. PERIOD, end of discussion. If it is not clear to you why this should be, then all I can say is to remind you: "First, do no harm."

"The Daily asserts that the initial recommendations were "groundbreaking" and revised recommendations are "too soft." I disagree. The revised recommendations are significantly more stringent than a majority of U.S. medical schools and offer a practical and pragmatic way to manage this complex, evolving issue."

The Daily article by Emma Carew adequately addressed this point. The people ranking these policies - the ones who gave us a "D" - apparently don't think much of the revisions.

"Finally, I expected more fairness, more facts, and less innuendo from the Daily than the coverage over the past several weeks."

"More facts and less innuendo?" Frank, you are the one using innuendo here. What, exactly do you mean by this? Has the Daily been guilty of misstating any facts? What might these be?

Do you believe that anyone who does not agree with you is somehow not being fair?

Why was the so-called draft not distributed to all medical school faculty members for comment? I spent the better part of a day in email contact with Dean Powell trying to convince her to release the draft to all faculty. I pointed out the fast shuffle on CME softening.

Dr. Powell subsequently claimed in an email sent to all med school faculty that the decision to go forward with a watered down version of the document was the consensus of the medical school faculty. How can this possibly be, if not all of us saw it and had an opportunity to comment on this revision? There were people on her own panel who were unaware of this weakened document. Her statement about a consensus is at variance with the facts.

Why did only one department chair send the document out? Continuing to deny the absurdity of the behavior in the medical school during this conflict of interest fiasco will not make the problem go away. The Daily is not the only news organization that finds this behavior inappropriate. The Star-Tribune editorialized that this situation is bizarre and the medical school atmosphere clubby. That certainly has been my experience.

If the members of the committee were unaware of Dr. Furcht's past behavior, then how could they avail themselves of his great expertise in this matter? He obviously did not volunteer information about his past activities and the Star-Tribune had to pry it out of the U.

As Margaret Soltan pointed out in her blog, University Diaries:

******************************

Update: Already this morning the people of Minnesota perceive the brilliance of Dean Powell's reasoning. From a comment on the article:

[W]ho better to fix the system than someone who has had experience with its flaws?

UD proposes we call this the Hannibal Lecter Executive Strategy. Not only was Lecter, as an object of FBI interest, experienced in the Bureau's flaws. As someone who killed and ate people, Lecter had an insider's understanding of other people who kill and eat people.

********************

Apparently Frank Cerra also subscribes to the Hannibal Lecter Executive Strategy.

From the Star-Tribune:

"Frank Cerra, the university's senior vice president for health sciences, said Friday he was familiar with the case but couldn't recall details. He said Furcht's experience could help inform the conflict-of-interest committee's work."

Even though the faculty didn't know about Furcht's experience, Frank?

And now, Dr. Powell is on a committee that is to discuss the decision of her own committee? And Dr. Cerra, who has already prejudged the situation is also to vet the new policy? Is the concept of conflict of interest totally foreign to the medical school AND the AHC, Frank?

As Mark Twain famously said: "Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt." Perhaps he first thought of this while on the Mississippi in Minneapolis?

_____

Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer...

Or, Erosion of Academic Freedom
At the University of Minnesota?

Quoted material is from the minutes of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (Friday, November 21, 2008)

Background:

"Professor Clayton convened the meeting at 9:35 and welcomed Provost Sullivan to discuss amendments to the Regents policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that have been proposed by this Committee and additional amendments proposed by General Counsel Mark Rotenberg."

Hmm... this is immediately suspicious given Counsel Rotenberg's recent record in the openness and transparency department.

------side rant------

"The Board of Regents and the administration of the University made it clear years ago that it would not tolerate undisclosed, simultaneous full-time employment," Rotenberg said.

"As a matter of fact, Julie and I have not even signed an employee contract yet with Minnesota. ... We have only agreed to unofficially start this semester with full residence starting in May."

Francois Sainfort February Email

But the couple had already begun working full-time for the University of Minnesota at that time, according to documents. Mark Rotenberg, the general counsel for the U of M, said the couple's compensation and contracts at Minnesota began Oct. 1.

Those folks still on board, counselor? Oh, I see. We are still waiting for Georgia Tech to act. No doubt Provost Cerra and Dean Finnegan approve of this foot dragging? If we just stall long enough, maybe people will forget about it? Is that the strategy here? This behavior is a disgrace for an institution that aspires to be a great university.

And then of course there were the wonderfully forthcoming, open, and transparent activities of Counselor Rotenberg's office during the latest data extraction from his office by the Star-Tribune. See:

Openness and Transparency
at the University of Minnesota

Nor did OurProvost demonstrate these qualities in his recent coup d’état at the U Graduate School:

Graduate School Restructured
Provost Sullivan Believes in the American Method
Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

----end of side rant-------

"Provost Sullivan began by asking what the Committee's goal is in seeking the amendments it has proposed in Section II. "

"Professor Clayton said that when the Committee became aware of the decisions in Garcetti and Hong, it proposed amendments that would preserve what the Committee believes to be standard practice by making explicit in the policy that which all have assumed."

"(Language to be added IN CAPS; language to be deleted [in brackets].)"

