… in the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the most charitable description of what’s been going on at the clubby University of Minnesota medical school would be “bizarre.”
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Pathetic Dean's Response to Story About
Center for Integrative Leadership and
Former University of Minnesota President Bruininks
By tradition, universities can be awfully "siloed" institutions, with departments and collegiate units missing chances for collaboration across disciplines on some of the most important issues of the day.
This can be tragic, as America's most compelling social and economic problems -- the persistent education achievement gap, the shortage of skilled health care workers, homelessness and many others -- cry out for integrated solutions that combine the best of what governments, activists and scholars in health, education, public policy and management have to offer.
As leaders of the schools of public health, education and human development, public affairs, and management at the University of Minnesota, we are part of a broad university effort to work much more closely together.
For all of us, a crown jewel in that effort is the University's Center for Integrative Leadership, launched in 2006. Working across university departments and with scores of partners in the broader community, CIL brings representatives of government, the private sector and other organizations together to tackle vexing social and economic challenges.
In light of CIL's critical role in promoting the common good, we were concerned by a recent Star Tribune article ("Bruininks steered funds to his new U post," March 8) questioning university support for CIL.
It is important to understand that CIL was launched well before the discretionary investments outlined in the story, and that those investments were made prior to any discussion about the president changing his tenure home to the Humphrey School.
We were particularly distressed by the failure of the story to describe the contributions of CIL. We stand squarely behind the university's wise and cost-effective decisions -- over several years -- to support CIL.
With quite modest funding from the university and the strong support of key donors, CIL has leveraged the time and expertise of scholars across the university to demonstrate that when leaders figure out how to work across the boundaries that frequently divide us, we can achieve dramatic results.
For example:
• Working with university public health and veterinary scientists, CIL is showing how cross-sector leadership can transform our capacity to improve food safety and food security worldwide.
• CIL is bringing together experts in the tourism industry and the law enforcement and transportation fields to demonstrate how better to address the scourge of human trafficking and the sex trade in Minnesota.
• CIL is helping public-health and public-education students at the university learn how, as future leaders, they can align health care administration and school leadership to close the education gap and reduce health disparities in Minnesota.
•CIL is mentoring teams of students from the university's schools of business, law and public affairs as they work together to address vexing social challenges like homelessness, prisoner reentry programs, or developing and marketing energy-efficient housing in rural Minnesota.
CIL is a shining example of what we can accomplish when we work together across boundaries. We're proud that faculty from our four colleges -- the Carlson School of Management, the College of Education and Human Development, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and the School of Public Health -- are working and teaching together in new ways largely due to the work of CIL.
And while each of our colleges does an excellent job of preparing future professionals within our respective fields, we know that when we engage across our institutions, we are, as a university, inspiring the innovative leaders that our society so desperately needs.
CIL is a tremendous success story, an example of how to do more with less -- relying on a cross-sector model that will be essential to the growth and development of our state and nation in the decades to come.
That is a story worth telling.
________
Eric Schwartz is dean, Humphrey School of Public Affairs; John Finnegan is dean, School of Public Health; Jean Quam is dean, College of Education and Human Development, and Sri Zaheer is dean, Carlson School of Management -- all at the University of Minnesota.
There are ZERO comments on this piece, as it was well hidden on the Strib site. It is tempting, indeed, to rip into this propaganda, but I will merely point out that Deans Schwartz and Zaheer are owners of dogs in this fight. Dean Quam and Dean Finnegan are well known water-carriers for the previous (Bruininks) administration at the University of Minnesota.
Elsewhere on my blog, my colleague William Messing has already commented on this situation and I will let his comment stand for me on the matter:
- It is interesting that the Star-Tribune published a column written by four Deans which attempted to defend the center for interdisciplinary research. This comical piece defended what is indefensible, namely the pissing away (an expression I used when I asked Kaler a question on March 1, following his State of the University speech) of money that should be used to support the true mission of the University, namely the educating of its students and the furthering of research and scholarship. These Deans would pervert the mission of the University and apparently are well on their way to doing so. William Messing Professor, School of Mathematics University of Minnesota
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Cost of "Top Talent" Part II
The Pioneer Press editorial published on Sunday is even harsher than the Star Tribune editorial. The Pioneer Press sees the compensation of the senior administrators as evidence of an overall profligate use of the financial resources of the University:
This is the tip of the iceberg. Don't believe that institutions that spend tax dollars in this way in this instance don't spend like this in general. . . .
There's linkage between this situation, spending practices in general and the seeming inexorable cranking up of tuition costs year after year. Remember that next budget cycle when the University cries poor.
See the March 11, 2012 editorial on Vacation Pay : $455,000.
Yet the Regents and the President appear as unable to take action as they were to foresee the reaction of the public to the use of the resources of the University to enrich senior administrators with extravagant annual compensation, "transitional" compensation, and golden parachutes. Instead of taking action the Regents issue a news release in which they praise the President for his "careful, watchful and prudent approach" and pledge to review policies. See the University News Release.
Have they not read the comments of the readers to the news reports in the Star Tribune and to the editorials?
The public is coming with pitchforks to tar and feather them, and they are going to hold a committe meeting!
Before we see a collapse of public support for the University without precedent the administration should take significant actions to restore confidence. It should begin with the immediate issue that served as the spark for the firestrom. The President should set the example by relinquishing his right to receive compensation of $610,000 for a one year leave. Then he should request all the departing administrators to voluntarily relinquish their "transitional" compensation and golden parachutes. (The request should be made both in private and in public.) The responses would tell us whether these good people, all of whom were paid very well for their services, are willing to put the best interests of the University ahead of the pursuit of personal wealth.
Then the administration should turn to the process of reforming the modern corporate university in which the values of Wall Street have replaced the ideals of public service. It should change the culture that looked to "the market" to set the tone and the direction of the University and eventually led to the excesses that provided the tinder for the firestrom. See:
Course Correction in Higher Education;
Questions of Value;
University Inc. Part II;
and
Going to Market Part II. (See in particular the comment of Professor Cramer, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee, quoted in the penultimate paragraph.)
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Vacation Pay - $455,000
(emphasis mine)
Editorial
Every budget session the University of Minnesota cries poor, laments the declining levels of state support for the institution, and suggests darkly that as financial support from the state fails to keep up with University demands, it will become less competitive with other such state institutions to the detriment of the residents of the state. While representatives of the University may trot out charts and graphs to outline unsatisfactory funding trends, you're unlikely to see an analysis of the 30-year trend of the cost per student to run the institution or the cost of tuition adjusted for inflation. That's not by accident because of course it wouldn't be pretty.
So where does all that money go? The cost increases per student in excess of inflation? Hard telling. The University doesn't tell us, because for starters it doesn't tend to want to isolate the costs in excess of inflation in the first place, much less parse them for the factors that drive the expense.
But now and then, this time thanks to reporters at the Star Tribune, we get a glimmer of how tax dollars get spent at the University: stories of $2.8 million of executive salaries given by departing President Bob Bruininks to administrators on leave who never intended to come back. And we now learn that Bruininks himself is entitled to a 12-month $455,000 salary while on leave "for the purpose of assisting him on his return to the faculty." Parting is such sweet sweet sorrow. Pity Tania Chance, the H.R. director whose quarter-million-dollar payout from the Burnsville school district has - rightly - raised such a ruckus. Her transition includes two letters of reference, but no promise of a new job.
