Would you be interested in having your son

 participate in a clinical trial run by these folks?



"Corrective Action" in Markingson Trial

The Minnesota Daily does a nice job on this sordid tale:

Dan Markingson committed suicide after his participation in the drug trial. 

A state board has issued “corrective action” against the University of Minnesota study coordinator in a 2003 research trial that led to the suicide of participant Dan Markingson.

The report is the first official action to allege any wrongdoing since the suicide, which bioethicists have said may  have been a result of ethical lapses. They still say the corrective actions are not enough.

The Minnesota Board of Social Work said Jean Kenney made repeated errors in documentation, performed tasks beyond her expertise and didn’t adequately address family concerns over the treatment of Markingson, who committed suicide during the study.

Critics say Markingson was coerced into the study and that he didn’t give completely informed consent.

Markingson was involuntarily committed to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview psychiatric ward in 2003. He was then entered into a University of Minnesota anti-psychotic drug research trial funded by AstraZeneca.

Six months after joining the study, he stabbed himself to death. He was 26.

Mike Howard, a close friend to Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss, filed the initial complaint against Kenney in early 2009 with the Minnesota Board of Social Work.

The board hired an independent investigator to look into the complaints, Howard said.

“It’s a hard document to make sense of,” said University bioethics professor Carl Elliott. “On one hand it outlines a fair amount of wrongdoing, but on the other hand there’s no punishment of any significance for Kenney. The really serious wrongdoing in the Markingson case isn’t really addressed in [the report].”

Howard added that the report may be the end of Kenney’s involvement with the case but that he anticipates further action regarding others involved.

“I think [Kenney] was a pawn,” Howard said. “She did what she was told.”

Kenney’s job was to recruit patients for the study, called “Comparison of Atypicals for First-Episode of Psychosis,” as well as to collect data from those enrolled.

The board found that Kenney routinely performed tasks beyond her level of expertise and competence. She made numerous errors in notes, like writing “hyperthyroidism” instead of “hypothyroidism” and listing the wrong dosage of Markingson’s medication.

Once Kenney made an error, it would be repeated throughout the study.

The board also says Kenney went back to the records after Markingson’s suicide to fix some of her errors.

David Alsop, who represented Kenney, said “some of her documentation was not the best” but denied that those errors affected Markingson’s care or caused his suicide.

Alsop said Kenney doesn’t want to comment directly to the media.

As demanded by the board, Kenney will complete 18 hours of continuing education and three hours of consultation and write up a report on what she learned for the board.

If Kenney completes the assigned tasks, the board will close the investigation.

“There’s no more action,” Alsop said. “This is the end of it.”

The board also found problems with the CAFÉ study as a whole.

“Despite the large amount of data gathered” in the study, there did not seem to be an analysis of the data, including in the treatment planning process, according to the document.

The record also links the problems to Markingson’s suicide.

“There were critical omissions in [Kenney’s] documentation that were relevant to suicide prevention” the board investigation found.

Years-long controversy

The corrective action comes after years of calls for further investigation into the ethics behind the study. But multiple internal and external investigations found no wrongdoing by the University, and it has defended those involved in the study since the start.

In late 2010, eight University professors sent a letter to the Board of Regents seeking external review of what they said was “an alarming series of ethical violations and lapses” leading to Markingson’s death

Regents denied the request, citing investigations by the University’s Institutional Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration and the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice that all found no evidence of misconduct.

Elliott was one of the professors in the letter.

“The University of Minnesota Department of Psychiatry was complicit in manipulating research results for AstraZeneca, and it looks very likely that the CAFÉ study was part of that manipulation,” Elliott said.

Vice President for Health Sciences Aaron Friedman, defended the University’s involvement with research funded by industry, saying in a letter to Academic Health Center employees, “it’s our job to ensure that knowledge becomes widely available,” according to a 2011 email.

In a statement responding to the board’s corrective action, University General Counsel Mark Rotenberg said Kenney is no longer an employee at the University. He referenced the investigations that found no wrongdoing on behalf of the University
.
“Most importantly, none found any causal link between the CAFÉ trial and the death of Mr. Markingson,” he said.

Howard said the University is in denial.

“That’s how the U does things,” he said. “It’s deny, deny, deny.”

The report is “the first part of recovering” for those who were close to Markingson, Howard said.

In the weeks leading up to Markingson’s suicide, his mother wrote letters to Charles Schulz, head of the University’s Department of Psychiatry. She expressed concern with her son’s involvement in the CAFÉ studies and the care he received from psychiatrist Stephen Olson, who also was a co-investigator in the study. She asked if Schulz would feel comfortable if his own son were in Markingson’s position.

In his response, Schulz wrote, “I would be very interested in my son receiving treatment in a well organized treatment trial that has been run by such effective staff as Dr. Olson and Jeannie Kenney.”

Given what follows, I would never let my son, or anyone else for that matter, have anything to do with a study conducted by these people.


