… 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.”
Thursday, September 10, 2015
For the Record: U of M Alum Marshall Tanick on the U's Penchant for Secrecy
Marshall Tannick earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School with top honors in the Order of the Coif. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Minnesota.
Marshall, a prominent local attorney, writes in the Pioneer Press:
As the turmoil continues and gets worse at the University of Minnesota regarding former Athletics Director Norwood Teague, one feature that has been overlooked is the faulty manner in which the university selected him. He was chosen in 2012 by President Eric Kaler as the only "finalist" for the $400,000 position.
The university customarily uses this one-finalist-only process as a means of circumventing public scrutiny under the Minnesota "sunshine" laws, the data practices and open meeting statutes. The institution speciously justifies this opaque practice by citing fears that high-quality candidates will be deterred from applying if their identities are publicly revealed. So, the school shrouds the process in an unnecessary veil of secrecy akin to picking a pope.
But the concern that "sunshine" will repel candidates, as if they were vampires, is an illusion. Many other educational systems around the country -- and in Minnesota, as well -- reveal the names of multiple candidates for major positions, which allow the public to examine their qualifications, rather than disclosing only the sole "finalist" as a fait accompli. Had the university done so with Teague, it may have provided input from those with greater knowledge of his activities and behavior at his prior job in Virginia than the now-discredited search committee was able to discover for more than $100,000 in fees.
By the way, the man who selected Teague for the position got his job this same way.
President Kaler, like his recent predecessors, also was chosen by the Board of Regents as the only "finalist," as a means of limiting oversight of the selection process.
In addition to improving background checks and other hiring features, the "U" ought to take a look at its penchant for secrecy and the resulting defective process for picking top-level administrators. The institution should fix it with a strong dose of transparency before the next selection proceeds, including Teague's replacement and, perhaps, Kaler's, too.
Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis
The Open Meeting Law is violated on a regular basis at the U of M. Here are just a few examples:
April 2, 2015 Faculty Consultative Committee closes its meeting for a legislative session update. (The law does not permit closing a meeting of a committee of one public institution to discuss the actions of that public institution with another public institution.)
February 18, 2014 Senate Committee on Finance & Planning closes its meeting to discuss problems with funding for UMD. (The law does not permit closing meetings to discuss the use of public funds and tuition at a public institution.)
December 5, 2013 FCC closes its meeting to discuss the Academic Health Center.
September 21, 2013 FCC conducts its entire annual retreat off the record.
For an analysis of the application of the Open Meeting Law to the U of M see the Postscript on FCC & The Open Meeting Law at the end of New Year's Resolutions for New President (originally posted on the University of Minnesota blogging system UThink, on December 19, 2010. This system is now defunct.)
FCC & OPEN MEETING LAW
The memorandum of the U of M general counsel on the Open Meeting Law is included in the September 16, 2010 report of the FCC. The general counsel declares (emphasis added):
A plain reading of the statutory text could indicate an exceptionally broad interpretation of the phrase 'committee . . . of a public body.' However, Minnesota courts, the Commissioner of Administration, and practical constraints functionally limit the reach of the statute to include only committees that have the capacity to transact public business on the part of the public body by making final policy decisions. The committees considered by the courts to be transacting public business are committees of the governing bodies of the public body at the University of Minnesota, this means
committees of the Board of Regents. We are aware of no Minnesota court opinion stating or suggesting that the Open Meeting Law applies to a committee such as the FCC, which is not a committee or subcommittee of the Board of Regents and does not transact business on behalf of the Board.
The general counsel needs to review the statute.
Here is Minn. Stat. 13D.01:
Subdivision 1. In executive branch, local government.
All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public
(a) of a state . . .
(b) of the governing body of a . . . or
(6) other public body;
(c) of any
(1) committee,
(2) subcommittee . . .
of a public body
It is true that the scope of paragraph (b) of Minn. Stat. 13D.01 subd. 1 is limited to meetings of the governing body of a public body. However, paragraph (c) requires that meetings of ANY COMMITTEE of a public body must be open to the public. Unlike paragraph (b), paragraph (c) does NOT limit its scope to a "governing" body.