Transitions can be difficult, but a cool half million would probably make it a little easier. President Bruininks is headed for the Humphrey School of Public Affairs where he'll be paid $341,000 and bring a support staff of several others who will cost another $200,000 or so. Meanwhile, in this difficult time of transition Bruininks will apparently lead the Bush Foundation on an interim basis. No report on what he'll be paid there.
This is nothing personal against President Bruininks. He ran a huge institution. Perhaps he was worth more than he was paid. If so, somebody should have made that argument at the time.
But here's the problem: This is the tip of the iceberg. Don't believe that institutions that spend tax dollars in this way in this instance don't spend like this in general. The days of the poor scholar are clearly long gone. But in a time when millions of Americans would love to get paid for working, the idea of well-funded sabbaticals and transition leaves is out of date.
There's linkage between this situation, spending practices in general and the seeming inexorable cranking up of tuition costs year after year. Remember that next budget cycle when the University cries poor.
This blog has complained about poor priorities and a lack of transparency about actual cost of educational activities at the U for a very long time...
Chickens Coming Home To Roost
Legacy of President Bruininks at
University of Minnesota...
Editorial: Closer fiscal watch needed at U of M
Executive compensation reports are denting public trust.
Minnesota higher education doesn't need the headlines about executive compensation that have come from the University of Minnesota in recent weeks.
Eyebrows were raised first when President Eric Kaler announced that athletic director Joel Maturi would leave that post but remain on the university's payroll at the same salary, $351,900, as a fundraiser and special assistant to Kaler. That's a generous amount, but one that's justified if Maturi keeps up the fundraising pace he set as AD.
Then came word that a number of former executives were granted generous transition leaves on their way either back to the faculty or on to new careers. The tab for 10 such arrangements: $2.8 million.
The latest: A report that former President Robert Bruininks directed at least $355,000 in presidential discretionary funds to the Center for Integrative Leadership at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, where Bruininks plans to assume a faculty position at a $341,000 salary after his post-presidential sabbatical ends later this year.
These aren't the sort of stories we expected in the wake of a 15 percent cut in state appropriations for the University of Minnesota last summer. They run contrary to the tone of no-nonsense efficiency that Kaler has aimed to set since taking office in July, and are undermining the university's lobbying position at the Legislature.
Of particular concern is that in the case of the last two reports, we evidently weren't the only surprised readers. The arrangements were also news to at least some members of the Board of Regents.
Paid transition leaves are contemplated in initial employment agreements with the institution's executives, "but from then on, it becomes a management issue," Regents chair Linda Cohen told Star Tribune reporters.
Her predecessor as board chair, Clyde Allen, said he had "a rough idea" of Bruininks' largesse toward the leadership center from discretionary funds. Other regents said they were uninformed.
"In my view, it's time that we systematically look into these things," Cohen told the Star Tribune on Monday.
We concur. Greater oversight by the regents is in order, of both executive transitional compensation and the president's discretionary funds.
Current university policies say that when an executive transition leave is granted, "salary and benefits are typically paid at the level of the assumed, or resumed, faculty or professional position rather than at the administrative salary level.'' That is not what happened in most recent cases.
Yet strike the word "typically," and that becomes a clear and defensible policy that balances the university's need to both hire top talent and demonstrate fiscal responsibility. It should be the rule going forward.
Presidential discretionary funds are a more complicated matter. It's reasonable and desirable for university presidents to have some academic funds under personal control. At comparable institutions, such funds are often more generous than those available at the University of Minnesota.
Such funds are generally directed to innovative special projects or to opportunities that prime the fundraising pump. The Center for Integrative Leadership fits both of those bills. It's a creative, promising new university-wide interdisciplinary venture jointly overseen by the HHH School and the Carlson School of Management. Bruininks' interest in spurring its growth is understandable.
But when Bruininks decided that he would join the center's faculty, his interest became personal. At that point, he should no longer have been the sole decision-maker over grants for that purpose.
He should have sought and received Board of Regents approval, lest it "look like I'm feathering a nest," as Bruininks himself said to reporters last week.
It's a shame to see such feathers flying around the praiseworthy record Bruininks built through a 35-year career at the University of Minnesota, including nine distinguished years as president. But the focus of today's university leaders must be on the institution's reputation, not the former president's.
Public trust in the university's fiscal responsibility has taken a hit in recent weeks, and the regents need to restore it.
Some comments from Star-Tribune readers:
Yes, yes, yes.
Gee ya think? I'm all for spending money on education, but that money should be put to good use, not spent on administrative nonsense. Lower tuition would be a good start.
Well, we taxpayers are getting "an education" all right. Corruption and Cronyism - 101
BOB BRUININKS takes good care of Bob Bruininks, and apparently his office staff too, judging by facts and figures reported in previous Strib news stories.
The financial packages that Bruininks approved for some university system administrators and other employees before leaving the presidency are outrageous.
Good editorial. The University of Minnesota administrator's conduct mentioned here only gives those who call for trimming the fat from the sacred cow of education more ammunition. Those same administrators have made it a hard sell to justify their lack of fiscal restraint to the U. of M.'s detractors. All the good the U does gets damaged by these revelations.
This editorial is long overdue. The Star-Tribune has sat on the sidelines and been far too patient with its criticism of the U of M. New President Kaler recently stated he believed the U had too many little Centers and Institutes. The first one he should close down is the ridiculous Center for Integrative Leadership.
I've been writing my elected officials for years about getting the legislature to do a line by line audit and review of the U of MN, MNSCU and the state gov't.
You tell me is Bruinink's very smart or very stupid? I think arrogant fits the bill, he must believe that this sort of tax dollar allocation is so commonplace no one would bat an eye. It seems so blatant to me it's borderline criminal. Thank you Strib for tracking this, I only hope our elected rep's are watching closely.
The only thing distinguished about Bruininks' presidency at the U is the high tuition increases he slapped on the backs of students in his futile attempt to ditch a perfectly good university in favor of a top tiered research institution. His elaborate vision fizzled so no one benefitted and the U students' still carry the debt of his fantasy. For once I wish this editorial page would really come down on something that is so blatantly wrong and caused harm to so many people. Like Bruininks' penchant for having U students and lower paid staff pay for his arrogance and his folly.
Yesterday I was walking my dog in the dog park and talking with a friend. I can't specifically remember the subject in education that we were discussing, but I do remember his casual comment. He said that he wanted his kids to go to the U of M; however, they insisted and both subsequently graduated from the U of W in Madison. Then he casually said: I DO THINK THAT THE ACADEMICS AND the ATHLETICS ARE DEFINITELY SUPERIOR IN MADISON!
Denting public trust? Understatement of the year.
BRUININKS legacy has been thrown on the trash heap. Deservedly so.
These people think they are worth $300k, $400k a year? What was their total compensation for the last ten years? They didn't rip off the taxpayers enough? They are "going back to being professors"? What does a first year professor make? $450k? I get the feeling that you could hire at least 4 new professors per scam, here, for the same amount. Why pay these guys to "transition" at all? They've gamed the system, and now express surprise that they've been called on it? Absolutely sickening.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Hmm.. Looks like I'm a goner.