From the Board of Social Work's Report:

FACTS

 2. For the purposes oft his Agreement, the corrective action warranted herein is based on the following.

a. Beginning in June 2002, Licensee worked as a study coordinator./psychiatric social worker for the department of Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota. Licensee's duties included recruiting patients for the CAFE study, a double blind comparison of three medications used in treating first episode psychosis. Licensee was also responsible for collecting data from the study participants.

b. In December 2003, client #1, a twenty-seven year old adult male, was discharged from Fairview Hospital after an involuntary commitment.

c. Between December 2003 and May 2004 Licensee provided clinical social work services to client #1 while he participated in the CAFE study. 

d. Although Licensee had no formal medical training or experience with respect to obtaining medical histories or handling adverse drug events, Licensee regularly completed forms, gathered information, and performed tasks that were beyond Licensee's competence and scope of practice as a clinical social worker. Licensee also made numerous documentation errors in performance of these tasks. Examples include the following:

1) On November 24, 2003, Licensee completed a medical history that called for evaluation of body systems for past or active medical disorders. The form listed 22 categories including otolaryngological (ear, nose, and throat), cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, renal, dermatologic, and hematologic disorders.  On the medical hisotry form, Licensee incorrectly listed client #1's diagnosis as hyperthyroidism rather than hypothyroidism.  This incorrect medical diagnosis was repeated throughout client #1's medical record.

2) On the medication log, Licensee correctly listed client #1's Synthroid dose as 25 micrograms for client #1's baseline visit. However, beginning with visits 3 through 10 as 25 milligrams, a significant quantity error. The medication log also contained the incorrect diagnosis of hyperthyroidism.

3) On nine occasions, beginning on December 5, 2003, Licensee completed the Adverse Event/Medical Diagnosis form which called for a "clinicial rating of severity" for orthostatic faintness, dry mouth, constipation, sialorrhea, gynomastia, galactorrhea, sex drive, sexual arousal, sexual orgasm, incontinence, nocturia, urinary hesitancy, skin rash, hypersomnia, weight gain, akathisia, and akinesia. On two additional occasions, Licensee delegated the task of completing this form to a social work intern, who Licensee was supervising. 

4) Between November 24, 2003, and April 28, 2004, Licensee completed forms assessing the Barnes Rating Scale for drug-induced aksthisia, as well as weight, vital signs and waist, hip, height measurements. Licensee also completed the Simpson-Angus Abbreviated Examination of gait, arm dropping, shoulder shaking, elbow rigidity, wrist rigidity and tremor. 

5) Licensee dispensed legend prescription drugs without authorization and in violation of the University's policy. 

e) Licensee routinely initialed clinical documents with a physician's initials when the physician neglected to do so. 

f) Licensee failed to adequately address family concerns in a timely and effective manner, failed to document critical information regarding intervention and plans, and failed to maintain sufficient inter-agency communications.

g) Licensee's documentation consistently fell below minimum standards of practice for a clinical social worker. Examples include the following:

1). Despite the large amount of data gathered as part of the CAFE study, the records are devoid of any evidence that the data was critically analyzed or used in the treatment planning process.

2) The records are devoid of any clearly articulated, consistent set of treatment plans or goals, or plans that demonstrate measurement of progress or reasonably allow for continuity of care.

3) Relevant notes were not entered into client #1's medical record in a timely manner, even when in response to alarming voice mail messages from family members.

4) There were critical omissions in Licensee's documentation that were relevant to suicide prevention and chemical dependency treatment. 

h) On March 17, 2004, Licensee received an email message from the CAFE study sponsor warning of a new risk of hyperglycemia and diabetes for patients taking medications used in the CAFE study. This new information effectively invalidated client #1's original informed consent. 

i) As client #1's primary contact, it was Licensee's obligation to communicate the new risk information to client #1 and the informed consent form should have been modified and resubmitted to the Institutional Review Board. There is no documentation that Licensee discussed the new informed consent with client #1 or took any other action.

j. On May 8, 2004, client #1 committed suicide.

k. On May 11, 2004, on the Serious Adverse Event Report, completed after client #1's death, Licnesee again incorrectly listed the diagnosis of hyperthyroidism and incorrectly listed the Synthroid dose. 

l. On or about July 24, 2004, Licensee went through client #1's medical records and made hanwritten revisions, changing hyperthyroidism to the correct diagnosis of hypothyroidism. Licensee initialed and dated the revisions.

STATUTES

3. The Board views Licensee's conduct in paragraph 2 as a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 148 and the rules of the Board pursuant to section 148.

 

And The Angels Wept....

Some background:

The Markingson Case at the Univrsity of Minnesota: Follow the Money



 From the Star-Tribune:
 JEREMY OLSON

Sanctions imposed in 2004
U drug trial death

 Social worker faulted over care of a 27-year-old
in a U study who killed himself.  