The general counsel also needs to review the opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Star Tribune Company v.University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2004):
Although we have not used the precise term 'public body' to describe the University, we have used terms that convey the same meaning. . . .
In fact, the Regents do not contend that the University is not a public body. Rather they argue that the Open Meeting Law does not appy to the Regents because the legislature did not expressly name the Regents as an entity subject to the
requirements of the law. . . .
Because the 'public body' language of the Open Meeting Law is certainly broad enough to encompass the University, the Regents are in essence arguing there should be an exception to the stated scope of the Open Meeting Law for theUniversity. However, as the court of appeals pointed out, the Open Meeting Law contains express exceptions for meetingsof the commissioner of corrections, state agencies exercising quasijudicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings and'as otherwise expressly provided by statute.' Minn. Stat. 13D.01 subd. 2. The University is not included among those express exceptions. . . .
Given the broadly inclusive language of the Open Meeting Law, our numerous opinions recognizing the University as a public institution, the failure of the legislature to include the University among other expressly stated exceptions, and our principle of construing the Open Meeting law to favor public access, we hold that the University is subject to the terms of the Open Meeting Law.
Star Tribune Company v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents,
683 N.W.2d at 281(Minn. 2004).
So the University is a "public body" (as that statutory term is applied by the Minnesota Supreme Court), and the FCC as a committee of a public body is subject to paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of Minn. Stat. 13D.01.
It appears that the FCC needs independent counsel on this point of law.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
For the Record: Why did Studham leave?
An article has appeared on the Wall Street Journal site about the recent departure of our CIO (Chief Information Officer.)
Comments so far on this article are below with emphasis added. A transparent explanation of what happened is due from the University of Minnesota administration.
Ex-Studham Employee wrote:
What a crock. This man is a sociopath was run out on a rail by his own senior leadership after increasingly sporadic temper tantrums and abuses of power. If he ever crosses the threshold of a college or university again, it will be too soon.
Good Riddance wrote:
One should know that the attempts to "boost employee engagement through surveys and feedback on IT issues" amount to reeducation programs and constant gaming of the survey to boost OIT ratings after scoring below almost every department on campus. Those who would not (or could not) comply were forced out.
University of Minnesota employee wrote:
No one quits a $250k+ a year job to go running, this might as well say he resigned to "focus on his family." The reality is he was the subject of an internal investigation regarding the misappropriation of University funds and other questionable practices. He burned bridges with senior leadership and most everyone he worked with. In the shadow of recent scandals involving other senior University of Minnesota staff the institution’s tolerance for high risk behaviors evaporated. Simply put he was forced out. What happened to reporting WSJ? You might as well just republish the press release.
Huh... wrote:
Other people hold down full-time jobs and train for triathlons and marathons. Quitting your job to do suggests time management issues. If my husband quit his job to train, he had better come home with a first place trophy. Just saying.
Studham fails wrote:
Ditto to all of the comments above. Studham was a cancer on the university and the poster child for unethical behavior and wasting university resources for personal benefit. Seeing him in action was like watching a child stuck in puberty - embarrassing for an "executive" at his level. Goodbye and good riddance.
Fork and Spoon operator from sector 7-G wrote:
Some of the vitriol here is a little over the top but he was a bully who claimed to not know why every little request resulted in a five alarm fire on down the line. The Abilene Paradox comes to mind for most of the decision making going on the last few years.
"In an Abilene paradox a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many (or all) of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene Paradox is a desire not to "rock the boat." "
Brand mismanagement wrote:
Far more interesting in promoting the "Scott Studham" brand than accomplishing his job. An earlier poster was correct -- he was about to undergo an investigation into misappropriation of funds related to expanding his empire. He got out before anything became public.
Univ of Tennessee employee wrote:
Practically everything said above could have been and was said of Studham's tenure at UT. Until he learns to work with his peers rather than against them, and work for the good of the institution in which he is employed, he will never rise to the level of responsibility he so desperately craves.