"SECTION II. ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Academic Freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom; to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression; and to speak or write [as a public citizen] without institutional discipline or restraint ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AS WELL AS ON MATTERS RELATED TO PROFESSIONAL DUTIES AND THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNIVERSITY."

"Provost Sullivan said that was his assumption. He has reviewed the cases cited by the Committee, and noted that he is a lawyer, has practiced and taught, served as Dean of the Law School, and still follows court decisions closely. The Garcetti case was about an assistant district attorney and he said he does not believe that universities need be concerned that the case would be applied in the context of academic freedom."

Trust me, I'm a lawyer...

"He said he doubted that this Supreme Court, which is quite conservative, would apply the case to academic freedom, which has its own niche in the law. He said it is also clear, in the Court opinions, that if an academic freedom case were to come before the Court, that academic freedom would be defended, because this Court has been a steadfast defender of the First Amendment. The Garcetti case is an exception and he is not concerned that academic freedom will be trampled by this Supreme Court."

That's a comfort, Tom. This Supreme Court?

"The Committee's view is that it is better to be safe than sorry, Professor Clayton responded, because it is possible that the principles enunciated in Garcetti could be extrapolated to academic freedom."

Hear, hear!

"Provost Sullivan turned next to Section III, which contained amendments proposed by the General Counsel:"

SECTION III. ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY.

Academic Responsibility [implies] IS the faithful performance of ALL ASSIGNED academic duties and UNIVERSITY obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that the individual is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest.

"Professor Clayton noted that the substitution of "is" for "implies" affects the sense for the worse in asserting that “responsibility is . . . performance,” while also eliminating the force of “implies” in the original statement, which comprehends everything Mr. Rotenberg wishes to prescribe. "Faithful performance" includes activities that are not assigned; "faithful," he said, is a strong word. "Implies" could be replaced by "assumes," he said. "

"It may be that Mr. Rotenberg was simply seeking a parallel construction between academic freedom and academic responsibility, Provost Sullivan said. When the term "implies" is used, it comes before there has been a definition of the term, and it could be that the term should be defined before getting into its implications. Professor Clayton said that "implies" expresses obligation and persons affected are to act according."

"Professor Clayton asked Provost Sullivan if he approved the changes proposed by Mr. Rotenberg. "

"Provost Sullivan said he would like to hear Mr. Rotenberg's definitions and why the language speaks to "academic duties" in one paragraph and "professional duties" in another. What is the distinction between "University obligations" and academic responsibility?"

"Professor Clayton said the Committee would be happy to hear from him but the words speak for themselves."

I always thought that the law meant what the law said, Provost Sullivan? Or did you teach your law students otherwise?

"She [Professor McLoon] went on to say that she was troubled by "all assigned" duties because the language could be used to get rid of a faculty member. Say that a new chair dislikes a faculty member, so assigns him or her a lot of extra duties. Provost Sullivan said that normally there are annual discussions between a faculty member and chair, and perhaps dean, with assignments agreed on. In Professor McLoon's hypothetical there has been no agreement, or there was mutual agreement followed by a unilateral change. In either case, the issue is grievable. "

Given the Provost's intimate knowledge of the faults of the grievance system and his deadpanned statement about normal behavior, especially in the Medical School, his response is absurd on its face...

"Perhaps so, Professor McLoon said, but grieving would create an uncomfortable situation in the department and pressure on the faculty member to leave."

These folks did not just fall off the turnip truck, Tom...

"Professor Clayton thanked Provost Sullivan for joining the meeting."

"Later in the meeting, after the discussion with Chancellor Lehmkuhle, Committee members took up the policy again. They expressed views on various points: the Committee would prefer to see no changes in the policy rather than accept the proposals for Section III; "assumes" should be substituted for "implies"; the use of the word "assignments" implies that faculty have "supervisors," which they do not; and a concern that faculty could bring academic freedom claims in cases where they have been assigned to teach classes in one area after their research interests have evolved in another direction and want to teach in their new area of research (the proposed language would not make it violation of academic freedom if the chair assigns teaching irrespective of the faculty member's areas of research)."

As for the possibility of grieving, Professor Abul-Hajj was skeptical. How many times will a faculty member win a grievance against the University? About 5% of the time, he surmised; the faculty, he said, will be on the losing end.

[And even if a faculty member should be successful in a grievance, he or she might run through two provosts, a dean, and two associate deans, before the judgment was finally enforced. Don't ask how I know...]

As a reward for reading through this post, I leave you with a gift, Warren Zevon's version of a song that should be music to the ears of any lawyer:

What OurCEO and OurProvost Should Be Saying at the U of M...

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.

_______

From the Daily:

Academic Leader Urges Congress to Invest in Higher Education

Wed, 2/11/2009 — 3:05pm — Katherine Wolfe

The stimulus bill is not going to be enough to fix all higher education woes, wrote Gary Rhoades, general secretary of the American Association of University Professor, in an open letter to Congress and the president Wednesday.

According to Rhoades, higher education is in needs of a complete overhaul and the governments continued investment.

"Mr. President, and members of Congress, you have the choice to either touch the future or to torch it, to open the door of opportunity or to slam it shut, to lay a solid foundation or to leave us with little basis for future growth," he wrote. "I hope you choose the path that has led to this nation's greatness, a path not of cutting, but of building, a path not of saying 'No, we can't,' but of saying 'Yes, we can.'"