Embattled Sviggum resigns from U’s Board of Regents
His job with state Senate Republicans had prompted conflict-of-interest concerns. The GOP-led Legislature will fill the vacancy.
Steve Sviggum's fight to remain a University of Minnesota regent ended dramatically Thursday when he resigned over conflict-of-interest concerns about his job with state Senate Republicans.
Sviggum handed reporters a letter announcing his resignation. Then he left the room.
The remaining board members unanimously approved language calling on Sviggum to choose between the board post and his position as communications director for the Senate Republican caucus, echoing an opinion given last week by an ad hoc panel of three regents.
Thursday's news brings his controversial year as a regent to an end.
Now begins the political process to fill Sviggum's spot on the university's 12-member governing board. Gov. Mark Dayton on Thursday said that will be the job of the Republican-led Legislature, according to two opinions by former attorneys general, dated 1973 and 1961.
"Our readings of those prior opinions is that the Legislature, meeting in session, has the authority to make that decision," he said. "Clearly that's what territorial laws as well as the Minnesota Constitution contemplates. ... I have no dispute with that."
Sviggum said in an interview that a Senate researcher, who had earlier told him that the governor would fill a vacant seat, informed him on Tuesday that the seat would probably be filled by the Legislature instead.
"It wasn't a determining factor," Sviggum said when asked if that news influenced his decision. "But it was a factor."
Before Thursday's board meeting, Dayton said he told Sviggum that he was "embarrassing" both himself and the university by attempting to hold both jobs.
"I saw him at the Gophers hockey game last Friday and I told him that this situation was embarrassing him, embarrassing the university, and he needed to resolve it," the governor said. "I think he should make a decision between one or the other."
Sviggum, a former legislator and speaker of the Minnesota House, makes $102,000 a year in the Senate job, which he accepted in January. His six-year term on the U board was unpaid.
Regents have argued that Sviggum's duties with the Senate caucus at least appear to the average person to be in conflict and that his service on the board does damage to the public institution's reputation. It would be impossible, the panel of three regents said last week, for Sviggum to juggle both loyalties during the U's dealings with the Legislature on issues of funding, bonding and policy.
The regents based some of their reasoning on legal opinions released last week by John Stout, of the Minneapolis firm Fredrikson & Byron, and Mark Rotenberg, the U's general counsel. They agreed that Sviggum's new job created an "unresolvable, systemic clash of duties" with his seat on the board.
Sviggum continued his argument Thursday that he could manage the two roles. He believes that the board has treated him unfairly and that the opinions of the two attorneys ignored key facts. "Sometimes, members, the facts don't matter anymore," he said. "Facts be damned."
In his statement, he added that, "I want to acknowledge upon reflection that for some there is an appearance of a conflict of interest."
Cohen and other regents have often stressed their respect for Sviggum and emphasized that their recommendations were about the situation -- not the person.
After Thursday's meeting, Prof. Christopher Cramer, chair of the U's Faculty Consultative Committee, expressed hope that "this unpleasantness" will end the increasingly political nature behind selecting members of the university's governing board. Last session, the Republican-controlled Legislature elected as regents a pair of former Republican representatives: Sviggum and Laura Brod.
"It's very hard to say no to your former colleagues," Cramer said.
Having former legislators on the board "adds credibility," he said. But the situation with Sviggum, for whom "rather than past ties [to the Legislature], it was present ties," shows that it "doesn't necessarily seem to serve the university's best interest."
The end to a very sad chapter in the history of the University of Minnesota - I hope.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Finally, Regent Sviggum
Does the Right Thing
[a shame that it had to come to this...
Sviggum to resign from the Board of Regents
The Board unanimously approved a resolution that would force Sviggum to choose between his dual roles.
Steve Sviggum will soon resign from the University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents.
In an emotional speech in front of the entire board, Sviggum challenged the board’s reasoning and the fairness of the process that reviewed whether he could simultaneously hold his board position and a new job with the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus.
Sviggum said he would step down if asked and promptly left the board room. Board Chairwoman Linda Cohen said she wasn’t surprised by his announcement, and will ask Sviggum to resign.
“I couldn’t see him giving up a job he’s really good at,” Cohen said of Sviggum’s position as an executive assistant in the Legislature.
The remaining 11 board members unanimously accepted an ad hoc committee’s recommendation that Sviggum must choose between his dual roles. That recommendation was triggered by legal opinions from two attorneys – one from University general counsel Mark Rotenberg, and another from an independent attorney – which said Sviggum’s two jobs created an unmanageable conflict of interest.
Soon to be one member short, Gov. Mark Dayton and the state Legislature will be responsible for filling Sviggum’s vacant seat on the board. Cohen guessed that seat may be filled by the next board meeting in early May.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Bruininks - The Gift That Keeps on Giving
To Himself
Before retiring last summer as president of the University of Minnesota, Robert Bruininks repeatedly steered money to a tiny leadership center within the Humphrey School of Public Affairs where he will spend the next phase of his U career.
Records obtained by the Star Tribune show that Bruininks, who will earn a $341,000 salary in his new faculty role there, directed at least an additional $355,000 in university funds to the Center for Integrative Leadership since 2009.
Bruininks said he made some of the investments to help show the university's commitment to the program at a time when he was asking Marilyn Carlson Nelson of the Carlson Family Foundation for a major donation -- $1 million for the center over five years.
"You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview.
The university drew criticism this week at the Legislature over Bruininks' approval of pay packages worth more than $2.3 million for nine high-ranking administrators who have stepped down in the past two years.
State Rep. Mike Benson, R-Rochester, said on Wednesday that he will ask the chair of the House higher education committee to examine the Bruininks deal in greater detail.
"It lends itself to a good-old-boy network," Benson said.
Office staff comes, too
In his transition to the center, Bruininks received a perk not spelled out in the employment contract that he signed with the Board of Regents in 2006.
He will bring with him a two-person research and writing team, along with his executive assistant of more than 35 years. Their four salaries of more than $500,000 exceed the center's current annual expenditures.
The 2006 contract makes no mention of Bruininks' retaining staff members, but his final university budget as president included compensation for Sharon Olson, his longtime senior administrative director, and Jim Thorp, his communications officer, to work for Bruininks in his role as professor until he retires.
Bruininks, 70, said he foresees working at the U another six years, more or less, including some years at less than full time.
He said in an e-mail that there was "the expectation" that the university would provide him with staff. Funding will come from tuition dollars and state appropriations as approved in the normal budget process for fiscal 2012, he said.
He said it's not uncommon for universities to provide administrative support to senior officers who return to academic life. Asked to cite a precedent at the U where a former president received money for staffing as a returning faculty member, Bruininks said other presidents in his 44 years there left the institution after stepping down.
The brief section of Bruininks' employment contract dealing with the aftermath of his presidency says that if he chooses to return to the faculty, he is entitled to a 12-month leave, paid at 100 percent of his executive salary of $455,000. The leave is "for the purpose of assisting him on his return to the faculty."
'Just kind of fell into place'
The Center for Integrative Leadership is a joint project of the Humphrey School and the Carlson School of Management, launched in 2007.
Bloomberg, the center's executive director, has known Bruininks for more than 30 years, once worked for him at the U's education school and earned her Ph.D. with him as a co-adviser. She said that the center wouldn't exist without his support and that he'll bring a wealth of experience in teaching and leadership besides "a substantial amount of cachet."