Yet another Univ. of TN employee wrote:
He drove morale into the ground while he was here. He tried to replace managers with "service owners" until no one knew who was responsible for purchasing or hiring. It was total chaos. When he left people were cheering throughout our IT department. How does this type of person who gets chased out of every job they've held keep getting hired? When he came to UT, people from ORNL called to ask us that same question. He was forced out there too.
Get Real, WSJ wrote:
No mention that he resigned "effective immediately", with the news released after-hours on the Friday leading into a long weekend? Nobody at that executive level *ever* resigns "effective immediately" unless they're trying to get out ahead of a scandal. Ever. Try doing some real reporting.
Studham's Research "Expertise" wrote:
Studham claims to have a strong background in research computing. While at The University of Tennessee, he proposed replacing Linux on our supercomputer with Windows. He said he had done that at ORNL and that it had made supercomputing easy to use. We called ORNL and could find no such system. In fact, their IT people found the idea quite amusing. He also tried to replace SAS and MATLAB with Excel. He claimed to be customer driven so when we asked what customer had asked for these changes, he said that he was a customer too.
UofM wrote:
It is mind boggling that if what was said above about being "forced" out of previous positions, how the UofM could not have known...
UofMN wrote:
What makes you think the U didn't know? They conduct major searches for any "leadership" position and then pick the person who promises to "fix" whatever quagmire needs attention. My experience - the U couldn't care less about the quality of a candidate as long as h/she knows how to play the role of a vapid talking head who blames staff for everything.
Celebration Time C'mon! Let's Celebrate! IT Employee wrote:
The guy was a bully. Unethical and led by fear. He is paranoid and calculating. Everyone's ideas (including that of his boss and other VPs) were 'cute'. He believed he was the smartest guy in the room. Possible. Horrible all the same. Kudos to the U for finally realizing it and doing something about it. It took too long.
UMN employee again. wrote:
Doesn't anyone see that these series of firings are a distraction from the real skeletons in the University's closet? Faculty with tenure get away with horrible offenses of sexual harassment against students (minors, even), workplace bullying, embezzlement, religious persecution, blatant racism, and far far worse. On a daily basis. Ask any staff member (who are not to be confused with administrators). This is all a charade. If Studham and Teague were tenured faculty and not P&A annually renewable employees, NONE of this would have made the news. The staff brave enough to speak up against this behavior would have been sent to EOAA where all claims go to die.
ConcernedUofMAlum wrote:
What is going on at the U? Seems like there is no sense of how important upfront and credible public and media relations are for a major public research university that touches so many people, institutions and communities. Sad.
He pulled that "service owner" s*** at UT, too? wrote:
The mother of all cluster**** reorgs in the history of cluster**** reorgs. You ******** at UT should've warned us about that crap! Although, to be fair, you were probably keeping that to yourselves to get rid of him.
It is about time wrote:
Scott Studham was complicit in the move to make sure the majority of his employees did not have Civil Service protections in their jobs. He was proud of the fact that he purged most Civil Service employees from his ranks. Over half were moved from Civil Service to renewable contract positions.
Bedside manner... wrote:
...of a serial rapist.
For the Love of the UofMN wrote:
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now U of MN step up your game, bring in good leadership and to be honest kick the Studham backers to the curb... they are just as bad as him for riding the coattails and getting financial as well as job gain from him. ACIO's .... really??? Service Owners... blah. He pulled the wool over peoples eyes like a hat trick and people bought into his garbage.
Quiting to run a marathon? Ummm no asked to leave and about time.
University leaders, Regents etc.... let's wipe this egg off our faces. The University is a great school, I am a former employee and Alum, Go Gophers!!!!
UM concerned citizen wrote:
I think this is happening / has happened everywhere, but the UMN is no longer a safe place to challenge authority unless you have tenure or civil service protections. Even then, there are ways to remove the whistle-blower. And with the threat of lawsuits arising from negative reference checks, is it any wonder that problem leaders are tolerated or shared with the next institution?
Lencioni wrote:
Five Dysfunctions of a team:
Absense of trust. Check.