He also urged the nations universities to stop trying to "move up" in rankings and to start seeking how they can better engage and serve students and communities.

"I think we need a moratorium on "US News & World Report" rankings," he wrote. "We need to set aside these childish things. We need to focus more on what matters most. The ranking race drives institutions to spend money on various areas other than instruction and intellectual capital, to attract students."

The University of Minnesota is on a quest to become a top three research university.

It is time to re-order our priorities, President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan. You would be in a better position to argue for state support if you did this. Continuing to whine about "ambitious aspirations to become one of the top three public research institutions in the world" is not going to do it.

This is not a new theme for me as OurCEO knows. For a reminder, please see the post:

Can BigU Become GreatBigU?

which originally appeared on January 16, 2007. I think it stands the test of time.

The clock is ticking. Are we halfway toward being one of the top three public research universities in the world?

Is it time, yet,
to put aside these childish things?

The Ethically Challenged U of M Medical School Administration

The Daily editorializes on the continued sorry behavior, while OurCEO complains about the media:

Ethics Takes a Step Back

In August, the Medical School’s conflicts of interest task force submitted a 13-page draft of changes to the conflicts of interest policy that was considered groundbreaking.

Groundbreaking no more.

Last week, an unreleased report drafted by Medical School Dean Dr. Deborah Powell surfaced that “consolidated” the previous recommendations into a two-page draft with weaker recommendations.

Powell’s draft cuts essential recommendations like severing financial ties between industry and medical education programs.

The original task force also recommended that any financial ties between faculty and industry be disclosed, while Powell recommended lowering the school’s current $10,000 threshold for disclosure to $500. That’s more transparency — but with room for opacity. What’s the point?

A Minnesota Daily report illustrates faculty were left in the dark — despite their calls for feedback. The process simply needs more transparency and should not be headed by a soon-to-be exiting dean of the school, whom herself has been questioned on conflicts of interests with her position on the board of directors for PepsiCo and her appointment of the task force’s co-chairman Dr. Leo Furcht, who himself was disciplined in 2004 for violations of the school’s conflict of interest policy.

Powell’s recommendations are improved from current ethics policy. But they are not the groundbreaking, not to mention necessary, changes that the task force proposed in August.

The final report submitted to the Board of Regents in April should include the previous recommendations of the task force, not Powell’s — a person who has bungled ethics reform at the Medical School and hence should be taken off the second task force.


For the ins and outs of Dr. Powell's Pepsi service, please see the post by Dr. Roy Poses: "A Medical School Joins the Pepsi Generation."

"We just discussed a story from late 2006 about the Dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School joining the board of directors of PepsiAmerica."

"It turns out that this has been generating continuing controversy at the institution. This controversy has shed light on some serious misconceptions among medical school leaders about what service on the board of directors of a public, for-profit corporation entails."

"Each director of a public, for-profit corporation has fiduciary responsibility to the stock-holders of the company for the company's financial performance and general management."

From Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, Third Edition. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P. 195.

"Members of the board are not simply advisors. The notion that Powell's main role on the board is to provide "knowledge about obesity," or to be "a voice for nutrition" is naive at best. Powell is supposed to protect the stock-holders financial interests. If PepsiAmerica wanted Powell to provide advice about obesity or nutrition, it could have hired her as a consultant or put her on a scientific advisory board."

"As long as academic health leaders remain on the board of corporations, which are, unlike PepsiAmerica, directly involved in health care, (e.g., pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, managed care, and contract research corporations), questions will be raised about conflicts between the obligations of their day jobs and the fiduciary responsibilities entailed by their board memberships."

Time to wake up, everyone? OurCEO, OurProvost? Medical school ethics is not an oxymoron.

"Starting in 2004 ...an ambitious aspiration for the University--to be one of the top three public research universities in the world [sic] within a decade."

The Daily has a feature called "unfit for print" and perhaps this is. But the latest news indicates that we are far from being in the top three -- of anything. Let's take some reality pills and aim for being one of the top schools in the BigTen, our natural competition. If the OurCEO isn't up to the task then maybe we should get someone who knows how to play with the cards (s)he's been dealt?

From the Daily's Unfit for Print blog:

Only 190 spots away from top 3!

Mon, 2/9/2009 — 3:29pm — Editorial Board

Well, it looks like we are making some good progress in becoming one of the top 3 public research institution in the world after all. Okay, so maybe not.

According to a new ranking system by StateUniversity.com, the University ranked No. 193 among top 2,000 in the country. Yes, that's right. This ranking only includes schools in the country.

The ranking is based on statistical data from universities, unlike many ranking systems that include a peer rating system as part of its process.

_____________
Apparently OurCEO is right, stature is more important than rankings...

BigTen School Rankings in the Latest Beauty Contest

[We are 9/10 for the publics.]

1. (19) Northwestern University

2. (37) University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

3. (62) Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus

4. (92) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

5. (101) Michigan State University

6. (124) University of Wisconsin-Madison

7. (135) Ohio State University-Main Campus

8. (155) Indiana University-Bloomington

9. (171) Purdue University-Main Campus

10. (193) University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

11. (211) University of Iowa

Medical School Ethics Is Not An Oxymoron?
The Minnesota Daily Nails It...