Jodi Sandfort, the academic co-director of the leadership center, was a special assistant to Bruininks starting in 2008, working with him and the Bush Foundation on a separate initiative. Bush Foundation grants to the center have totaled $320,000 since August 2010.
Bruininks said the center aligns his interests and experience in leadership and public policy. "While it was not my original intent to resume my academic career in the Humphrey School, it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that I should conclude my career here," he said.
Simply pathetic
From the comments:
(selected, there are now more than 170)
The education racket at its finest....this one is just on a larger scale. The lack of conscience is absolutely disgusting.
I think of the students who have been dealing with a steady diet of tuition increases. The whole thing makes me sick!
My nomination for StarTrib quote of the year: "You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview. AWESOME!
This is absolutely pathetic. The gall of this man is almost beyond belief. His "What me worry" attitude about tuition increases while president of the U was pathetic. This latest news is actually not that surprising to those of us who have watched him in action while president. There is only one word for this kind of behavior - greedy. William B. Gleason, U of M alum and faculty member
This is MY school.....I am ashamed. This is the type of microscope that should be placed on the U. Keep it up RED STAR
Bruininks will go down in history as the worst President of of U of M for both his performance and his professional integrity.
AFTER READING THIS, you want to puke.
What a scam! These people put their own greed ahead of educating the future of our country at a reasonable cost. Disgusting. The mortgage industry was inundated with greed (giving loans to people who could not possibly afford it) and crashed the housing industry. These me me me losers are doing the same to do the education system.
Yeah, Prez. Bruininks, I'm sorry to say, it looks a LOT like feathering a nest to me, too. And if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
What value does a "retired" 70 year person have to the U? This shouldn't be more than a volunteered position. Apparently the Education system has plenty of money why do they need ours?
"You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview." Look at it in a very basic, straightforward way, and that's EXACTLY what it looks like.
None of this is unusual around there. The former president and provost, both of whom have now departed for new positions, also featherbedded the departure of a disastrous CEHD dean who only lasted a year. She made a generous six figures as dean and about the same six figures in the social work department for another year after she got ousted.
I will guarantee you, 100% - we could find a SCHOLAR to do the job- for regular professor money. We'd be so so far ahead.
This is really simple. All the state needs to do is cut the next budget for the U of M by $300,000 a year and tell the U they know one very easy place to make up the difference.
Stories like this point out both the corruption in higher education and the outrageously inflated salaries. It's bad enough that the regents allowed Bruininks to concoct this feather-nesting early-retirement scheme, but there is absolutely no excuse to pay six-figure salaries to the cronies Bruininks brought along for the ride.
"You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview. BALLFOUR: Perception, however, is everything
I had thought this man was a devoted, harmless empty suit who put the interests of the U of M community first. It turns out his suit wasn't empty - he was lining his department's pockets with slush fund monies. Is every Regent and senior administrator at the U of M either tone deaf or asleep at the wheel?
The so-called leadership of the University of Minnesota needs to be ivestigated. It would be interesting to see how much money has been "funneled" throughout the years. This is pretty pathetic given the fact that year in and year out Bruininks has been at the capital lobbying for money for the "broke" university.
Why doesn't this headline read 'Bruininks fired for directing $300,000 to his new job'?
Donors, direct your money to a local community or technical college scholarship fund. You'll feel a lot better and the money will make its way to the classroom.
Got ethics?
It's obscene. Cronyism will likely keep the regents from doing anything about this.
Bruinink's conduct is unsavory and if the Regents had any decency whatsoever, they would dismiss him. He embodies the worst qualities of the U -- over-priced mediocrity.
"Bruininks Gate" is exactly why it took years and years at the once "GREAT" UMN to enact any type of personal conflict-of-interest policy; and by the way, the one they did is a complete joke. It has been just one embarrassing scam after another over there. We have had a steady diet of rouge doctors putting their undisclosed ties with Pharma ahead of any benefit to the University and worse yet their patients. The old saying never goes away..."power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Bruininks has had way too much power and obviously doesn't remotely possess the ethics to handle it while in office. Our state has been duped by one scandal after another over there and the chosen path always by the UMN was deny...deny...deny...or cover-up; and we are still dealing with Swiggum and all his crap. Disgusting. Embarrassing. When is enough...enough.
Thank you Star Tribune, for doing the work necessary to expose this fraud. I hope pressure can now be brought to end this kind of corruption, because it hurts us all. Bruininks should be ashamed of himself, he is no better than a crook using the law to enrich himself at our expense.
This story has nothing to do with anything other than an immoral autocrat designing his own golden parachute. We should all be disgusted, but let's direct the responsibility where it belongs . . .
He needs to be forced to retire from the university and made to remove his sticky fingers from the public trough. He is an elitist who sacrificed a perfectly good affordable midwestern university that did a great job of educating middle class and poor Minnesota students and turned it into a bank account for him and his cronies. Was no one watching this guy there? Every single year of his leadership he raised tuition higher and higher. He is so out of touch he is actually proud of his theft of public money.
EXACTLY what is the "center of integrative leadership"??? It sure sounds like a made up highly intellectual title, but how does it really function and what benefit is it to students???
I am amazed that Bruininks pulled this off. His incompetence as president was widely known as he let the Athletic Department lead him around by the nose. But all the while he was setting up a retirement fund for himself and Susan so they could continue the good life. The Regents should be ashamed that they let him get away with this with no oversight at all. Who is watching the store? Who is protecting the taxpayers?
Now it becomes clear why other employees at the U have been continuously told to cut expenses and have not received raises for over three years...
And these people hold themselves up as paragons of virtue, teaching young minds, researching to save the world. Yet when they have access to the money they are no better than the mortgage companies and day traders.
With those two full time assistants to help with his writing and research, he should soon be publishing three times as much as the other Humphrey faculty. Awesome.
And this is why tuition is so high. College administrators and faculty are so incredibly over-compensated that it is obscene. There is nothing wrong with paying a good salary and good benefits, but $350,000??? To direct a "Leadership Center"?????
I am a U of M grad and this is precisely the reason I am not in any alumni association or a financial contributor to the school. "Don't tell me we don't have any money".
I work at the U, and I cant believe this. I (or we) have not had a pay increase for more than 3 years now. And this guy does this??? I find it completely appalling that this goes on. It's interesting that since all the cuts in funding and cost going up, they can still renovate, rebuild new buildings, etc....hmmm I guess those salary freezes worked out. But I can see that he still got his raise...totally disgusted.
It takes a full year at full pay ($455000) for this guy to transition to a lesser position? Are you kidding me? What kind of world do these academics live in? How could they possibly prepare young people to prepare for life beyond college when they aren't even close to experiencing what the majority face when entering the real workplace?
I really appreciate the Strib digging into this at the U. These kinds of stories need to be told and shouldn't be swept under the rug. The U needs to transform from the current stodgy, good old boys club into an effective learning institution for STUDENTS!
I'm sure he redirected the money for the good of the students and not himself..
IMO- I read and agree with the commentary, but the real story is what happens now? Will there be any accountability at the U of M? I sincerely doubt it.
You made a mistake here in the way you established this Center and opened the door for this public relations nightmare. Please fix it.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz"
Great. He "steers" $355,000 to the center, which will pay him $341,000. That leaves them net $14,000 while he walks away with lion's share. This is disgusting.