Fear of conflict. Check.
Lack of committment. Check.
Avoidance of accountability. Check.
Inattention to results. Check.
By his own measure Studham was wildly successful at creating a highly dysfunctional team. Time to start the next chapter. Ironically, this is a really exciting time to work in IT at the U.
Angry too! wrote:
To UMN employee again -- I agree - there is no safe place to report offenses of harassment. Tenure and bad leadership is keeping sexual harassers and mean SOBs in their positions. I would never send my child to the University of Minnesota.
Relieved wrote:
Seriously - quitting to ride his bike and swim laps? Story telling is one of Studhams few strengths and I would have expected more from him than a newfound love for fitness and homeschooling. The reality is that Studham is neither a technologist nor a leader. He's his own chief marketing officer and campaign manager. Peel back the shiny marketing glitz and chrome plated facade and you'll find an empty suit and a failed attempt at leadership. His sole interest is the pursuit of self gratification and those with the misfortune of working with him are just pawns in the game. Fortunately, the match is over. Checkmate.
Gopherlady wrote:
Is there a thumbs up button for all of these comments?
Not Trending Positively wrote:
What we want is Studham's $80+ million "Upgrade" disaster to be fixed so that we can all do our jobs again.
IT Employee wrote:
The comments above have just barely touched the surface. He was verbally abusive towards his employees on a daily basis.
It looks like wrote:
This "report" is a Studham publicity stunt that backfired spectacularly.
I Can See Russia From My House wrote:
Seriously, WSJ? A well-paid university exec resigns "effective immediately," just as the school year is starting, in order to GET IN SHAPE, and that sounds credible to you?
To Review.... wrote:
So, to review, former Studham employees at Oakridge, U Tennesee, and U Minnesota all found him to be arrogant, a bully, and not smart. That he says he quit so he could run a marathon and then to work with his wife (because they home school their own kids) suggests his arrogance that people would believe it, especially when his “resignation” was accepted immediately the weekend before school hits. The weekend before his lauded work (maybe deservedly?) on the enterprise system would be tested at full load. President Kaler is not an idiot here. He got rid of an erupting problem because he already had too many scandals he had to manage (Norwood Teague, Psychiatry). What did Studham do that the top executives would force him out? That’s a journalistic question, and I hope the WSJ or one of the local outlets would investigate that.
The list of comments continues to grow. I will stop here, but readers may click the link for additional comments.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
A Question of Priorities Part III
A Question of Priorities Part III
The offer to these University employees in comparison to the raise for the coach demonstrates the priorities of the U of M administration. And demonstrates (once again) how out of touch the highly paid senior administrators are with the daily economic lives of workers and students and parents.
But the senior administrators and the Regents do not make any connections between these actions and do not understand how their actions adversely affect the relationship of the University with these groups (and other groups, such as the state legislators who are watching all this).
Then the U of M president tells us that these same senior administrators must be paid very well to recruit and retain them. The compensation for senior administrators places the University at risk of losing the continuing goodwill and financial support of donors, state legislators, and the general public. See The Cost of "Top Talent" Part I and Part III.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Editor's Note:
What does this say about us at the University of Minnesota when we offer a salary increase of less than one percent to our lowest paid employees? It says that we will take advantage of anyone we think we can.
I am ashamed.
May I never hear the words "social justice" out of this administration.
William B. Gleason, U of M prof (retired)
U of M alumnus, 1973
Sunday, August 30, 2015
For the Record: U of M President Kaler chides Strib's DJ Tice
President Kaler complains about the Strib:
" it’s bad when comments I’ve made are taken woefully out of context "
From the Strib Letters to the Editor Section:
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
We are an enduring institution, but also one of useful change
It is good when the Star Tribune drives the community discussion around issues in higher education, but it’s bad when comments I’ve made are taken woefully out of context. In his Aug. 23 column (“The ungrounding of the institution of higher ed”), D.J. Tice chided me for my “medieval attitude” as he cited a recent Minnesota Monthly magazine article in which I said that, unlike many thriving modern institutions, world universities have been in existence since the 1500s, and “I just don’t think the business is going to change very much.”
