A Journal Shows Its Spine Against Industry-Sponsored
Spine Research
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Third Greatest Public Research University in the World?
President Bruininks: Never Mind!
President Bruininks: Never Mind!
My friend, Michael McNabb writes:
Amid the financial ups and downs, the U's 15th president set his sights high: to make the school one of the world's top three public research universities within a decade.
It hasn't attained that status, and Bruininks says he's not sure it will, but he says his goal was not really about putting the U in the top three.
He said he wanted to start a conversation and make progress toward excellence on a variety of educational, research and public-outreach goals - particularly in comparison to peer institutions - which he says the U has done.
"The movement of these measures really tell an incredible story," he said.
St. Paul Pioneer Press June 26, 2011 at http://www.twincities.com/
The University's Plan, Performance and Accountability Report, now in its ninth year, is a broad, governance-level discussion of theU of M's fulfillment of its mission and its success toward its aspiration of becoming a top-three public research university in the world. . . .
While university rankings are often a topic of great interest to the general public and influential in changing or, in most cases, reinforcing perception, these rankings have several limitations which make them inappropriate for strategic planning and monitoring progress. Two of the most significant limitations are first, that the rankings are not guided by any empirical and theoretical framework to justify the selection of measures and methodology employed, and second, that the rankings adjust methodologies annually, making year-to-year analysis difficult and meaningless.
See the introduction to the September 2010 University Plan, Performance and Accountability Report at pp. 42, 45 of the October 8, 2011 report of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
Gilda Radner (as Litella) peered through her reading glasses and, in the character's trademark high-pitched, warbly voice, read a prepared statement in opposition to an editorial that the TV station had supposedly broadcast. These sketches were, in part, a parody of the Fairness Doctrine, which at the time required broadcasters in the United States to present opposing viewpoints on public issues. Litella became increasingly agitated as her statement progressed. Midway in her commentary, it became apparent that she had misheard and/or misunderstood the subject of the editorial to which she was responding. A typical example:
The news anchor interrupted Litella to point out her error, along the lines, "That's death, Ms. Litella, not deaf ... death." Litella would wrinkle her nose, say something like, "Oh, that's very different...." then meekly turn to the camera and say, "Never mind."
“ What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is! ”
See Emily Litella at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
See also the conclusion to Section 2 of University Inc. Part II at http://ptable.blogspot.com/
Michael W. McNabb
Attorney at Law
$$$
$$
$
Ex-Minnesota Golf Director Harris:
Brenny defamed me
I have been defamed unfairly, I believe, by Ms. Brenny and her law firm for financial gain and as part of an effort to obtain publicity for themselves.
John Harris said Saturday he did not resign as University of Minnesota golf director because former assistant coach Kathryn Brenny is suing him for sexual discrimination but rather to refocus on his Champions Tour playing career and business interests.
Brenny is suing him in Hennepin County for $200,000, with discrimination and nepotism at the heart of her complaint. The trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 12,
"I leave my position as director of golf based upon my decision - and mine alone - that, at this point in time, it is better for the University of Minnesota, my family and the players in the program going forward that another head coach build upon some of the positive momentum which has been created," he said.
Maturi recruited Harris for the job last summer over the objections of critics within the Gophers golf community who were concerned about his commitment to the program and whether the athletics director was more star struck by Harris' fundraising capabilities as a longtime professional golfer.
Documents filed in the lawsuit reveal a bitter fight that threatens to further taint the Gophers' athletics department.
Last year, a Hennepin County jury ordered the university to pay $1 million in damages to Jimmy Williams, who sued the athletics department claiming men's basketball coach Tubby Smith misrepresented an assistant coaching job offer. The university is appealing that verdict.
And now this tempest continues to roil the usually sedate realm of the golf program.
Brenny, the 1998 Minnesota State High School champion from Little Falls, Minn., claims Harris was motivated to push her aside to allow his son-in-law Ernie Rose to perform her assistant coaching duties. She said Harris circumvented university hiring practices by creating a position for Rose, who had no college degree.
Brenny, 30, played at Wake Forest before winning the 2007 Minnesota State Amateur championship. She was an instructor in North Carolina in August when she received a phone call from Harris encouraging her to apply for the assistant head coach's job in Minnesota. She assumed she would teach and mentor the entire 10-woman roster.
Instead, according to her complaint, Brenny was allowed to work only with the freshmen, was prohibited from talking about golf with upperclassmen and spent the majority of her time running early-morning conditioning drills and doing paperwork.