Conflict of Interest, party of one.
I've always wondered where I could get a job in which I set my own salary at over $400k/year, and have it paid out of taxpayer dollars. Oh, and along with my salary (and great benefits) I'd like 4 staff members to write for me, keep my calendar, organize my files, do my typing, and speak for me, all with a combined salary of $500k. No big deal, there's lots of other people's money to go around. Now I know where to go - the U of M.
So now we all have a new understanding of what 'golden' Gophers means for school administrators. It is time for a look under the hood of this institution and demand accountability -- it is supposed to be an asset for every Minnesotan, not just for those who run it.
Does the self-help at the University never end!! These people are utterly tone deaf.
It is more clear than ever that top administrators at the U are out of touch. Poor judgment.
You have to be careful about who is classified as a "professor." I have several in my family, and not one has ever gotten close to a six-figure income. And yes, I'm counting full professors (there is a system of rank) with tenure, in the U of M system. The people you would think of as professors, who teach classes, supervise their T.A.'s, and work with actual students; they don't make nearly that kind of money. A very close relative topped out around $55,000 after a couple of decades, and was forced to retire at 70. Without, I might add, the $350,000/yr. sinecure at the end. In the "Golden Age" of academe, there weren't any of these professional executives running colleges. They were big then, too. Actual professors who taught actual classes rotated in and out of Dean positions, never staying there very long because they hated administrating and wanted to teach. Once the corporate culture took root and turned the universities into finance industry cash cows, the Music Men showed up. They explain to everyone how complicated it all is and how colleges need to have full-time specialized Executives to run everything because it's so complicated. And what do you know. The golden-parachutes, the layers of administration, the skyrocketing costs, the lavish buildings for alumni and sports, the corporate sponsorship; all of of it followed immediately.
Note to U of M: yes I'm a graduate, but please don't bother asking me to donate any more. No way. Not unless you get your house in order, big time.
Not to detract from the point. Which is that Bruininks (whom my relative detests as an opportunistic fund-raiser rather than an academic) has made a deal for himself which might be within the law and the ethics of his profession. But it still stinks of the sort of privilege a man like Bruininks should be more careful about.
The wealthy do have an entitlement mentality. Disgusting.
How odious. The picture with the article says it all. Students graduate with tens or sometimes (graduate school) hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. These people line their pockets and pay off their cronies to do nothing. we are told to swallow it all in order that the U remains "competitive". If these are the people we are competing to recruit and retain, I'll gladly pass. The Board of Regents, and to the extent that the law allows, the legislature, need to assign an independent investigative body to find out the true extent of this. As an alumnus, you can be certain that I will never fork over one nickel to the U.
I hope when I retire from my clerical job at the U (have been here close to fifteen years) in, say, several years, that I can make Bruinicks' seemingly non-ironic claim that my/his "twenty plus years" of service is deserving of a year's sabbatical (to "transition into" a faculty position... at over $400,000 for the process of transitioning) and to bring along three, highly paid staffers to help me in my new, semi-retired, part-time, no-specific-duties-or-responsibilities position.
It is WAY past time to separate the 'Golden' from the institution. WE are being played as gophers.
Where is the oversight? Easy answer..there was NONE!
I am very proud to see how many people have stepped up and panned this action by Bruininks. This does smack very loudly of "Good Old Boys" networking. If this type of transfer of funds is so common why did Bruininks not bring it to the public attention as he was doing it. Why do actions such as this always seem to come up after the fact? I agree with writer freedubay. What exactly does the U need in a "retired ex president"? If there is more Bruininks felt he needed to accomplish, he should have stayed in the position of president and seen things through. Truly feel sorry for the students with the never ending tuition increases that have to cover this kind of opportunistic behavior. Shameful stuff Bruininks.
There has been zero management or oversight at the U for too many years. There are huge amounts of money sloshing around in unproductive momentum funding. Both the Regents and administration are at fault. It's crony capitalism as well as elitest and entitlement mentality at it finest (worst).
These people are all about personal gain. They are in their own world and have no care or concern for the harm they are doing.
$341,000 for Bruinink's new faculty position is WAY too much. You could hire around five talented young professors (people who would bring energy to the classroom and to new research) for the amount he is getting paid. It is fine if he wants to go back to teaching, but he should get paid at a rate comparable to other professors.
Dear Mr. Bruininks, your rationalization are an embarrassment during a period where tuition continues to rise annually. Isn't it time you came to the conclusion, As Mr. Sviggum so recently has, that "upon reflection, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest". As we tell errant children (including those entering their second childhood), just because everyone is doing it, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
The face of the 1% in America.
[If you have a strong stomach and want to see some of the fine work of former President Bruininks, here's a link to the Periodic Table.]
(selected, there are now more than 170)
The education racket at its finest....this one is just on a larger scale. The lack of conscience is absolutely disgusting.
I think of the students who have been dealing with a steady diet of tuition increases. The whole thing makes me sick!
My nomination for StarTrib quote of the year: "You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview. AWESOME!
This is absolutely pathetic. The gall of this man is almost beyond belief. His "What me worry" attitude about tuition increases while president of the U was pathetic. This latest news is actually not that surprising to those of us who have watched him in action while president. There is only one word for this kind of behavior - greedy. William B. Gleason, U of M alum and faculty member
This is MY school.....I am ashamed. This is the type of microscope that should be placed on the U. Keep it up RED STAR
Bruininks will go down in history as the worst President of of U of M for both his performance and his professional integrity.
AFTER READING THIS, you want to puke.
What a scam! These people put their own greed ahead of educating the future of our country at a reasonable cost. Disgusting. The mortgage industry was inundated with greed (giving loans to people who could not possibly afford it) and crashed the housing industry. These me me me losers are doing the same to do the education system.
Yeah, Prez. Bruininks, I'm sorry to say, it looks a LOT like feathering a nest to me, too. And if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
What value does a "retired" 70 year person have to the U? This shouldn't be more than a volunteered position. Apparently the Education system has plenty of money why do they need ours?
"You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview." Look at it in a very basic, straightforward way, and that's EXACTLY what it looks like.
None of this is unusual around there. The former president and provost, both of whom have now departed for new positions, also featherbedded the departure of a disastrous CEHD dean who only lasted a year. She made a generous six figures as dean and about the same six figures in the social work department for another year after she got ousted.
I will guarantee you, 100% - we could find a SCHOLAR to do the job- for regular professor money. We'd be so so far ahead.
This is really simple. All the state needs to do is cut the next budget for the U of M by $300,000 a year and tell the U they know one very easy place to make up the difference.
As an alum, this is embarrassing. My 10th and 9th grade kids are interested in the U of MN but I am teaching fiscal responsibility at home and I don't like what I see at the U. Bob, don't you have enough retirement from your many years of work? Why do you need 300k plus for the next 6 years? Retire and volunteer . . . that is leading by example.
This is pretty much unacceptable.
Stories like this point out both the corruption in higher education and the outrageously inflated salaries. It's bad enough that the regents allowed Bruininks to concoct this feather-nesting early-retirement scheme, but there is absolutely no excuse to pay six-figure salaries to the cronies Bruininks brought along for the ride.