That historical fact — and I’ve said it many times — comes in the context of that same article’s mention of the many changes underway at the U as we need to “retool in the face of international competition.”
While I do disagree with some prognosticators who are predicting the end of place-based education, a much more accurate description of what I think comes from my State of the University address last spring: “Yes, universities are remarkable for their historic continuity, but they and we do change. We change because of the needs and demands of technology. We change because our faculty uncovers and gives birth to new ideas and new discoveries. We change because students lift their voices.”
I’m proud that we are one of Minnesota’s oldest and most enduring institutions. I’m also proud that through distance and active learning, flipped classrooms, electronic textbooks, interdisciplinary courses and a commitment to diversity, the University of Minnesota is always in the process of changing for the benefit of our students and the prosperity of our state. Medieval? Not so much.
Eric W. Kaler, president, University of Minnesota
Out of context? Let me explain what I really meant when I said ...
Measure twice, cut once?
Monday, August 24, 2015
For the Record: Letter from Robbins lawyer on behalf of Parker Search to U of M President Kaler
The buck stops where?
To download the original document in pdf format, click the download symbol above.
For background and information about the letter please see: Search firm: Teague properly vetted for U athletics job.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
University of Minnesota Athletic Debt on Steroids
Athletic Accounting Part II
From the 2014 U of M annual report to the NCAA:
The "athletically related facilities annual debt service" for fiscal year 2014 was $17,663,000.
The "athletically related outstanding debt balance" for fiscal year 2014 was $201,395,000. See p. 2 of the 2014 annual report.
Part of that debt is for the $137 million in special purpose bonds issued by the University in 2006 to pay a portion of the cost of construction of TCF Bank Stadium. The principal and interest on those bonds will be paid by the citizens of Minnesota to the tune of $10,250,00 per year for more than 20 years.
It appears that the Regents are poised to approve the plans to construct a $150 million "athletic village." (The scope of the project has been temporarily reduced from the original plan at a cost of $190 million.) The cost of financing the project will increase the already staggering amount of athletic department debt.
The policy of the University is that 80% of the cost of a project must be raised before starting construction. See the statement of policy by U of M CFO Richard Pfutzenreuter in the February 8, 2015 Star Tribune report on U's Athletics Project. So the Regents will have to disregard the policy of the University to approve the start of construction as the athletic department is far short of raising 80% ($120 million) of the current cost of the project.
Why should the athletic department get a pass on compliance with University policy? Especially when it already has athletic debt on steroids?
There is a solution that would enable the University to disentangle itself from the big business of the major revenue sports while allowing the games to continue. The football and basketball teams should be organized as separate corporations. The University would grant a license to those corporations to use the University name for the teams. The license fee would be a percentage of the revenues generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, advertising, etc. The license fee would be used to support the non-revenue sports the University decides to retain, such as track and swimming.
This is a solution that would enable the sports fans (including the U of M president and the Regents) to continue to enjoy the games. Of much greater significance, it would enable the University to focus on education, research, and public service--the reasons for its existence.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Friday, August 7, 2015
Student Debt: Fiction v. Fact Part II
Student Debt: Fiction v. Fact Part II
In response to Part I, a U of M professor sent a link to the June 24, 2014 New York Times report on The Reality of Student Debt. The Brookings Institution analysis of student debt nationwide described in the report shows that in 2010 58% of young adult households in the United States with student debt had outstanding student loans of less than $10,000. The Brookings Institution analysis is based on 2010 data. So the analysis does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt incurred over the past five years.
A more recent analysis shows that the financial reality for college graduates in Minnesota is much bleaker. Minnesota ranks 5th in the nation in student loan debt. In 2013 66% of U of M graduates had student debt. The median debt was $25,080, and the average debt was $27,599. See p. 17 of the June 2014 Minnesota Office of Higher Education report on Cumulative Student Loan Debt in Minnesota. See also the November 13, 2014 Star Tribune report on Minnesota Ranks High in Student Debt and the June 1, 2013 Star Tribune report on Minnesota Grads Carry Heavy Student Debt Burden.