From the Daily:

Breaking News

Exclusive: Med School moving toward softer reform

Subhead:

An unreleased draft report from U of M Med School Dean Dr. Deborah Powell shows step toward weaker ethics reform at the school.

BY Emma Carew & Jake Grovum
PUBLISHED: 02/06/2009

University of Minnesota Medical School Dean Dr. Deborah Powell is moving the institution toward weaker ethics reform than her own task force previously recommended, an unreleased draft report obtained by The Minnesota Daily indicates.

Incorporating some, but not all, aspects of what many viewed as hard-line and progressive recommendations by the school’s conflicts of interest task force, Powell’s draft moves the long-coming policy reform in a much softer direction than expected, sources close to the reform said.

From the 13-page report filed by the task force in August, Powell has solicited comments from faculty and consolidated the recommendations into a two-page draft, which will be the basis for a final report to the Board of Regents in April, said Academic Health Center spokeswoman Molly Portz.

Powell's report is just one part of an in-depth look at the need for reform at the school. That includes community focus groups, an independent review of current policies and input from faculty.

That information will go to a separate, higher-level committee, that includes Powell, before any recommendations are brought to the Regents, Dr Frank Cerra, senior vice president for health sciences, told the Daily last month.

But critics of Powell’s report point to a disconnect between the task force’s recommendations and the draft, saying the dean has eliminated some of the strongest and boldest recommendations with little to no explanation.

Despite a recent announcement from University President Bob Bruininks that she will leave the dean’s post July 1, Powell will remain at the helm of the ethics reform as planned, Portz said.

Still, the controversy from Powell’s latest reform proposal is just the most recent example of a tenure at the school that been mired in questions over her position on the board of directors for Pepsi Co. and conflicts of interest concerns.

Even the Medical School task force’s co-chairman, Dr. Leo Furcht, a Powell appointee, was disciplined for severe violations of the University’s conflict of interest policy in 2004 – a fact that was not disclosed to other members of the task force until reported by the Star Tribune late last year.

An inquiry panel then stated Furcht “at a minimum should not be allowed to perform the conflict of interest responsibilities of a department head.”

A signed letter from Powell accompanied the panel’s findings, according to a copy provided to The Daily.

Unexplained changes

Key elements of the task force’s recommendations, believed by some to be among the most needed changes, are notably absent from Powell’s draft, among them a recommendation to sever financial ties between industry and continuing medical education programs.

If enacted, that recommendation “would’ve put Minnesota on the map,” task force member and University journalism professor Gary Schwitzer said.

Powell also rejected the task force’s recommendation to eliminate the level at which Medical School faculty and staff would be required to disclose financial relationships with industry.

Powell recommended lowering the school’s current $10,000 threshold to $500, while the task force sought to do away with it all together.

The task force recommended that faculty fully disclose the source of research funding as well, particularly those with clinical trials funded by industry, something Powell did not include in her recommendations.

A semi-closed process

Although the task force filed its recommendations to AHC leadership last summer, some members of the task force and faculty at the school contacted by The Daily were unaware the new draft existed.

Schwitzer said he felt in the dark, and news of Powell’s draft report “blindsided” him.

Powell’s draft, dated January 2009, has been circulating through the Medical School at the discretion of the department heads who received it.

Dr. Aaron Friedman, head of the pediatrics department, sent the draft to his entire department.

“I wanted them to review this most recent draft and offer any comments, concerns, or questions,” Friedman said in a statement provided by Portz. Faculty in his department had previously been given the opportunity to comment on earlier drafts of the proposed policy changes.

As of late Thursday Portz had not confirmed which department heads had received Powell’s draft report.

'These are certainly weaker'

Powell’s recommendations are weaker in many ways compared to those from the conflict of interest task force, Gabriel Silverman, American Medical Student Association Scorecard director, said.

Still, even Powell’s recommendations are an improvement from the current conflict of interest policies, which earned a ‘D’ from the AMSA Scorecard in June of last year.

In an interview with The Daily last month, Silverman said AMSA would commend the school if it enacted the task force’s recommendations. Now he’s not so sure.

“It’s certainly not as strong as the initial recommendations, “ he said. “Whether I would call it a strong policy overall I’m not sure.”

They’re “borderline,” he added.

Silverman also pointed to the loss of the provision separating industry ties to continuing medical education at the school as a concern with Powell’s recommendations.

The education program is the best way for doctors to stay current on medical advancements, he said, calling it “irresponsible” to allow that relationship to continue.

“If a doctor in the community can't go to a prestigious public university like Minnesota for continuing education programs that are free from industry sponsorship, then where can she go?” he asked.

-Emma L. Carew is a senior staff reporter. Jake Grovum is editor of the projects desk.

Shakeup at the University of Minnesota Medical School
and the Academic Health Center

From MPR:

U of M medical school reorganizes; Dean out by summer

A reorganization is shaking up the leadership at the University of Minnesota's Medical School. The current dean will step aside this summer as her job is absorbed into another position. University officials say it's part of an effort to save money. The reorganization comes after criticism of the dean's efforts at preventing conflict of interest at the medical school.