Dan Markingson's mother has waited nearly a decade for researchers in a University of Minnesota drug study to be held accountable for the suicide of her son.

A small piece of that accountability came when state regulators and former U of M social worker Jean Kenney reached an agreement about actions she must take as a result of errors she made in Markingson's care during the study.

"It is the first public acknowledgement of the wrongs that were done," said Mike Howard, a close friend to Markingson's mother, Mary Weiss.

Markingson's death in May 2004, during a clinical trial of antipsychotic drugs, has had ripple effects at the university, including a lawsuit, a federal probe and an overhaul of the school's ethics standards for clinical trials.

But no one involved in the fateful study had suffered any sanctions until now.
Even the action regarding Kenney, issued Friday by the Minnesota Board of Social Work, isn't a disciplinary action; it is listed only as an "agreement for correction action." The unusual licensing document requires that Kenney complete 18 hours of training and write a report on whether it alters her view of her conduct in the drug trial.

In some ways, the document raises more questions about the psychiatrists who led the study -- and why they put Kenney in a role beyond her scope of training -- than about Kenney herself, Howard said.

"It's a pretty big black mark over there on how things were being done,'' Howard said.

Kenney said she was simply "acting under ... supervision and in accordance with the protocols that had been approved," according to the document. Her attorney, David Alsop, said Kenney reached the agreement with the social work board in order to "get this behind" her.

The document asserts that Kenney wrote incorrect drug dosages and made other mistakes in Markingson's records. She also made clinical observations about Markingson, and whether the drugs caused him side effects, that were beyond her scope of practice as a social worker, the order said. Kenney also was criticized for failing to adequately respond to the concerns of Markingson's family -- his mother at one point questioned whether her son would have to die before she would be taken seriously -- or recording how information gathered about Markingson was used in his treatment planning.

Alsop said Kenney disagrees with most of the statements in the document, but acknowledges the recordkeeping errors. "She did" make those errors, he said, "but it didn't affect the tragic outcome of this case."

U was cleared by FDA

The university has been held blameless in Markingson's death. The 27-year-old, who had schizophrenia, had been in the trial for months when he killed himself in a West St. Paul group home.

The so-called CAFE study was funded by drugmaker AstraZeneca to compare three antipsychotic drugs, including the drug Seroquel, which Markingson was taking.

The university and AstraZeneca were dismissed from a lawsuit by Markingson's mother. An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn't fault them either. The lead psychiatrist for the study, Stephen Olson, settled the lawsuit for modest costs but has faced no disciplinary action.

Markingson's relatives aren't the only ones who raised concerns, though. The mental health ombudsman for the state of Minnesota questioned how Markingson was recruited into the study.

A judge had ordered Markingson to comply with the recommendations of his psychiatrist, Olson, or face inpatient commitment. Markingson agreed to participate in the study shortly after that court order was issued.

The Minnesota Legislature has since made it illegal for psychiatrists to recruit their own patients into their own clinical trials.

U of M ethics Prof. Carl Elliott has criticized his own institution for the study. On Monday, Elliott called the Kenney agreement "alarming." He has questioned whether Markingson ever had the mental capacity to consent to the study. But even if his written consent was valid at first, the document suggests that it was invalidated when the university failed to notify him of risks of taking Seroquel that were discovered during the trial.

"The university ought to be looking into this," Elliott said.

Officials with the U and the social work board weren't available Monday, a federal holiday. In previous correspondence, university officials have defended their psychiatrists and cited the lack of investigatory findings as reasons to support them.

University of Minnesota eliminates Office of Academic Administration; move saves $1.6 million

Simply amazing...

See previous posts:

The Cost of "Top Talent"


The Cost of "Top Talent" Part II 

and

The Cost of "Top Talent" Part III

From the Pioneer Press:

The University of Minnesota is taking what it called its most decisive step yet to shrink administrative expenses.

The university is eliminating its Office of Academic Administration to coincide with the departure of Robert Jones, the vice president in charge of that office.

The U estimates shutting that office and divvying up its roles among other departments will save about $1.6 million. Of the savings, Jones' salary and benefits account for $414,300. 

 "Because Robert has done such a good job, we're now in a place where we don't need the convenient function his office provided," said Amy Phenix, Kaler's chief of staff.


Former Regent Steve Sviggum, state legislators and others have questioned whether the U is too top-heavy, an assertion Kaler has disputed. They have urged the university to find ways to operate more efficiently. In the biennial funding request the U is pitching to legislators, it vows to trim $28 million in administrative spending over two years. 

Michael McNabb, a member of the U's alumni association and outspoken critic of its administrative costs, said the move is a step in the right direction, but the university should do more: "The excessive cost of administration is one factor for the skyrocketing tuition over the past decade that has imposed financial hardship on students and their parents." 

On The Cost of Administration Part III

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master--that's all."

Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass (1871) 

          Added December 30, 2012:

An article that is in many ways complementary to this one has now appeared in the Wall Street Journal - on the front page: "Deans List: Hiring Spree Fattens College Bureaucracy—And Tuition."

                                                          

On The Cost of Administration Part III

President Kaler recently declared that compensation for persons in positions of "administrative oversight" was limited to 11% ($208,545,279) of the total compensation paid to all University employees ($1.9 billion) in fiscal year 2012.  See the October 12, 2012 report in the Star Tribune.

The headline for the report was What's in a Name?  In this case the answer is hundreds of millions of dollars.

The compensation for those in "administrative oversight" does not include the compensation for the administrative staff who carry out the tasks that are directed and overseen by the administrators.  Here is the breakdown for the compensation for administrative staff for fiscal year 2012:

See p. 17 of the October 11, 2012 report presented by senior administrators to the Regents on Cost Definition & Benchmarking.

The overall cost of administration includes more than the compensation of administrators and their staff.  In fiscal year 2012 the administration spent $131,590,695 on administrative supplies and services and an additional $35,175,423 on equipment for administration.  The administration also spent an astounding $34,815,696 on consulting and professional services.  (Why is the administration spending tens of millions of dollars on outside consultants when it has the expertise of its own faculty at its command?)  These "non-personnel expenditures" (the term used by the administration) add up to $201,581,814. 

Here is the total cost of administration for fiscal year 2012:

In fiscal year 2012 the total expenditures of the University were $3,059,632,119.  So the cost of administration consumes 28% ($852,039,094) of the University budget. 

Is 28% in administrative overhead excessive?  There is no accurate national system for comparing administrative costs at universities so we have to look at the world outside the campus.  With an administrative overhead of 20% American private health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs of any health insurance system in the world.  See T.R. Reid, The Healing of America (New York:  Penguin Press 2009) at pp. 36-38.

The Affordable Health Care Act now requires health insurance companies to send rebates to consumers if the company spends more than 20% of its premiums on administrative costs.  See the July 23, 2012 Star Tribune report on Insurers Sending Rebate Checks.

The U of M administration increased spending from $2 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $3 billion in fiscal year 2012.  The fuel for this billion dollar explosion was skyrocketing tuition that soared from $293 million in fiscal year 2002 to $634 million in fiscal year 2011.  See Ten Year Review of University Inc.

The administration has proposed a freeze on tuition (for undergraduate students only) for the next two years on the condition that the state increase appropriations by $91.6 million.  See the September 14, 2012 Star Tribune report.  The prospect of an increase in state appropriations appears remote with the legislature facing a projected deficit of more than $1 billion when the $2.4 billion state IOU to school districts for K-12 education is taken into account.  See the October 15, 2012 Star Tribune commentary by former governor Arne Carlson.

Substantial reductions in tuition are possible without any increase in state appropriations.  There should be substantial reductions in the cost of administration at the University.  Reducing the cost of administration from 28% to 20% would save $240 million.

The savings should  be used to reduce tuition and the crushing debt that the administration has imposed on students and their parents.  The senior administrators and the Regents must restore public support for the University in the old-fashioned way--they must earn it.   

  

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

U shouldn’t pay $800,000

to avoid a so-so foe

From the Star-Tribune

Chip Scroggins

 

 At a time when purse strings are tight, the Gophers are shelling out $800,000 to avoid two football games with North Carolina.

 

 The Gophers backed out of their home-and-home series with North Carolina in 2013-14 in favor of trying to find a lesser opponent. The kicker is even more of a doozy: The Gophers paid North Carolina $800,000 to cancel the series. That's right, an athletic department that struggles to make budget every year is forking over $800,000 to avoid playing North Carolina.

That would be comical if it weren't so pathetic.

We're not talking about canceling a game against Alabama. Or Southern California. Or even South Carolina.

No, somehow Kill has convinced Teague that for the good of building his program, it's wise if they avoid playing a road game against an opponent that presumably resides in their weight class.

What kind of message does that send to players, fans and alumni? The financial penalty for breaking the contract is bad enough, but it also creates the perception that the Gophers are afraid to test themselves against competent competition before embarking on the Big Ten season. Besides, would a road loss to North Carolina be so detrimental to the long-term plan that it necessitates taking such a significant financial hit?

Good luck selling that one to a fanbase that already has had its patience and loyalty stretched way too thin. The Gophers can't fill 50,000-seat TCF Bank Stadium even for conference games, and they practically beg fans to show up on a weekly basis. They don't give fans much incentive to make that investment, however, when they put together a nonconference schedule that's embarrassingly soft.

Take 2014 for example. Their nonconference schedule features four home games -- Eastern Illinois, Middle Tennessee State, San Jose State and now whatever team they find to replace North Carolina, presumably another pushover.