Then there is the unconscionable economic burden placed on students in the professional schools. In 2013 91% of the graduates from the U of M professional schools had student loan debt. The median debt was $157,671. See p. 23 of the June 2014 Minnesota Office of Higher Education report .
The high tuition high financial aid experiment has failed a vast majority of students and their parents. It has vaulted many U of M students into the top tier for student loan debt notwithstanding the ballyhoo by the U of M administration about the Promise Scholarship program. (This was a predictable result of the experiment as college administrators classify student loans as "financial aid." )
Tone deaf remarks about student loan debt ("less than a new car") by the U of M president and the 2014 chair of the Board of Regents demonstrate a failure to acknowledge the overall cost of a college education and a remarkable lack of empathy for the students and parents struggling to pay that cost. The senior administrators and the Regents responsible for a decade of skyrocketing tuition in 2002--2012 never had to deal with that financial burden when they were starting their careers and their families after graduation. How much different would their lives have been if they had been shackled by student debt?
Rather than attempting to minimize the effect of such debt the U of M president could begin an effort to find a better way to operate and to finance higher education. He could establish a task force with members of the administration, legislators from the higher education committees, staff from the Minnesota Office on Higher Education, and informed students and parents. Someone like Jay Kiedrowski of the Humphrey Institute (a former state commissioner of finance) could serve as the chair.
The work of the task force should include an analysis of the rise in the costs of administration over the past 40 years. If there has been a increase in the number of administrators that is disproportionate to any increase in the number of students or the level of research, we should ask why. If there has been a substantial increase (in constant dollars) in the compensation of any administrator, we should ask why.
Each biennium the citizens of our state now invest more than $1 billion in the U of M in general appropriations. With that much at stake the legislature should appoint a qualified person to monitor on a continuing basis the operations of the University and the use of state appropriations. This legislative liaison (or watchdog) should have the responsibility to review the information produced by senior administrators, to collect additional information through his or her independent research, and to meet with all groups at the University so that the perspectives of other well-informed and thoughtful members of the University community are presented to the legislature.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Friday, July 31, 2015
Student Debt: Fiction v. Fact
Exhibit A: "You can spend a lot more than that for a new car if you want to."
Remark of President Kaler (referring to the $30,000 average student debt in Minnesota among the two-thirds who graduate with student loans) at p. 58 of the August 2015 issue of Minnesota Monthly.
This remark fails to recognize that the cost of an undergraduate degree is not limited to the debt incurred. That debt is incurred only after students and their parents have exhausted their savings and student earnings. It also fails to recognize that the debt incurred by students in the graduate and professional schools is far greater than any car those students will ever be able to afford (in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 for many).
What this remark does demonstrate is that the senior administrators and the Regents are so far removed from the economic lives of students and their parents and the public at large that they are seemingly oblivious to the financial hardship that results from their decisions to spend other people's money.
Exhibit B: "When people complain about tuition, I tell them to talk to legislators."
Remark of President Kaler at the March 23, 2012 meeting of the Civic Caucus.
It is not accurate to simply blame the state legislature. Skyrocketing tuition during the decade from 2002 to 2012 far exceeded reductions in state appropriations as the annual budget for the U of M exploded from $2 billion to $3 billion. See:
Whose Fault--Crushing Student Debt
and
Devouring Our Children
Exhibit C: "I promise to reduce administrative costs by $90 million over the next six years."
Pledge of President Kaler to the state legislature.
Such a reduction will simply slow the rate of increase in the costs of administration. The fact is that the costs of administration now consume 29% of the operating budget of the University, and those costs continue to rise despite the reduction of certain administrative expenses. See section 4 and section 5 in:
The Management of the University
Moreover, the reduction of $90 million in certain administrative expenses over the six year period will not reduce the U of M budget by a single penny. President Kaler intends instead to simply spend the $90 million on "mission" and "mission support." See:
The Phantom Reduction
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A.1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
For the Record: Kaler's compensation: He is not the CEO of a commercial business
From the Star-Tribune
(emphasis mine)
KALER’S COMPENSATION
He’s overpaid, and attention to this has been underpaid.