St. Paul, Minn. — The reorganization plan was announced in a memo from U of M President Robert Bruininks to the school's Board of Regents. The memo, obtained by MPR news, outlines a plan to combine leadership positions at the medical school and the University's Academic Health Center on July 1st.

Deborah Powell's position as the U's medical school dean will be merged with the senior vice president for Academic Health Services. That job is currently filled by Frank Cerra.

After a summer transition period, a search will begin to fill that new leadership role in the fall.

Calls to the medical school and to Bruinicks were directed to University spokesman Dan Wolter.

"The goal here is to first and foremost to consolidate and strengthen leadership in the medical school and to achieve cost savings."

The move is not based on Powell's performance as dean, Wolter said.

"Dean Powell has been a strong and effective leader at the medical school and she will stay with us in a role in a role of medical education."

[Sure, Dan, whatever you say...]

Some were critical of Powell when in 2006, she accepted a paid position on Pepsi's corporate board. Those critics said it was a conflict of interest for the dean to sit on the board of a company that produces products that are linked to health problems like obesity and tooth decay. Powell defended her position and said it was a chance to have her voice heard by the leadership of the company.

[A member of the board of directors of a company has a fiduciary responsibility to help that company make money - not to have her voice heard ... She was paid approximately $130 K for this service in 2007.]

In 2007, Dean Powell formed a task force to revamp the medical school's conflict of interest policy. That policy governs interaction between the U's doctors and researchers and medical companies.

Some task force members said proposed changes to the policy didn't go far enough in preventing conflict of interest.

Powell faced more criticism late last year after the Star Tribune reported task force co-chair Dr. Leo Furcht was reprimanded in 2004 by Dean Powell herself for violating the school's conflict of interest policy. That policy is still being developed and has not been released.

Changing of the Guard at U of M Medical School

from	Frank B. Cerra
reply-to		"Frank B. Cerra"
to		MED-ALL@oris2.ahc.umn.edu
date		Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM
subject		Presidential Announcement
mailed-by		oris2.ahc.umn.edu

TO: Medical School Faculty and Staff

I want to share with all of you the memo below from President Bruininks in which he outlines his decision to combine the position of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences with that of Dean of the Medical School. We are at the very beginning of the transitional work this will require, and I’m certain you have many questions about the impact of this news on you and your department or division.

In short, there is much work to be done before we have answers to many of those questions. However, I can tell you that the University of Minnesota’s Medical School remains one of the most important assets of the University, and the public depends on the work we do to sustain the health of both families and the economy.

We are indebted to Dean Powell for her leadership over the past several years. She and I are working together on transition issues and discussing a future administrative role for her in the area of medical education.

I plan to engage all of you in the work that needs to be done. Please feel free to contact me on my direct e-mail at cerra001@umn.edu with any questions or concerns.

Frank B. Cerra, M.D.
Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
McKnight Presidential Leadership Chair

Bad, But Not Surprising, News for the U of M

The feared chop from the Governor came. This isn't necessarily the end of the story, but it is time for OurLeader to roll up his sleeves and start giving serious consideration as to how to solve our problems. I hear rumors that Driven to Discover may be finally going down. How about an official end to the Strategic Propaganda Initiative and ambitious aspirations for becoming one of the top three public research universities in the world [sic]?

Everyone who can should go to the conversation OurProvost is holding this Thursday afternoon. Information here.

[I have teaching obligations that day and will not be able to attend - a big disappointment as I had asked for such conversations in an op-ed in the Daily last semester. Glad that this is finally happening. See:

Call For A Campus-Wide Discussion of our Top Three Goal

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax— And cabbages—and kings—“ ]

From the Daily:

In a move that would cut $151 million from the University of Minnesota’s state aid over the next two years, Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed a cut Tuesday of more than 8 percent from state higher education for the upcoming 2010-11 biennium.

There has been speculation that the state could receive more than $3 billion in federal money, a sum that Pawlenty said would contain some money for higher education.

Pawlenty said he would continue to push for a cap on tuition increases at state schools at a rate close to inflation, but beyond that would let the University’s Board of Regents and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system Board of Trustees determine how to deal with their share of the cut.

University President Bob Bruininks said he was disappointed Pawlenty didn’t make higher education a priority in his budget.

“I don’t believe you can have a strong, vibrant economy if you don’t make higher education a priority,” he said.

While voicing his opposition to the proposed tuition increase cap, Bruininks said students would not face a large tuition increase.

“We have no intention of putting these reductions on the back of students,” he said.

In 2003, the state cut more than $198 million from the University’s budget. Tuition increased more than 14 percent each of the two subsequent school years.

Bruininks said to avoid similar increases, the University would first look to cut costs and delay investments before raising tuition.

Higher education currently makes up more than $3 billion in state expenditures. At 8.5 percent, it would be the fourth largest share of the state’s general fund in Pawlenty’s proposed budget.

Rep. Tom Rukavina , DFL-Virginia and chairman of the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Finance and Policy Division, said the state would need to find additional revenue sources to close out the deficit.

“It’s shortsighted on his part,” he said of Pawlenty’s higher education cuts. “I’m not going to sit here and nod my head and agree that all of this could be solved with budget cuts.”

Sen. Sandy Pappas, chairwoman of the Senate’s higher education finance committee, called the deficit “unprecedented.”