Teague hopes to plug the hole on the schedule with a pair of "guarantee games" -- a one-time deal with a low-level opponent for a six-figure sum -- because that would enable them to offset the North Carolina buyout cost with revenue generated from a home game. That would cushion the blow, but it still doesn't change perception that the Gophers are ducking legitimate competition.

Teague said university President Eric Kaler gave his approval to spend $800,000 (which will be made in payments over several years) to cancel a football series in an era of tight budgets.

The Gophers probably won't find much support outside of campus. Look, they can build their football program however they choose, but they wrote a big check to avoid playing a middle-of-the-road team in a mediocre conference.

That doesn't inspire much confidence.

University must regain 

Minnesotans’ heartfelt trust

From the Grand Forks Herald:

Published October 14, 2012

It’s a creative effort by the Board of Regents to find a middle ground: If the Legislature raises funding for the University of Minnesota back to the level of 2001 — the actual dollar level of 2001, not the figure adjusted for inflation — then the U will freeze tuition for Minnesota undergrads.

Moreover, the university also will condition some of the funding on accomplishments. So, the U won’t get all of the money unless four-year graduation rates go up, among other improvements.

Sound reasonable?

The Mankato (Minn.) Free Press thought so. The Herald reprinted the Free Press’ editorial Saturday. “The University of Minnesota unveiled an unusual and somewhat innovative plan for its future a few weeks ago that deserves serious consideration by the Legislature and key stakeholders,” the editorial began.

But anybody who predicts smooth sailing for the plan should take at the Star Tribune’s online story about it — specifically, at the comments on the story.

Because as of Sunday morning, there were 27 comments, and 24 of them were bitterly hostile.

“It’s nothing more than a trade off,” said one. “The U is NOT holding down costs. It’s adding more costs to the taxpayer in lieu of the students paying more.”

Agreed a second, “A freeze on tuition in exchange for more money from taxpayers is a joke! Taxpayers are the ones who pay that $12,000 tuition, one way or the other. So why is the U demanding more and more? Cut your tuition, and cut your administration!”

Wrote a third, “There are too many tenured professors and administrators who do very little for their six-figure salaries.” Wrote a fourth, “This is all about protecting cushy jobs with golden benefits and pay not seen in the private sector for comparable work.”

The U’s request (and the U itself) did find some supporters. “The legislators and the whiners happily sucked at the public trough subsidizing them at twice the present rate when they went to college,” wrote one.

“But now that it’s their turn to step up and do what their parents and grandparents did, it’s ‘cut back,’ ‘make them pay,’ ‘the kids need to work harder’ and ‘we pay too much.’”

True, online comments are not representative. They’re a snippet, not a snapshot, of public opinion.

But that would be more comforting if the Legislature itself had come to the U’s defense in recent years. Instead, lawmakers slashed funding to — well, to a point where returning to the funding level of 2001 now constitutes a “raise.”

What happened? Why did so many Minnesotans stop believing in the U?

And what could the university do to regain the public’s trust?

University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler should find the answers to those questions. His model should be “The Changing Shape of Minnesota,” the 2004 report from the university’s Humphrey Institute that remains the most forthright look at the state’s evolving politics:

“Minnesotans are convinced that government is wasteful and inefficient, and squandering hard-earned tax dollars on programs that are not run well or do not benefit all people equally,” the report concluded.

Despite the Regents’ creative approach, the U’s budget likely faces an uphill climb in St. Paul. If Kaler can figure out exactly why Minnesotans’ faith has eroded in their U, he’d do both the university and the state a world of good.

 

The Tuition Shell Game

We're trying to get away from this shell game of having high tuition and high discounts.  It's not a sustainable financial model for any institution in our situation.

Concordia University (St. Paul) senior vice president and chief operating officer Eric LaMott in the September 12, 2012 Pioneer Press front page report on Concordia Slashing Cost.

The U of M administration played the same "high tuition high financial aid" shell game over the past ten years.  See section 1 of Course Correction in Higher Education. 

Now the U of M administration presents another illusion--a proposal to freeze tuition (for undergraduate students only) on the condition that the legislature increase state appropriations by $91.6 million over the next biennium.  See the September 14, 2012 Star Tribune report.  The prospect of an increase in state appropriations appears remote with the legislature facing a projected deficit of approximately $1 billion.  The proposal does set the legislature up to be the fall guy when the administration raises tuition yet again. 

The proposal does not apply to students in professional fields.  This year the tuition for a resident student is $37,128 in medicine, $39,036 in dentistry, and $34,896 in law.  See p. 93 of the June 8, 2012 report of the Board of Regents.  The average student loan debt upon graduation is $152,971 for medical students, $195,297 for dental students, and $90,000 for law students.  See pp. 146, 150 of the September 14, 2012 report of the Board of Regents.  The persons now responsible for setting tuition did not have to start their careers with such crushing debt.