Harris and the university deny Brenny's allegations and have pushed back, accusing her in court records of suing Harris to exploit his status as a professional golfer who has earned more than $3 million on the Champions Tour since 2002.
Mark has said Harris learned Brenny was gay shortly after she was hired and immediately tried to freeze her out of the program. He excluded her from men's and women's team events and did not invite her to a dinner at Harris' house while Rose and men's coach John Carlson were allowed to attend.
The university maintains it had the right under Brenny's employment contract to change her job description. Brenny claims the university defrauded her by making her perform duties that conflicted with the job she was offered.
The university denies the sexual-discrimination claim and wants Judge William Howard to dismiss the lawsuit.
Harris chose to hire his own attorney even though the university pledged to defend him in the lawsuit, according to a Jan. 26 letter by university President Robert Bruininks.
The letter included a caveat.
"The decision is made based upon the university's determination that, at all times and in all matters relevant to the complaint, you were acting within the course and scope of your university employment," Bruininks wrote Harris.
"Should at any time our understanding of the facts related to this case change, the university reserves the right to reconsider and alter our determination regarding your coverage under this policy."
Saturday, June 25, 2011
John Harris, University of Minnesota Golf Coach,
Leaves after less than one year...
John Harris, whose one season as director of Gophers golf programs included success on the links and trouble off, resigned Friday after less than a year on the job.
Harris signed a multiyear contract last July 30 and will not receive a buyout, according to Garry Bowman, university director of sports information.
Harris, one of the state's top amateur golfers, is the central figure in an ongoing lawsuit against the university. The suit was filed by Kathryn Brenny, hired by Harris as associate women's golf coach last August.
The complaint says that on Sept. 12 Harris told Brenny she would not be traveling with the team and was given duties such as typing schedules. Brenny was told by athletic director Joel Maturi to "quit or comply" with Harris' decisions, according to the complaint.
Brenny originally agreed to a severance package, then rejected it, the complaint states, after hearing that an athletic department employee told at least one player that "Harris discovered she was a homosexual and did not want her on the road with the team.''
The suit alleges the university and Harris violated her rights as a member of a protected class under the state Human Rights Act. University general counsel Mark Rotenberg has said that the school does not agree with Brenny's claims and did not discriminate against her on the basis of sexual orientation.
Friday, June 24, 2011
University of Minnesota Academic Health Center
Continues Assault on Dr. Carl Elliott
Our University has been dealing with Carl Elliott’s personal crusade against our psychiatry department (and Drs. Schulz & Olson specifically) for a number of years. Unfortunately, lost in the marketing around Carl’s books and the articles he authors is the fact that the multiple bodies who have examined this case (and the University’s role in it) have never found a connection between Dan Markingson’s unfortunate suicide and this clinical trial.
I’m unsure how one man’s opinion has been positioned above the findings of the federal government, state reviews, the courts and our own University’s review boards, but such has been the case. And just in the past few months, you can now add our Board of Regents to the list of reviewers who haven’t found any connection between the CAFÉ trial or Seroquel and Dan’s death. I can appreciate the beliefs of Dan’s mother, and I can see where Carl’s interests lie – but the facts simply point a different direction.
While I would never imply the media coverage has been unfair, I would say that it’s been unfortunate that one man has been given such a voice when the facts prove his logic is unfounded. I understand that fiction is sometimes more interesting than the facts, but it’s been frustrating for our University to see media coverage that borders on editorial or opinion positioned as news online and in some print sources.
Absolutely wrong that a so-called PR professional would write such a thing in his official capacity as a University of Minnesota Academic Health Center representative.
This is inexcusable and unacceptable.
Mr. Paquette owes Dr. Elliott an immediate and sincere apology.
The Markingson Case:
Weary Negligence Continues at
the University of Minnesota
More crazy journos write about the case, the U blows them off.
From William Heisel's Antidote at USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism:
In March, Antidote asked Dr. Charles Schulz at the University of Minnesota for an interview about a clinical trial he had overseen in which a patient had killed himself.
Schulz did not respond. Dr. Stephen Olson, who was the co-investigator on the clinical trial, did not respond to a similar request. But I did receive a very candid email from the public relations manager for the Academic Health Center, Justin Paquette, who has been cordial in every exchange:
First and foremost, the topic sounds interesting and we very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this case, but I’d like to decline – and here’s our reasoning. Our University has been dealing with Carl Elliott’s personal crusade against our psychiatry department (and Drs. Schulz & Olson specifically) for a number of years. Unfortunately, lost in the marketing around Carl’s books and the articles he authors is the fact that the multiple bodies who have examined this case (and the University’s role in it) have never found a connection between Dan Markingson’s unfortunate suicide and this clinical trial.