While meeting with Bruininks on campus Tuesday, Pappas said the state needs to remain committed to supporting students.

“We don’t want to impact their quality [of education], and we don’t want to make them pay more,” she said.

Echoing Rukavina, Pappas said Pawlenty is not “putting everything on the table” when it comes to finding more revenue sources.

“The governor certainly hasn’t come up with any ideas about how we’re going to maintain the quality of our University while we cut,” Pappas said. “We have a governor who will not consider all options.”

Kudos to Pappas, Rukavina, and even, gasp, Bruininks for their positions. I am glad to finally see Bruininks commit to no large tuition increase. This is a late conversion, but late is always better than never.

Continuing Medical Miseducation? CMnotE

UD posts on Dr. Mejicano's CME dilemma over in Badgerland. This doc has been continuing to shill for hormone therapy for menopausal women. The poor man has been harrassed by the Wisconsin Sentinel Journal and the university finally took down the website once the paper got wind of it. Life is so unfair... The media just picks on these docs so unmercilessly.

In a p.s. UD points to another site that has also turned this rock over, the Carlat Psychiatry blog. They, too, do the dirty on Dr. Mejicano but since variety is the spice of life, let's look at some of the sordid tale there:

University of Wisconsin + Wyeth = Biased CME

In the fall of 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative stopped its NIH-funded clinical trial of hormone replacement therapy, because women randomized to receive hormone therapy (estrogen + progesterone) had more breast cancer, heart disease, and strokes than those not taking the drugs.

This presented Wyeth, the manufacturer of the implicated drug Prempro, with a problem: a potentially catastrophic loss of income.

They responded the way drug companies generally respond when their product is shown to be hazardous. They ramped up their marketing. They criticized the methods of the study. They emphasized the need to weigh risks vs. benefits.

And, according to this riveting article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wyeth deployed an army of ghostwriters and academics to create a one-sided $12 million CME program which is under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee.

According to the article, Wyeth hired a marketing communications company called DesignWrite which teamed up with UW Medical School to create an organization they named “The Council on Hormone Education.” This council was composed of 40 academics in the field, 34 of whom had ties financial ties to Wyeth.

Sounds pretty academic.

But when John Fauber and Susanne Rust, the investigative reporters, showed the materials to independent experts in the field, here were the reviews:

--Jacques Rossouw, chief of the Women's Health Initiative branch of the National Institutes of Health said, according to the paper, that “the views expressed in the course are not those of the general scientific community and are not suitable for a university medical education course.” "There is a history of this kind of thing from Wyeth," Rossouw said. "The materials regurgitate lines that I have heard and read many times, and I have come to believe (though I do not know) that this is part of an overall marketing strategy to the profession. It is not good science because it fails to strive for any kind of balance."

--Raymond Gibbons, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic and former president of the American Heart Association, “said he also found material relating to heart disease one-sided. He noted that the materials inappropriately gave observational data equal weight to rigorously done, randomized clinical trials. ‘It's a lot of post hoc analysis,’ he said. ‘I don't see the other side of the argument.’"

-- Marcia Stefanick, an investigator with the Women's Health Initiative, told the Journal Sentinel that “since the results of the first large clinical trial on hormone therapy were released in 1998, drug companies have been trying to minimize the concerns….They are very eager to keep coming up with ways to show it isn't harmful….There is this constant attempt to get women back into it."

--Anthony Scialli, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Georgetown University's School of Medicine, put it simply: "It is pure, undisguised marketing.”


It’s not really so complicated. UW took in $1.5 million from Wyeth to help them advertise Prempro in the guise of CME. Money clarifies the mind and sharpens incentives.

Meanwhile, UW is involved in several other ongoing big ticket CME initiatives. These include:

--Pfizer’s $12.3 million smoking cessation program. Pfizer happens to make Chantix, an embattled smoking cessation drug.

--Boehringer Ingelheim’s program on restless leg syndrome . The company happens to make Mirapex, a drug for RLS.

-- Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceutical’s course on premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Bayer happens to make Yasmin, an oral contraceptive being touted as a good treatment for…yes, premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

If you want to enjoy these advertisements, you’d better get on it. I’ll wager that the chastened university will be soon be shutting down these websites as well!

These are the kinds of things going on in our own backyard. They are the reason why reform is needed in medical schools across the country and at the University of Minnesota. Let's get on this, Dr. Cerra, Powell, Furcht, et al...

[from Bob's recent Spamogram]*


But Walking the Talk?

We Don't Do No Stinking Walking!

[*So if this claim is true, Bob, why is the average debt at graduation for our students $25 K -the highest of our supposed aspirational peers? And our six year graduation rate 60% - for shame...]

From the Daily:

Bruininks, railing against Pawlenty’s goal to cap tuition increases at state schools this session, said tuition increases would be on the table, but would be, “the last thing on the list” of possible revenue sources for the University.

“Anyone in higher education who thinks they’re going to solve this budget problem with high tuition rates is whistling in the wind,” he [Bruininks] said. “I don’t think it’s responsible and it’s not the position I would take at this time.”

[The key weasel words here are: "at this time." see: From the Department of Better Late Than Never]

“We will do everything possible to keep this burden as low as possible on students,” Bruininks said. “We’ll do everything we can to protect the jobs of our employees.”