Substantial reductions in tuition are possible without any increase in state appropriations.  The administration increased spending from $2 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2011.  The fuel for this explosion was skyrocketing tuition that soared from $293 million in fiscal year 2002 to $634 million in fiscal year 2011.  See Ten Year Review of University Inc.

Administrative overhead now consumes at least 20% of the operating expenses of the University.  See On The Cost of Administration Part II.  The proposed reduction of $28 million in administrative costs over the next two years is a pittance compared to the $590 million+ spent each year just on compensation for administrators.  There should be substantial reductions in the annual compensation of senior administrators and in the sheer number of administrators compared to the $590 million+ spent each year just on compensation for administrators and their staffs.  The savings should be used to roll back tuition as the most effective and efficient way of providing financial aid.  We need to once again make higher education affordable for all qualified students.    

Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

Westbrook Hall - Demolished Summer 2012

Preventive Maintenance & Major Repair 

On June 27 the Office of the Legislative Auditor released its report on preventive maintenance for buildings on the U of M Twin Cities campus.  The good news is this OLA conclusion:

Overall, we think that UMTC has created and implemented a fairly good preventive maintenance program for most University owned buildings on the Twin Cities campus.

See p. 38 of the report.

However, this conclusion does not apply to the major repairs and renovations for which state HEAPR bonds are necessary:

We define preventive maintenance as the regularly scheduled work  needed to keep buildings and building components operating efficiently and extend their useful life.  This definition excludes repairs and renovations that are most often undertaken with capital as opposed to general operating funds. . . .

Although UMTC's total capital spending for existing supported buildings from fiscal years 2002 through 2010 has been in line with the average spending of its peers, it has been less than the target UMTC's private consultant determined was necessary to preserve or "keep up" its existing buildings.   However, this does not necessarily reflect inadequate preventive maintenance, but rather that funding for current and future major repairs and renovations may be inadequate.  At some point, UMTC will need to replace large assets--due either to insufficient maintenance, breakdowns, or life cycles coming to an end--and UMTC may not have the necessary funds. . . .

For example, UMTC's fiscal year 2010 spending target for existing supported buildings established by its consultant was $115 million; actual spending came in at $56.8 million.

See pp. 2, 22 of the report (emphasis added).

In February President Kaler told state legislators that the HEAPR needs are "well over $500 million if not closer to $1 billion."  See Another Fine Mess.  

The OLA report does not address this staggering need.  See The Incredible Shrinking Capital Request Part II.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

The Cost of "Top Talent" Part IV

On March 6 President Kaler told state legislators that the current compensation of senior administrators is necessary "in a highly competitive global market for top talent."  See The Cost of "Top Talent".

In a June 30 Counterpont essay in the Star Tribune retired Minneapoplis resident Americo Del Calzo (B.A. 1955) offers this perspective:

As I reflected on the fact that we--our nation and its students--are being duped by the grade devaluation described in [Professor] Chalberg's piece, I came across a June 27 Star Tribune front page article titled "Best Buy prepares to fight founder."  That article cited the large cash and stock awards being made to retain Best Buy executives--ostensibly to keep the "best and the brightest."

This appears to be another example of the now universal notion that institutions have to pay extraordinary compensation in order to retain excellent executives.  Like its equivalent, grade devaluation, this pattern, I suspect, is another area in which we are being duped.

When all executives are getting A level compensation, do they all deserve it?  I'm guessing not.  The reality is that most of them are very likely C level performers who should be receivng a lower grade of compensation.

But alas, we seem to have embraced grade devaluation and inflated executive compensation.  And although each may be beneficial to the individuals involved, I cannot see how they do the rest of us any real good.

Inflation of Executive Compensation

Then there is the report released on July 2 regarding executive compensation and hospital quality:

A study by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies found little connection between hospital executive compensation and performance Modern Healthcare reports.

The study analyzed salary information and data from New Hampshire's 23 non-profit hospitals.  The state's Attorney General Michael Delaney requested the report in 2010 in response to concerns over excessive CEO salaries in New Hampshire, which rose by about 18% between 2006 and 2009. . . .

The report suggests that New Hampshire hospitals succumb to log-rolling when establishing executive pay, as they rely on the 75th percentile as a compensation benchmark.  According to the attorney general's office, "this creates an upward spiral and executive compensation can grow at a rate disproportionate to relevant measures of achievement . . . even during significant economic downturn."

The report did not find a connection between executive salaries and either quality of care, charitable care, or how much patients are charged.

See Study:  No link between hospital quality, charity, and executive pay.

For more on the origin of the "top talent" justification for lavish compensation for executives and senior administrators see The Cost of "Top Talent" Part III.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

No rest for the Rotenberg...

Our General Counsel continues to engage in questionable legal action.  After all, it is not his nickel.


From the Minnesota Daily:

Nursing dean conflict could go to court

 

Connie Delaney’s former assistant claims the dean broke federal laws.