I’m unsure how one man’s opinion has been positioned above the findings of the federal government, state reviews, the courts and our own University’s review boards, but such has been the case. And just in the past few months, you can now add our Board of Regents to the list of reviewers who haven’t found any connection between the CAFÉ trial or Seroquel and Dan’s death. I can appreciate the beliefs of Dan’s mother, and I can see where Carl’s interests lie – but the facts simply point a different direction.
While I would never imply the media coverage has been unfair, I would say that it’s been unfortunate that one man has been given such a voice when the facts prove his logic is unfounded. I understand that fiction is sometimes more interesting than the facts, but it’s been frustrating for our University to see media coverage that borders on editorial or opinion positioned as news online and in some print sources. However, I would also say that the major news media in our area has not covered this since the original story broke years ago, which may further prove that there is simply nothing new to discuss. This is essentially a long-winded way of saying that I’m unsure it makes sense for our University to continue discussing this through the media. We appreciate you reaching out.
It's difficult, though, to separate clinically sound decision-making from the needs of a pharmaceutical company to establish a case for its product. So, whether Dan Markingson died because of the trial is just part of the larger question that Dr. Elliott raises of whether these trials are more beneficial to the companies than they are to the trial participants and future patients. That's really the important question. Do you know of anyone who might be able to talk with me about that larger question?
I did not write Paquette again until May 3, when I said:
I would appreciate it if you could provide some documents for some of the things that you mentioned above. It would be great to post some documents about the federal reviews, the state reviews, the court reviews, the multiple University reviews and the Board of Regents reviews. My intention is to walk people through the documents and explain how they relate to the case.
Let me pass this request upward. I know the Regents response, etc., should be easy enough to pass along b/c it was recent. The other parts may be more challenging.
Was told that most of the documents you referenced pertaining to the exhaustive investigations around this case years ago (and most recently from our Regents) is all a matter of public record. If you want the U of M to provide them you can put in an official request that I can forward to the general counsel’s office, but it wouldn’t be an immediate turnaround. Also, my initial assumption was confirmed – administrators within the University don’t see the need to comment on this case further. Carl will likely continue on his own personal path with regards to this case, but the U of M won’t discuss it any more.
I'm not sure what you mean by an official request. Is there a template that the university requires people to follow?
That was more than one month ago. I have yet to receive any documents.
Meanwhile, Elliott has been asking the university for the same records, and the school finally provided some documentation to him. I will go over the records and what they mean in upcoming posts.
To see more posts from the Markingson Files, click here.
[At some point the University may finally realize the damage that this denial and footdragging is doing to the clinical research enterprise at the U. - I hope so.]
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Morrill Hall Still Unwilling
to Face Reality at
University of Minnesota?
To illustrate the challenge of getting Morrill Hall to face reality, see a portion of the short video of President Bruininks being interviewed by Esme Murphy this morning on 'CCO. Truly a Five Pinocchio performance.
1. Very few universities have not seen a marked increase in applications: More than 28,000 students applied to be part of UW-Madison's freshman class in the fall, a record number and the biggest increase in at least 20 years.
2. The Promise Scholarship pot of gold - $350 million - at 5% will yield $70 per student based on an enrollment of 25,000 undergrads. For a comparison of the actual cost of attending the U of M and the University of North Carolina for a student with minimal financial resources, please see: For I have promises to keep... The debt load for a student/parent at North Carolina at graduation is ZERO dollars, while the Minnesota student/parent will have to borrow $34,400.
3. President Bruininks has the chutzpah to claim: "The quality of education is better now today than it has been in any of the 42 years that I have been at the University of Minnesota."
FIVE PINOCCHIOS
There is plenty of evidence to counter the President's claim, for example:
a. "As for commitment to quality education at an affordable cost? Meaningless drivel. The administration has flatly failed on its promises of excellence and affordability." Daily (13 Oct 2009)
b. "Davis-Blake said that quality is going down because the quality of the student experience has declined, which is related to uncontrollable central costs. At the Carlson School, they have fewer TAs, fewer classes, more students in classes, the building is less clean, there are fewer advisers, they have more adjuncts, and they have less information technology. All of these things are happening." Former Carlson School Dean Davis-Blake who has left for Michigan.
There will be more on this in due course. We have a lot of work to do at the University of Minnesota so that we can be an institution of which the state can be proud. I hope the next administration does a much better job and re-establishes our land grant priorities.