State funds make up 70 percent of funding for the University, Bruininks said. It accounts for more than three quarters of total spending on both student services and faculty compensation.

[Hmmm, 70%? The number quoted for the percent of state support seems to be a function of which U of M administrator is doing the talking...]

“[Bruininks] understands the responsibility of the University to the Bell Museum, and our stewardship of the state institution and that’s why we are back with this request again,” [VP Kathleen] O’Brien said.

[WHAT?]

As commenters pointed out:

Administration logic: x = not x

Don't these statements seem even a little contradictory?

“We will do everything possible to keep this burden as low as possible on students,” Bruininks said. “We’ll do everything we can to protect the jobs of our employees.”

“[Bruininks] understands the responsibility of the University to the Bell Museum, and our stewardship of the state institution and that’s why we are back with this request [a new Bell museum building] again,” O’Brien said.

and:

I'd also ask about all the reports this century detailing how the portion of true per-credit costs that the state picks up, reportedly now less than 25% (down from close to 50% a generation ago), can be reconciled against the statement here that the state, and tuition, provides 70% of funding for the U?

I'd assume this means that the state is picking up roughly 20%+ of costs that would otherwise be part of a higher tuition, for everybody; and furthermore that state grants to individual students based on need inflate that 20-25% figure up to a whopping 70%? Can that be possible?

You'd have to have the the large majority of students receiving a large majority of their tuition funding from the state in order to have the state directly funding 70% when tuition costs in general are only picked up to the tune of 20-25%. So say the math.

What am I missing here?

Mayo Clinic Hits the Blogosphere...

Maybe we should try this at the U of M and at Fairview-University Hospital?

From the Pioneer Press:

Mayo Clinic entered the blogosphere Thursday morning with a blog where patients and employees can post comments.

"People like to talk about their experience at Mayo, and actually look for ways to do that," said Dr. Thoralf Sundt, a heart surgeon and chair of Mayo's marketing committee.

The blog, "Sharing Mayo Clinic," (http://sharing.mayoclinic.org) will focus on positive patient experiences. But it will also accept criticism, along with family stories and posts from Mayo employees.

Mayo has begun using social networking options extensively as a marketing tools, including FaceBook and YouTube. More than 500,000 unique Mayo patients get treated yearly, the blog says.

"These patients and their families and friends, and 50,000 employees and students are part of a global Mayo Clinic community," the blog says. "The goal for the Sharing Mayo Clinic blog is to provide a virtual place for this community to connect and share their experiences."

Sundt said there's a queue of people waiting to make blog posts.

"This is exciting as it will enable patients and their families to tell their stories about their experiences at Mayo, and to offer a behind-the-scenes view of Mayo from various employee perspectives," said spokeswoman Elizabeth Rice. The most-popular Mayo Web links have been for patient stories, which led Mayo to start the blog.

More than 90 percent of people who comment about Mayo give praise, Sundt said, and each person with a good experience tells 40 other people about it.

Now, Sundt said, "we're just sort of giving them the platform to share." The blog is monitored for language and content. But, in general, Mayo wants an open forum that accepts most comments.

Mayo officials also hope for suggestions about how to improve quality of service. They expect patients to share tips about how to best use time between appointments, and about Mayo services.

"The quality of the experience is key," Sundt said.

Ah, openness and transparency, isn't it great? Now if Mayo could just get on board with their conflict of interest policy... But then, nobody's perfect, right, Bob?

Ouch! That Hurt...

UD posts on a recent Daily letter to the editor:

“Our once-proud university.”

The University of Minnesota - dominated by sports, devastated by medical school scandals - really has slipped. An alumnus writes to the university newspaper:

The latest ethics scandal at the University of Minnesota involving the dean of the medical school and a faculty member she appointed to review and improve ethical practices who turned out to have a whopping and profitable conflict of interest himself, underscores the need for a president who is more interested in the academic side of University life than in the athletic side.

This all happened on President Robert Bruininks’ watch, and one hopes he learned something about how to properly do his job at the Insight Bowl and will give us taxpayers our $700,000-a-year money’s worth — his annual salary. (Maybe the University should establish an Oversight Bowl at its new, needless, wasteful football stadium.)…

We must not allow another ethics scandal to occur on anyone’s watch at our once-proud University.

UD’s covered the decline of UM for a long time. She concludes that the university needs a new president.

For those who missed the story over break - front page, above the fold, Sunday Strib - before Christmas, please see:

Conflict of Interest at the U Medical School?

and Openess And Transparency At the University of Minnesota

A Faculty Member At The University Of Minnesota Speaks Up
About The Actual Priorities of Our Administration

[Note added 1/20]
=================
UD in her inimitable way has picked up on this. From her post;

Dropkick Me Jesus

In the Minnesota Daily, a very pissed professor says what needs to be said.

It would be nice if the newspaper received five or ten of these a day. But only a few professors have the guts to write them.

...

The author is Eva von Dassow.

No ancient religion, of course, can hope to compete on her campus with the Glory of the Gridiron.

=================

Or the Strategic Propaganda initiative, or MoreU Park, or a new highly paid administrator...