The University of Minnesota president receives an annual salary of $610,000 plus an annual contribution of more than $75,000 to his retirement plan, plus other benefits, including free housing (“6-figure pay to run a public college,” June 8). In 2013, the IRS released its final report on its compliance project on tax-exempt colleges and universities. The average total compensation of presidents of large universities was $399,723, and the median amount was $337,881.
The U president is not the CEO of a commercial business. He is the head of a nonprofit institution of higher education. The law restricts the pursuit of personal wealth by the leaders of private, tax-exempt organizations. Section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on excessive compensation paid to senior administrators at private colleges. The section does not apply to public universities, as those institutions are classified as units of government. But we must be concerned with the reasonableness of the compensation of senior administrators at the U — and not simply by comparison to compensation levels at other large public universities. Until recently, no one has been watching the store anywhere in higher education.
Michael W. McNabb, Lakeville
• • •
It’s not U President Eric Kaler’s fault that he measures success by the salary he deserves as the CEO of a $3.5 billion business. He’s been taught, like the rest of us, that money is the barometer of achievement. And it’s not his fault that a tuition hike is needed at the U to cover things such as his $610,000 salary. He runs a large corporation, not a kitchen table where a student and his parents are working out their budget for the fall. And, after all, Kaler is competing with the U’s sports coaches, whose salaries are double and triple his.
But true success isn’t about money. It’s about assuring that the CEO doesn’t earn more than 20 times the salary of the lowest-paid employee (see Ben & Jerry’s CEOs). It’s about paying your employees for a year when your mill burns down, as Aaron Feuerstein did in 1996 in Massachusetts. Success is about knowing that raising tuition may mean that some students will have to leave college, about knowing that $610,000 is more than you will even need to live well on. Success is about caring more for the world around you than for your ranking in the Big Ten pay scale.
But then we don’t teach executives to distinguish between success and true success, even in the business ethics courses now springing up in most M.B.A. programs. Shame on us.
Elaine Frankowski, Minneapolis
Sunday, June 7, 2015
For the Record: Recent U graduate appalled by President Kaler's Counterpoint on Research Ethics
(emphasis mine)
As a 2013 graduate of the University of Minnesota, I was appalled by the May 31 “counterpoint” from university President Eric Kaler. As a student, I was active sharing my comments, concerns and criticisms with Kaler and his staff. I have always believed in the excellence of the University of Minnesota, but that faith does not extend to Kaler, his administration or our Board of Regents.
Kaler mischaracterized the legislative auditor’s report, the scope of which was on the broad institutional “culture of fear” that systematically ignored “serious ethical issues.”
The fact that Kaler cited numerous reviews that span a decade highlights continued failure. Further, the report concluded Dr. Stephen Olson’s research had “numerous” conflicts of interest, adding that he had “inappropriately” delegated work in research that involved people’s lives. I wonder then what kind of accountability we are getting when Olson continues to influence students, staff and the department?
We have yet to see Kaler do more than pay lip service to these issues without demonstrating the courage to act. Yet why would he or the Board of Regents feel compelled to act when there is no accountability? We cannot continue to have good faith in those who have routinely and consistently failed us.
Chris Getowicz, Minneapolis
For the Record: Member of President Kaler's Clinical Research Re-engineering Team Calls Him Out
Professor Naomi Scheman is a member of the group selected by University of Minnesota President Kaler to come forward with new policies to rectify the mess that is clinical research at the University.
From the Sunday Star-Tribune (emphasis mine)
U RESEARCH ETHICS
Credit Carl Elliott and Leight Turner for prodding people into action
As a member of the implementation team at the University of Minnesota whose recommendations concerning human subjects protection are being hailed as “Markingson’s legacy” (“The best thing for the U now is to move forward,” May 31), I need to demur.
While I think our recommendations if seriously implemented will greatly improve human subjects protection, the ground on which that edifice will stand is still problematically unstable. Unanswered questions and failures to hold individuals accountable remain and need to be addressed. Furthermore, credit for what we have accomplished is misplaced.