However it is important to face up to our problems and not try to sweep them under the rug. This strategy has been a dismal failure.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Promise Scholarships
at the University of Minnesota
Another Whopper?
But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep...
But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep...
Here's the start of an investigation into the shell game that has been going on with respect to the so-called Promise Scholarships at the University of Minnesota. These have been held up as an answer to the dilemma posed by a high tuition model at the U. Supposedly students with great financial needs would be sheltered from the devastating costs of college and staggering debt loads.
Simply not so.
To begin this discussion here is a little comparison between two public universities, the U of M and the University of North Carolina. Basically, you can use data provided by these universities to figure out the net cost of attendance. If you'd like to try it yourself, go here and sign in as "guest."
Then fill out the forms for these colleges making sure that the so called AGI is zero, so that the student/parents are absolutely unable to contribute to the cost of education. You will get the following numbers. I intend to discuss them in a little more detail shortly, but the results are striking and indicate that Promise Scholarships need re-thinking. The net cost at the U of M is $11,268 and the student/parent is expected to borrow $8,600 per year for a staggering four year debt of $34,400.
Contrast this to the situation at the University of North Carolina where a student with the same financial resources would see a net cost of $2,700 with loans of ZERO to the student/parent.
Some quibbles may be made over this analysis but it is obvious that something smells in Morrill Hall and it is not the President's fish.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
If wishes were fishes...
More Dissembling on MoreU Park
(Hat tip to Michael McNabb)
Once Dakota Aggregates gets up and running by spring 2012, the operation could bring the university $3 million to $5 million annually through the company's sale of sand and gravel, Muscoplat said.
Hmm...
and what does the lease say:
In November 2010 the Regents approved a 40 year lease for mining at UMore Park. The lease provides for a minimum royalty of $5 million (for the entire 40 year lease) plus annual royalties between $425,000 and $800,000. See p. 2 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Facilities Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www.umn.edu/regents/minutes/2010/november/ facilities.pdf and pp. 13-14 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Finance & Operations Committee at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/ docket/2010/november/finance. pdf.
$$$
$$
$
Board of Regents chew on
University of Minnesota budget plan
The first public look at a proposed budget for the University of Minnesota provoked some angst, some praise -- and strong skepticism from a new member of the U's governing board.
The state's flagship school is planning to raise tuition, cut employee benefits and reduce faculty under a $3.7 billion budget that deals with the "worst-case scenario" of a $70.9 million cut in state funding from this year to next.
New regent and former GOP legislator Steve Sviggum questioned why the U does not cut more employees.
"We've got to recognize reality, folks," said Sviggum, who said he opposes the budget's growth over the past decade. "I think I've seen from my own perceptions that we can make significant reductions in non-teaching and non-research positions."
The Friday meeting set the stage for a dramatic vote June 20.
The proposed budget raises undergraduate tuition 5 percent for Minnesota residents and 8.2 percent for nonresidents. Graduate and professional students could see tuition rise by 3.3 to 9.3 percent, depending on their fields. The 9.3 percent bump applies to first-year Law School students from Minnesota.
The budget assumes a $70.9 million cut in current state funding approved by the GOP-led Legislature but vetoed by DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. It uses tuition to solve a third of the "budget challenge" created by that cut, plus $58.9 million in increasing costs. The rest comes from a wage freeze, reductions to employee benefits, increased productivity and eliminating faculty and staff positions through layoffs and early retirements.
The budget will force departments to reduce their faculty ranks, said Provost Thomas Sullivan. Coupled with growing enrollment, that will mean fewer courses, fewer sections and larger class sizes.
In the U's biggest college, the College of Liberal Arts, 60 faculty spots will not be filled. The College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences will lose 32 faculty positions. Carlson School of Management's faculty roster will fall from 111 to 90, he said.
The Duluth campus has already shrunk by 39 faculty members and, under this budget, plans to shave five more.
"There's not enough money to fulfill all the commitments we have," said Dr. Patricia Simmons, a regent. "And I'm very deeply sorry and sad to see such a potential loss of faculty numbers at a time when we're making progress on graduation rates, when we're improving the quality of our offering."
But the proposed budget, she said, is "the best we can do under the circumstances."
During the public forum, several deans agreed. Tom Fisher, dean of the College of Design, called it "strategic, balanced and fair." Several clerical workers, however, said the budget hits the lowest-paid workers too hard.
Cherrene Horazuk, a U clerical worker and chief steward of the AFSCME unit, said the U budget provides for "exorbitant wages for senior administrators and poverty wages for front-line staff.