School of Nursing Dean Connie Delaney’s former executive assistant has taken steps to initiate a federal lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, claiming she was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated.

The legal team representing Erica Goetzman, the former assistant, filed the complaint, alleging the University violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Minnesota whistleblower law.

On Friday, the University’s Office of the General Counsel will file an answer to the complaint, outlining the University’s defense, General Counsel Mark Rotenberg said.

Although many students expressed support for Delaney and the School of Nursing’s national ranking has improved under her leadership, controversy has surrounded the dean over the past year.

The Star Tribune published multiple investigations into Delaney’s activities in March and April, reporting she used favoritism in hiring and violated University policies.

In March 2012, Provost Karen Hanson sent a letter formally reprimanding Delaney for violating the University’s policy on outside consulting for Delaney’s 2007 hire of a clinical professor who was also working full time for Mercy Hospital in Iowa for 17 months without formally reporting outside employment to the University. She also revoked Delaney’s hiring privileges for employees exceeding 30 hours per week until June of next year. 

 “Although you were early in your tenure as a dean, you should have known the requirements of the University’s Policy on Outside Consulting,” Hanson said in the letter.

Background

Goetzman worked for Delaney from October 2007 until June 2010. According to the complaint, she received the highest possible performance ratings during this time.

The University could not release these ratings because they are considered private personnel data under Minnesota law.

Adrianna Shannon, one of Goetzman’s attorneys, said the parties have tried to solve things informally through mediation talks since the end of her employment, but they could not come to an agreement.

“We are ending up in federal court because we really have exhausted every other opportunity to try to get things resolved,” she said.

Rotenberg said he was not aware of these informal mediations.

In early 2012, Goetzman’s attorneys filed a charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In February 2012, the agencies ruled that Goetzman had “probable cause” to file the discrimination report because Delaney failed to accommodate her disability and fired her as retaliation for her report.

Rotenberg said the University has concluded that Goetzman’s claims “lacked merit.”

“As this case proceeds,” he said, “the University will have the opportunity to provide significant evidence showing that no unlawful action was taken against this former employee.”

‘Probable cause’

Goetzman suffers from migraines, coughing and burning eyes around certain chemicals due to her disability of multiple chemical sensitivity.

She alleged in the complaint that Delaney repeatedly refused to accommodate this disability by wearing a perfume that Goetzman was allergic to and not allowing her to place a sign on her desk declaring it a “chemical-free environment.”

The MDHR found this failure to accommodate, along with the way she was released from her job showed “probable cause” to go to federal court.

But Rotenberg said despite her claims, Goetzman’s disability was not why her job ended.

“The functions of her job and the classification of her job was simply shifted for cost-cutting reasons and has nothing to do with any disability that she may have,” he said.

Because the MDHR and EEOC found probable cause, Goetzman’s suit was legitimized. Rotenberg said that probable cause does not mean the University is at fault.

Delaney’s expenses

The complaint also accuses Delaney of misusing University funds.

In one instance mentioned in the complaint, Goetzman’s attorneys call out Delaney’s 2010 trip to Hawaii.

Delaney’s expense report shows she spent $1,559.36 on the trip, which Goetzman alleges was a personal vacation.

The School of Nursing and the Center for Spirituality and Healing defend Delaney, claiming this trip was to visit a hospital the center counsels in Hawaii.

“She met with a variety of U of M faculty and health care leaders, focusing mainly on informatics and sharing information around changes occurring nationally that would impact health care systems,” the school said in a statement.

They also said Delaney traveled to visit potential donors as a “fundraising effort” for the school.

In the complaint, Goetzman said there were dinners and drinks that were not “legitimate business expenses.”

Shannon said she believed Goetzman’s job was terminated because Goetzman reported Delaney’s alleged misuse of funds as well as her discrimination claims.

“Ms. Goetzman was willing to put her own job security at risk to protect the public’s best interests,” she said.

The receipts show Delaney spent $137.66 on town cars for transport to and from the airport, $1,155.08 on roundtrip airfare and $266.62 on dinners — which adds up to the amount listed on the expense report for the nine-day trip.

‘What justice would require’

In the complaint, Goetzman asks for an excess of $75,000, which could mean much more.

But Shannon said the case is not just about the money — she and her client would like to see more checks and balances in the system.

“After the parties have had some more discovery in this case, we’ll have a much better understanding of what justice would require,” Shannon said.

Rotenberg did not mention any misuse of funds. He said the University’s main defense for the case will show Goetzman was not discriminated against.

“The University believes that the Goetzman complaint lacks merit,” he said. “And we will be defending that case in court.”

Oh, boy...

Rotenberg Shot Down 

Again

Once again the courts have ruled against the bully boy tactics of the crack University of Minnesota legal staff.


From the Pioneer Press:


State appeals court rules in favor of aviation enthusiasts in UMore Park case 

When airplane enthusiasts were told they had to leave land they leased at UMore Park in Rosemount, they reluctantly complied.