"You put it all together in a weird way and it may look like I'm feathering a nest, and that's simply not the case," Bruininks said in an interview. BALLFOUR: Perception, however, is everything
I had thought this man was a devoted, harmless empty suit who put the interests of the U of M community first. It turns out his suit wasn't empty - he was lining his department's pockets with slush fund monies. Is every Regent and senior administrator at the U of M either tone deaf or asleep at the wheel?
The so-called leadership of the University of Minnesota needs to be ivestigated. It would be interesting to see how much money has been "funneled" throughout the years. This is pretty pathetic given the fact that year in and year out Bruininks has been at the capital lobbying for money for the "broke" university.
Why doesn't this headline read 'Bruininks fired for directing $300,000 to his new job'?
Donors, direct your money to a local community or technical college scholarship fund. You'll feel a lot better and the money will make its way to the classroom.
Got ethics?
It's obscene. Cronyism will likely keep the regents from doing anything about this.
Bruinink's conduct is unsavory and if the Regents had any decency whatsoever, they would dismiss him. He embodies the worst qualities of the U -- over-priced mediocrity.
"Bruininks Gate" is exactly why it took years and years at the once "GREAT" UMN to enact any type of personal conflict-of-interest policy; and by the way, the one they did is a complete joke. It has been just one embarrassing scam after another over there. We have had a steady diet of rouge doctors putting their undisclosed ties with Pharma ahead of any benefit to the University and worse yet their patients. The old saying never goes away..."power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Bruininks has had way too much power and obviously doesn't remotely possess the ethics to handle it while in office. Our state has been duped by one scandal after another over there and the chosen path always by the UMN was deny...deny...deny...or cover-up; and we are still dealing with Swiggum and all his crap. Disgusting. Embarrassing. When is enough...enough.
Thank you Star Tribune, for doing the work necessary to expose this fraud. I hope pressure can now be brought to end this kind of corruption, because it hurts us all. Bruininks should be ashamed of himself, he is no better than a crook using the law to enrich himself at our expense.
Bobby Bru takes good care of Bobby Bru---and Laura, Sharon, Ben, Jim and Jodi too apparently. Bobby desperately needs a 12-month leave of absence @ $455,000 to transition from Prez to faculty member... Is he just days away from announcing the publication of his slam dunk Nobel Prize worthy "Guide to Employee Reward and Retention" research or days away from announcing that he has secretly and successfully negotiated a cease-fire and creation of a secular democratic government in Syria? The financial packages that Bobby Bru approved for some university system administrators and other employees before leaving the presidency are outrageous. U of M President Eric Kaler pledges that he will not engage in this kind of monetary distribution, and the Board of Regents must craft and enforce written policy protocols ensuring that no U president ever engages in this kind of excessive and unjustified generosity again.
It's greed at the expense of the students!
Absolutely despicable.
Bruninks should resign right away and sneak out of the state.
Unreal... and he believes he did nothing wrong. Tuition just keeps going up and then you get guys like this basically stealing from the University.
Incredible arrogance for useless administrators at a middling public college. There's no justifications for any leave much less a year at the executive salary. The whole place stinks.
This story has nothing to do with anything other than an immoral autocrat designing his own golden parachute. We should all be disgusted, but let's direct the responsibility where it belongs . . .
He needs to be forced to retire from the university and made to remove his sticky fingers from the public trough. He is an elitist who sacrificed a perfectly good affordable midwestern university that did a great job of educating middle class and poor Minnesota students and turned it into a bank account for him and his cronies. Was no one watching this guy there? Every single year of his leadership he raised tuition higher and higher. He is so out of touch he is actually proud of his theft of public money.
EXACTLY what is the "center of integrative leadership"??? It sure sounds like a made up highly intellectual title, but how does it really function and what benefit is it to students???
I am amazed that Bruininks pulled this off. His incompetence as president was widely known as he let the Athletic Department lead him around by the nose. But all the while he was setting up a retirement fund for himself and Susan so they could continue the good life. The Regents should be ashamed that they let him get away with this with no oversight at all. Who is watching the store? Who is protecting the taxpayers?
Now it becomes clear why other employees at the U have been continuously told to cut expenses and have not received raises for over three years...
And these people hold themselves up as paragons of virtue, teaching young minds, researching to save the world. Yet when they have access to the money they are no better than the mortgage companies and day traders.
With those two full time assistants to help with his writing and research, he should soon be publishing three times as much as the other Humphrey faculty. Awesome.
And this is why tuition is so high. College administrators and faculty are so incredibly over-compensated that it is obscene. There is nothing wrong with paying a good salary and good benefits, but $350,000??? To direct a "Leadership Center"?????
I am a U of M grad and this is precisely the reason I am not in any alumni association or a financial contributor to the school. "Don't tell me we don't have any money".
I work at the U, and I cant believe this. I (or we) have not had a pay increase for more than 3 years now. And this guy does this??? I find it completely appalling that this goes on. It's interesting that since all the cuts in funding and cost going up, they can still renovate, rebuild new buildings, etc....hmmm I guess those salary freezes worked out. But I can see that he still got his raise...totally disgusted.
It takes a full year at full pay ($455000) for this guy to transition to a lesser position? Are you kidding me? What kind of world do these academics live in? How could they possibly prepare young people to prepare for life beyond college when they aren't even close to experiencing what the majority face when entering the real workplace?
I really appreciate the Strib digging into this at the U. These kinds of stories need to be told and shouldn't be swept under the rug. The U needs to transform from the current stodgy, good old boys club into an effective learning institution for STUDENTS!
I'm sure he redirected the money for the good of the students and not himself..
IMO- I read and agree with the commentary, but the real story is what happens now? Will there be any accountability at the U of M? I sincerely doubt it.
You made a mistake here in the way you established this Center and opened the door for this public relations nightmare. Please fix it.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz"
Great. He "steers" $355,000 to the center, which will pay him $341,000. That leaves them net $14,000 while he walks away with lion's share. This is disgusting.
Conflict of Interest, party of one.
I've always wondered where I could get a job in which I set my own salary at over $400k/year, and have it paid out of taxpayer dollars. Oh, and along with my salary (and great benefits) I'd like 4 staff members to write for me, keep my calendar, organize my files, do my typing, and speak for me, all with a combined salary of $500k. No big deal, there's lots of other people's money to go around. Now I know where to go - the U of M.
So now we all have a new understanding of what 'golden' Gophers means for school administrators. It is time for a look under the hood of this institution and demand accountability -- it is supposed to be an asset for every Minnesotan, not just for those who run it.
Does the self-help at the University never end!! These people are utterly tone deaf.
It is more clear than ever that top administrators at the U are out of touch. Poor judgment.
You have to be careful about who is classified as a "professor." I have several in my family, and not one has ever gotten close to a six-figure income. And yes, I'm counting full professors (there is a system of rank) with tenure, in the U of M system. The people you would think of as professors, who teach classes, supervise their T.A.'s, and work with actual students; they don't make nearly that kind of money. A very close relative topped out around $55,000 after a couple of decades, and was forced to retire at 70. Without, I might add, the $350,000/yr. sinecure at the end. In the "Golden Age" of academe, there weren't any of these professional executives running colleges. They were big then, too. Actual professors who taught actual classes rotated in and out of Dean positions, never staying there very long because they hated administrating and wanted to teach. Once the corporate culture took root and turned the universities into finance industry cash cows, the Music Men showed up. They explain to everyone how complicated it all is and how colleges need to have full-time specialized Executives to run everything because it's so complicated. And what do you know. The golden-parachutes, the layers of administration, the skyrocketing costs, the lavish buildings for alumni and sports, the corporate sponsorship; all of of it followed immediately.