"Now the administration wants another round of wage cuts," she said, "and they want to shift $10 million out of the health insurance plan in order to balance the overall budget. This is unconscionable."
New regent Laura Brod, a former GOP legislator, was critical of another budget Friday. The board approved a $71.4 million capital improvement budget that included spending already-approved state money on repair and renovation projects, $7.3 million for a new sports field and $3.1 million to design a new dorm on University Avenue. Brod was the one regent to vote against the budget.
"I have a general concern over the aggressive nature of the capital budget," she said.
In meetings Thursday and Friday, Sviggum questioned administrators about growth in total employees. According to the U, total full-time-equivalent positions rose from 16,199 in 2001 to 17,931 in 2011, an increase of 10.7 percent. Sviggum said that other state agencies have dealt with increasing responsibilities and reduced budgets with fewer employees.
U officials responded that they have become more efficient and that much of the growth in budget and employees is a good thing. For example, the U is bringing in more sponsored research dollars and private gifts.
"It has not been the intent of the university to reduce its overall budget," said Richard Pfutzenreuter, the U's chief financial officer. "This institution has been trying to grow its budget in any way it can."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
 |
| Dan hides the ball... |
An Outside View
On University of Minnesota's
Dan Wolter
But I have to say that on a few too many occasions, his office [Wolter] and the U have been stingier or slower with information than practically any other bureaucracy I’ve covered.
Read my accounts — or practically any (especially early) accounts of the Troubled Waters film controversy. The stonewalling, sidestepping of questions and conflicting “official” stories coming out of the administration created a public relations fiasco for the U.
I’m not alone in saying this. The Minnesota Daily reports in its write-up of Wolter:
Chris Ison, an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and a former reporter in the Twin Cities, said the News Service has been more obstructive than helpful to the media.
Instead of allowing easy access to all the information, Ison said, the News Service has tried to funnel everything through its office, often stymieing reporters from getting public information — especially in controversial issues.
Dan Wolter Leaves
the University of Minnesota
to go to Pfizer
A match made in heaven...
Mr. Wolter's reign at the University of Minnesota has been an unmitigated disaster.
University News Service Director Daniel Wolter urged those contacted by Daily reporters to call him before agreeing to talk. He expressed concern about problems “that will result from using this particular venue for that purpose,” and said he’d be “happy” to offer a no comment on their behalf.
A similar e-mail was distributed just more than a year ago, complaining of “numerous uncoordinated administration comments giving too much information” to the media. The message directed all who receive press inquiries to route them to the News Service to ensure “the University’s reputation is both protected and advanced through the news media.” In other words: Don’t talk so that we can spin.
Professional journalists usually aren’t forced to communicate with public information offices only through e-mail, as Wolter generally demands of Daily reporters. It’s a system that inhibits good-faith communication and reasonably quick access. Most professional journalists aren’t pressured to go through one office to cover, on a daily basis, a community of more than 60,000 people — only to be chastised for being a burden on that office.
Wolter’s e-mail policy does give him plenty of chances to scold reporters for doing their jobs. Take the recent e-mail sent to a reporter after she politely explained her role as a journalist and said she hoped to forge “a more professional and collaborative” relationship with his office. Wolter responded in part by criticizing her calls to other University offices, saying “there’s nothing in their job description about talking to the media.” He complained of how “most people who have been at the ‘U’ for more than a couple of years also have a story of how the Daily wasted their time in some way.”
I understand that the Daily has/had a fish named Wolter. Easy to understand why.
Less than a month before the University’s president and a slew of vice presidents step down, Dan Wolter is also leaving after more than six years as the University News Service director.
As head of the office responsible for filtering daily requests from local and national media, Wolter is the main link between the University’s administration and the public.
Prior to coming to the University in February 2005, Wolter’s career was heavily concentrated in politics, when he spent years as a spokesman for various political figures, including former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Next he’ll tackle private industry — he’s leaving the University for a similar job at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc.
Contacted daily by the media, Wolter said his office works to accommodate all requests and keep the University open.
“I think we do a relatively good job of that,” Wolter said.
But some disagree.
Chris Ison, an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and a former reporter in the Twin Cities, said the News Service has been more obstructive than helpful to the media.
Instead of allowing easy access to all the information, Ison said, the News Service has tried to funnel everything through its office, often stymieing reporters from getting public information — especially in controversial issues.
Paul Hassen, vice president of public affairs for the Association of Public Land-grant Universities, said that a spokesman’s job in controversial situations should not be to explain what happened, but only to release facts “as they are known at any given point in time.”
“My job is about telling the University’s story,” Wolter said.