[The med school recently hired a new Associate Dean - for what used to be a half-time job - at a salary, according to the Daily, of $266 K. Given the way the med school does arithmetic, that is obviously a lower limit... ]

From the Daily:

Last fall, upon concluding the Community Fund Drive, the University of Minnesota administration imposed a “hiring pause” in anticipation of reduced state support. Faculty and staff positions that become vacant will not be refilled. Most searches for new faculty, including replacements, have been cancelled. Funding for teaching assistants is to be reduced.

There will thus be fewer instructors to teach courses; therefore, fewer courses will be taught. Students will not be provided the full curricula they were offered when they decided to come to the University. Many students will be unable to complete their degree programs in their intended form — at least not in a timely fashion. Programs that were already understaffed are being crippled and students are left with inadequate course offerings to meet their needs. Meanwhile, the administration proposes to raise tuition even higher.

I invite the University community to consider how the administration’s cancellation of faculty searches comports with the University’s core mission and stated goals, the larger financial picture and the annual tuition hikes. Note that we are not talking about increasing the numbers of faculty through incremental hires, but simply about preserving what we had up through last spring.

Having chaired one of the cancelled searches, I can attest that hiring new faculty is a labor-intensive process.

...

We had almost carried the search to a successful conclusion; after the long process of reading applications and conducting preliminary interviews, we had identified three excellent candidates to invite to campus.

Then, on Dec. 9, the bulk of our work having been completed, CLA notified CNES that our search was cancelled.

...

The time and effort put forth by faculty, students and staff to conduct the search had been wasted.

For what? To save the cost of hiring a starting assistant professor, whose salary would be in the range of $55,000 per year, plus benefits. Compare that to the salaries of top administrators and athletics coaches. It’s nice that the University’s top brass froze executive compensation upon imposing the hiring pause. But it doesn’t hurt to have your salary frozen at several hundred thousand dollars per year.

President Bob Bruininks said in a Dec. 4 e-mail message to employees that the administration’s objectives during the current economic crisis are to “maintain the core strength and quality of the University” and to “increase productivity … while improving service and efficiency.” How does cutting faculty positions serve to maintain quality? How does it improve service and efficiency to withdraw curriculum from students trying to complete degrees? How does it increase productivity to waste employees’ time by canceling searches that are underway? I could have taught an entire course in the time I spent chairing the search in ancient religion or used that time for research. Besides reducing productivity, when the University administration throws our time away, it throws away its putative commitment to excellence.

The administration’s communications addressing the University’s financial problems always refer to the state, the state’s budget deficit and the state’s appropriation to the University — as if the hiring pause, with all its consequences, simply results from Minnesota’s strained economic situation. I submit that the University’s financial position would be much better now if the administration had not chosen to spend large sums on things it wanted, regardless of whether those things have anything to do with the University’s core academic mission. This past year has seen the purchase of a new financial system — essentially a software package — for the price of $28 million. The old financial system worked fine; the new one does not.

Everyone can point to favorite examples of profligate spending, and most would point first at athletics (the costly new stadium and the high salaries of coaches) or at administration (the ever-increasing number of vice presidents), with its many “initiatives” of dubious purpose and effectiveness (notably the Strategic Propaganda Initiative, as it would rightly be called).

Few would point to academics and claim we have too many faculty teaching too many courses, doing too much research and working with too many students. But it is we who are the University: the faculty and students — and, yes, the coaches, too — together with the staff who facilitate our work. The administration is not the University but, properly, its servant.

This administration serves the University ill by reducing faculty positions and thereby decimating academic programs. It does a disservice to students and, thus, to Minnesota by cutting instruction and curriculum while raising tuition. Students: You came here expecting better. Don’t settle for less while you’re asked to pay more.

Eva von Dassow is an associate professor.

Thank you Professor von Dassow for speaking up. I hope that others will also. It is time for a re-ordering of priorities at the University of Minnesota. The Strategic Propaganda Initiative as well as the laughable "ambitious aspiration to be one of the top three public research universities in the world [sic] " are exacerbating this disaster.

Medical Payola - It Isn't Going To Stop By Itself

The latest shocker is reported in the WSJ and concerns a huge problem in Badgerland.

[Added later: Margaret Soltan on her University Diaries blog and Gary Schwitzer on his health news blog have both given this topic the exposure that it should have. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Highly recommended reads.]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Medtronic Paid Researcher More Than $20,000 -- Much More

A prominent spine surgeon and researcher at the University of Wisconsin received $19 million in payment over five years from Medtronic Inc., one of the country's largest makers of spinal devices, according to a senator who is investigating potential conflicts of interest in medicine.

The surgeon, Thomas Zdeblick, received the payments while helping Medtronic develop and promote a number of spinal products. Medtronic's $19 million in payments to Dr. Zdeblick from 2003 to 2007 went "greatly" beyond what was evident in disclosures he made to the university, Sen. Charles Grassley said in a Jan. 12 letter to Kevin P. Reilly, ...

A Sad Day...

Star Tribune files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Facing sharp revenue declines, the newspaper seeks bankruptcy protection, hoping to cut costs and restructure debt.

By David Phelps, Star Tribune

Last update: January 15, 2009 - 11:06 PM

The Star Tribune, saddled with high debt and a sharp decline in print advertising, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition Thursday night.