Note to U of M: yes I'm a graduate, but please don't bother asking me to donate any more. No way. Not unless you get your house in order, big time.
Not to detract from the point. Which is that Bruininks (whom my relative detests as an opportunistic fund-raiser rather than an academic) has made a deal for himself which might be within the law and the ethics of his profession. But it still stinks of the sort of privilege a man like Bruininks should be more careful about.
The wealthy do have an entitlement mentality. Disgusting.
How odious. The picture with the article says it all. Students graduate with tens or sometimes (graduate school) hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. These people line their pockets and pay off their cronies to do nothing. we are told to swallow it all in order that the U remains "competitive". If these are the people we are competing to recruit and retain, I'll gladly pass. The Board of Regents, and to the extent that the law allows, the legislature, need to assign an independent investigative body to find out the true extent of this. As an alumnus, you can be certain that I will never fork over one nickel to the U.
I hope when I retire from my clerical job at the U (have been here close to fifteen years) in, say, several years, that I can make Bruinicks' seemingly non-ironic claim that my/his "twenty plus years" of service is deserving of a year's sabbatical (to "transition into" a faculty position... at over $400,000 for the process of transitioning) and to bring along three, highly paid staffers to help me in my new, semi-retired, part-time, no-specific-duties-or-responsibilities position.
It is WAY past time to separate the 'Golden' from the institution. WE are being played as gophers.
Where is the oversight? Easy answer..there was NONE!
I am very proud to see how many people have stepped up and panned this action by Bruininks. This does smack very loudly of "Good Old Boys" networking. If this type of transfer of funds is so common why did Bruininks not bring it to the public attention as he was doing it. Why do actions such as this always seem to come up after the fact? I agree with writer freedubay. What exactly does the U need in a "retired ex president"? If there is more Bruininks felt he needed to accomplish, he should have stayed in the position of president and seen things through. Truly feel sorry for the students with the never ending tuition increases that have to cover this kind of opportunistic behavior. Shameful stuff Bruininks.
There has been zero management or oversight at the U for too many years. There are huge amounts of money sloshing around in unproductive momentum funding. Both the Regents and administration are at fault. It's crony capitalism as well as elitest and entitlement mentality at it finest (worst).
These people are all about personal gain. They are in their own world and have no care or concern for the harm they are doing.
$341,000 for Bruinink's new faculty position is WAY too much. You could hire around five talented young professors (people who would bring energy to the classroom and to new research) for the amount he is getting paid. It is fine if he wants to go back to teaching, but he should get paid at a rate comparable to other professors.
Dear Mr. Bruininks, your rationalization are an embarrassment during a period where tuition continues to rise annually. Isn't it time you came to the conclusion, As Mr. Sviggum so recently has, that "upon reflection, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest". As we tell errant children (including those entering their second childhood), just because everyone is doing it, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
The face of the 1% in America.
___
[If you have a strong stomach and want to see some of the fine work of former President Bruininks, here's a link to the Periodic Table.]
The Cost of "Top Talent"
State legislators called the President to the Capitol to express the public outrage at the lavish going away presents to the departing senior administrators. A public flogging became necessary because the senior administrators are so far removed from the economic lives of the students and their parents and the public at large.
The President pointed his finger at his predecessor for being "very generous." Then, apparently without realizing that he could just as well point the finger at himself, he disclosed that the fix is in for him to receive a year long leave at $610,000 when he leaves office.
Will he not already have received sufficient compensation for his services at an annual salary of $610,000 plus an annual contribution of $50,000 to his retirement account starting in his second year?
"No," answers the President. He tells the legislators and us that his extravagant compensation and that of the other senior administrators is necessary "in a highly competitive global market for top talent." See the March 7, 2012 report in the Star Tribune.
Do we have "top talent?" What is the measurement? Who does the measuring?
Lavish compensation is not necessary to attract and retain qualified persons to public service. The compensation of senior administrators at the U of M far exceeds the compensation of senior administrators in state government who have similar qualifications and duties. See On The Cost of Administration
It now takes scores of students and their parents paying full tuition to support the salary and benefits of a single senior administrator at the U of M.
Senior administrators are stewards of the financial resources of the University. Using those resources to enrich themselves with "transitional" compensation and golden parachutes places the University at risk of losing the continuing goodwill and financial support of donors, state legislators, and the general public. Is "top talent" worth that cost?
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
Kaler says he'll limit U's plush pay packages
Bruininks had been criticized for bending U's executive leave policy.
Selected from Star-Tribune:
University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler called executive compensation packages signed by his predecessor "very generous" and vowed Tuesday to be more stringent when top officials leave his administration.
"I regret that those past decisions may have hurt the public's trust in our stewardship of this great university," Kaler told a House higher education committee on Tuesday. "My approach will be different."
Legislators requested the hearing after the Star Tribune disclosed that former University President Robert Bruininks signed a series of compensation agreements worth more than $2.8 million that routinely gave leaves to administrators at their executive salaries, even when departing administrators had no intention of returning to the U. In negotiating the deals, Bruininks regularly departed from university policy, often waiving a requirement that executives repay their stipends if they did not return to the faculty.
The memo from Jason Rohloff, Kaler's special assistant for government relations, said the president would testify that he "wasn't here when the decisions were made" and "will stress that, for him, the bar will be set high for any such exceptions."
At the hearing, Rep. Kim Norton, DFL-Rochester, called the packages "appalling" and "more generous than the private sector."
Norton said that she has agonized over making cuts in state funding to the University of Minnesota. Given that, "to see where that money is going is, frankly, shocking."
Kaler assured legislators that he will make changes and closely follow the policy that outlines administrative leaves. That policy states that "salary and benefits are typically paid at the level of the assumed, or resumed, faculty or professional position rather than at the administrative salary level."
Bruininks arranged for most of his administrators to receive their executive pay while on leave, university documents show.
Also, "the policy is clear that if someone does not return to the university after their sabbatical, the transitional salary must be repaid," Kaler said Tuesday. "I intend to stick to those guidelines."
Kaler noted that his own contract includes a year-long leave at his presidential salary -- now $610,000 a year -- before he steps down to join the faculty. "But if for some reason I do not return to the university, I will pay that money back,'' he said.
During a question-and-answer session after his first State of the University address last week, Kaler was questioned about the packages. Kaler urged students and staff not to judge him against administrative payouts signed before his time.
"I'm a new president," Kaler said. "You watch what I do before you judge how I do it."
The casual reader may ask, "What about Maturi?" Although I am not happy about that matter either, the issues are not exactly the same. Mr. Maturi is being paid while terminating his business at the University. I trust that he will in fact be working. Many of the arrangements mentioned above were quite different and indefensible.
Our University of Minnesota supporters at the legislature are put in a bad light by this kind of behavior. It makes it much more difficult for them to advocate for us.
Friday, March 2, 2012
(emphasis mine)
Regents panel tells Sviggum to choose between two posts
A regents panel believes that Steve Sviggum's new job with state Senate GOP caucus creates a "fundamental, systemic conflict" with his service on the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents. It recommended Sviggum give up one of the two posts.