Then they asked the property owner -- the University of Minnesota -- for the cost of moving their planes, hangars and other property.

On Monday, June 25 the Minnesota State Court of Appeals ruled in the group's favor, ruling the University must distribute nearly $142,000 to the 10 hangar owners who made up the now-defunct Jensen Field private airstrip. 
 
The appellate court concluded the hanger owners are considered "displaced" because they temporarily used the leased land while the university planned its redevelopment with the use of federal funds.

The appellate decision reverses a September 2011 ruling by a university-appointed administrative hearing officer who concluded the group is not considered "displaced" because the leases were terminated by specific terms of the lease, not by the turbine project.


University General Counsel Mark Rotenberg did not immediately return a call for comment Monday. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wonder what the U of M legal expenses were for this dog-fight?

Corporations boost agricultural research funding

(I thank my friend Michael McNabb for pointing out this important article.) 

From the AP via Pioneer Press:

The gap between federal support for agricultural research at large public universities and private investment continues to grow -- and the divide comes with increased threats to academic freedom and more instances of meddling, a report suggests.

A recent study by Food and Water Watch, a Washington-based environmental group, shows that nearly one-quarter of the money spent on agricultural research at land-grant universities comes from corporations, trade associations and foundations, an all-time high.

The consumer advocacy group's report is rife with what it calls examples of how corporate money corrupts public research mission at land-grant schools, which were created by the Morrill Act of 1862

The examples range from a University of Georgia food safety program that allows industry groups to join an advisory board in exchange for annual $20,000 donations, to an Ohio State University professor whose research on genetically modified sunflowers was blocked by two seed companies after results suggested the biotech sunflowers fostered the growth of weeds.

Such alliances are a far cry from land-grant universities' historic role in promoting public knowledge and freely sharing the fruits of their research, said Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch's assistant director. The report notes that publicly funded university research led to the domestication of blueberries, early varieties of high-yield hybrid corn and common tools to fight soil erosion.

"There's a real sense in agriculture of what these schools used to be," Lovera said. "There was much more trust in what they put out. This is not the same research system of decades ago, and we're acting like it is."

With the current five-year farm bill set to expire at the end of September, Food and Water Watch wants Congress to boost the federal investment in campus agricultural research, with more resources steered toward sustainable methods, organic farming and reduced use of pesticides. The group also is calling for land-grant universities to more fully disclose gifts by private donors and wants agricultural research journals to adopt more stringent conflict-of-interest rules, similar to the recent crackdown by medical journals.

This situation is critical to understanding the apple licensing situation at the University of Minnesota as well as the brouhaha over Troubled waters...

See for example:

 The University of Minnesota Attempts to Save Face on a Botched Censorship Job

and

A poison PR apple at the University of Minnesota

Why LeRoy Neiman, a son of St. Paul,

Was not too fond of it...

His friend, Al Eisele, writes in MinnPost:

... one thing comes through loud and clear.

Neiman never made peace with his hometown – or with critics who refused to give him the respect he felt he deserved. Even though he was in the final stages of negotiating with the city of St. Paul to establish a downtown museum displaying much of his artwork, he was outraged when Pioneer Press columnist Katherine Lanpher wrote that his art "stinks," and compared his work with "Precious Moments figurines and ceramic villages of Little Dickensian houses."

Neiman promptly withdrew his offer to put $4.5 million in the project and denounced Lanpher's column as a “savage, insulting attack on my character and work. I feel like I was mugged ... in my old home town.” As a result, the museum was never built.

Neiman writes in his book that the museum idea was opposed by “a cabal of uptight citizens (who) couldn't justify matching me up with their Saintly City. It was the Playboy artist stigma again, but I was over it. That was the last time I let St. Paul put me on a roasting spit.”

Ironically, Lanpher moved to New York in 2004, where she is a radio host and writing mentor. She told Mary Ann Grossmann of the Pioneer Press she is “still stunned at the reaction to that column. It makes me wonder if Neiman was looking for a way out of that museum. After all, he usually brushed off his critics.” But she added, “His paintings have their fans. But even those of us who didn't like his work have to admire his masterpiece: his colorful, exuberant life.”

Neiman was no less forgiving of the art world’s establishment, which refused to consider him a major artist. Its attitude was summed up by a New York Times art critic on Saturday who described him as “the archetypal hack” whose popularity and enormous commercial appeal stemmed from “his ambitiously opportunistic personality and his position as Hugh Hefner’s court artist. … With his ever-present cigar and enormous mustache, he was a cliché of the bon vivant and a bad artist in every way.”

That’s a cruel judgment and, I think, a snobbishly wrong one that will change now that Neiman is gone from the scene. I predict that he will be remembered as a quintessential American artist who, while often outside the mainstream of the art world, was at the center of American life in the 20th century.

We shall see. Stranger things have happened in the art world.