Regent David McMillan said that he believes the two jobs make it "impossible to maintain the public’s confidence."
That group is making a recommendation to the full board, which meets next week and is the "final authority" on conflict questions, according to its code of ethics. Last time, when a three-regent panel recommended Sviggum pick between his posts, he gave up his job with the U's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
But this time, he did not step down.
"I’m a down-home farmer trying to do the right thing," Sviggum said during a lengthy, often accusatory response to the regents comments, "and that’s why I’m not going to walk out of here and resign.”
Sviggum repeated his point that he can manage his two positions and again argued that he vetted the job with board leaders and the U's general counsel before taking it -- a point they dispute. He said he imagines the board members find him to be a "pain in the butt," but it's important to keep him on the board for his sometimes critical perspectives.
After the meeting, he said he would "take some time" before deciding what to do next.
The panel reviewed three legal opinions released this week. John Stout, of the Minneapolis firm Fredrikson & Byron, and Mark Rotenberg, the U's general counsel, agreed that Sviggum's new job creates an "unresolvable, systemic clash of duties" with his spot on the Board of Regents.
"This systemic conflict cannot be eliminated, managed or cured," Stout wrote. "The public's confidence, the integrity of the Board and the protection of the University's public mission require that Regent Sviggum relinquish one of the two positions he currently holds."
Sviggum also submitted a legal opinion, by an attorney he has not named, which reiterated his opinion that because he's not a "decisionmaker" in his job as the Senate GOP's communications chief, he cannot have a conflict of interest. It concludes that "it is unlikely that Sviggum will be presented with any issue that presents an issue where his judgment may be impaired."
Letter from President Kaler
to University of Minnesota Faculty and Staff
[Emphasis mine.]
Dear Colleagues,
I delivered my first State of the University address yesterday.In it, I discussed new initiatives-some of which are moving forward, others that are ideas for exploration.The following are among them:
To advance our educational mission, I announced we will be
- re-imagining our yearly academic calendar to include three full semesters, beginning on the Twin Cities campus.
In the area of research we will be
- developing a new "entrepreneurial leave" program for faculty to partner with the private sector.
Finally, in the broad category of outreach and engagement, we will be continuing to address and reduce Minnesota's alarming educational achievement gap. As part of that effort, we will soon hold a "mini summit" with experts from across our campuses.
I also reviewed how my budgetary decisions last fall and going forward reflect my values and agenda: to do our best to hold the line on tuition increases and keep the U accessible for students from all economic backgrounds, to support excellent scholarship, and to hire more faculty.
I spoke of my commitment to reducing administrative costs, and announced that, for fiscal year 2013, I am proposing a zero percent increase in administrative cost pools, except for salary raises and financial aid. But I have budgeted a 2.5 percent salary increase for all employees to reward you after years of pay freezes, increased health care costs, and furloughs.
I hope you will take the time to read my speech.
I hope, too, you will continue to support our capital request efforts at the Legislature. I will keep you posted as developments unfold.
I've testified before the Legislature six times in the past five weeks. But I can't advocate for the U alone. So, please, let your elected officials know that the U requires strong support.
Thank you.
Eric W. Kaler
President
I will post some brief thoughts about this letter shortly.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Tripp Umbach
(U of M PR firm)
Fesses Up over Indiana U "Report"
[See an earlier discussion of the Tripp Umbach economic impact study for the U of M in Another Fine Mess (Academic Facilities).
Officials at Indiana University recently presented some impressive numbers concerning the school’s economic impact on the state — $4.9 billion to be exact, and $6.6B from its health programs. But independent experts claim the numbers don’t add up. In fact, according to Vanderbilt economist John Siegfried they’re “ridiculous to the extent of being really embarrassing for an institution supposedly dedicated to seeking truth and knowledge.”
Ouch. Siegfried goes even further to say the number is “so high that if it is true, Indiana should be investing in nothing except colleges and universities.”
Another number to consider is the $75,000 IU paid the economics consulting firm Tripp Umbach to conduct the study and 59-page report responsible for the unusual statistics. The firm’s CEO Paul Umbach attempted to clear up the issue by stating the reports are “public relations documents, and they’re designed to be that way,” also noting that the company’s reports are not peer-reviewed, nor are they meant to be published in academic journals. The report, according to Umbach, “exists as a communication tool” to advertise the school’s importance to the state. “It’s not going to win a Nobel Prize.”
In terms of specific errors, the report claimed that for every dollar Indiana taxpayers invest in IU, they receive a return of $24.91. But Peter McHenry, an assistant professor of economics at William and Mary, says the number is misleading since state tax dollars typically go to the school but not its hospitals, where much of the impact is credited.
At a recent news conference, Umbach defended the analysis by saying that the IU School of Medicine faculty is a “driver of a lot of the economic impact” in the report and hailed IU as a “national model” for the way it has interlaced its clinical and academic research. Umbach’s company has done similar reports for a number of public universities including Penn State, the University of Iowa, and the University of Washington. He says that IU’s impact was one of the more impressive he’s ever seen.
While McHenry doesn’t deny the importance of IU or its hospitals, he is still skeptical of the numbers, and of the return-on-investment number in particular. “If we’re making decisions based on that kind of number,” Mchnery adds, “then we’ve misled the public and misused public funds.”
Source: The Indianapolis Star
Please resign, Regent Sviggum...
Now!
Steve Sviggum has been told to make a choice. Mila Koumpilova’s PiPress story says: “An outside attorney and the University of Minnesota's own general counsel say Regent Steve Sviggum's job with the state Senate Republicans is in conflict with his board duties. University counsel Mark Rotenberg and Minneapolis attorney John Stout both see a 'fundamental, systemic clash' between Sviggum's unpaid regent service and his communications director job for the Senate Republican Caucus. In their opinions released by the school Wednesday, they wrote Sviggum cannot manage that conflict by recusals and needs to choose between the two posts.”
Jenna Ross’s Strib story says: “‘This systemic conflict cannot be eliminated, managed or cured,’ wrote John Stout, of the Minneapolis firm Fredrikson & Byron. ‘The public's confidence, the integrity of the Board and the protection of the University's public mission require that Regent Sviggum relinquish one of the two positions he currently holds.’ The U's general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, concurred. … A three-regent committee will consider the opinions at a meeting Friday before making a recommendation to the full board, which could vote on the matter March 8. Sviggum, who took the job as executive assistant to the Senate GOP caucus in January, has questioned Stout's impartiality and submitted a legal opinion of his own, by an attorney he has not named. In a letter to regents, Sviggum noted that he ‘expressed a great concern’ about having Rotenberg involved in any review of his situation. ‘I feel Mr. Rotenberg is not unbiased and has already made up his mind on the conflict of interest.’ The opinion Sviggum released Tuesday argues that ‘this current "inquiry" lacks policy and legal basis’ and concludes that ‘it is unlikely that Sviggum will be presented with any issue that presents an issue where his judgment may be impaired.'"
Gentlemen, start your hourly billing clocks.
Comments on MinnPost
Sviggum has disgraced himself.
Submitted by Paul Udstrand on March 1, 2012 - 8:15am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Uh huh. Even if this were a high school debate Sviggum wouldn't get any points.
Mr. Swiggum is a little too clingy...
Why is Steve Swiggum so determined to hold both positions?