Neither the team nor the external review on whose recommendations our work was based would have existed but for the efforts of Carl Elliott and his colleague Leigh Turner.
Those of us in the Faculty Senate who called for the outside review deserve credit only — and this is no small thing — for refusing to go along with the clear message from successive administrations that Dr. Elliott was not to be taken seriously, and that while academic freedom afforded him some protection from direct retaliation, others’ academic responsibility lay in shunning him.
The university administration owes Profs. Elliott and Turner an apology and a debt of gratitude, but, most important going forward, it needs to grant them the credibility they have earned.
Naomi Scheman, St. Paul
The writer is a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Setting the Record Straight: Dr. Mickey Nardo does a number on #umn President Kaler
From Dr. Nardo's web-site: 1 Boring Old Man
everything is fine now?…
Posted on Tuesday 2 June 2015
It seems to me that President Kaler at the University of Minnesota thinks if he words things just right, people will believe what he says. So he says the same things over and over in a slightly different way and then seems surprised that we all don’t say, "Oh, I see, everything is fine now" and leave him alone.
Counterpoint from Eric Kaler: U is moving forward on research ethics
And it is, with an action plan on ethics in research that has the potential to be a national model.
Minnesota StarTribuneby Eric W. KalerMay 30, 2015
Difficult ethical issues are inherent in medical research, especially clinical trials involving human subjects. Research holds the promise of finding lifesaving treatments, but it sometimes depends on the participation of vulnerable patients suffering from serious illnesses. We at the University of Minnesota take seriously our responsibility to patients participating in clinical studies, and our critics are wrong when they assert that we have turned a blind eye to our ethical obligations [“Medical research: Honor code still needs strengthening,” a May 27 commentary by U Prof. Carl Elliott].
Let me be clear about Dan Markingson’s 2004 death by suicide, which is at the center of much of this conversation. The events have been the subject of many proceedings, including two reviews by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [2005 and 2015], a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court [2008], complaints to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice against two doctors [2009 and 2010], and a review by the legislative auditor [2015].
As the legislative auditor concluded, we can never know if Markingson’s tragic death was the result of a clinical study conducted at 26 sites, including the University of Minnesota. However, it is clear we could have done better in our response to the concerns raised about these events. I have apologized to Dan Markingson’s mother, to a legislative committee and at public forums…
To their credit, our university faculty wanted further assurance that our current program was at the highest levels of ethics and science, and in December 2013 the Faculty Senate requested an independent external evaluation of our human subjects protection program…
At the time, the limiting of the investigation to the current program and not the Markingson case per se was Kaler’s idea, not the Senate’s [see the following brief posts with links on Carl Elliot’s Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog from December 2013]:
Meanwhile, back to President Kaler’s counterpoint. As with many of his statements, Kaler says essentially that everything is fine now and that Carl Elliot et al should be satisfied and move on:
Critics are important voices, but there comes a point at which criticism of past actions stops being a catalyst for reform and, instead, becomes a barrier to necessary change in the future. We can’t change the past, but with vigilance, dedication and integrity, we will move forward. I promise all Minnesotans, our faculty and students, and our future patients and their families that the University of Minnesota’s human subjects research program will soon be a model for other universities.
Other U·of·M Administrative types are accusing Carl of sticking on this issue as résumé padding and book selling COI, this criticism documented by a U·of·M colleague blogging on The Periodic Table [see For the Record: U·of·M faculty member of Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Steps Over Line? and For the Record: More foolishness from a member of #umn Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee]. Neither passion nor perseverance are conflicts of interest in my book – they’re expressions of interest of the best kind.
Dan Markingson was in the hospital for around six months in 2003/2004. Mary Weiss, his mother, was told that everything is fine now – and it wasn’t. Mary Weiss, Mike Howard, Carl Elliot, Leigh Turner, and all investigators have been repeatedly told that everything is fine now in the decade since – and it wasn’t. So why should they listen to President Kaler’s tired message that everything is fine now? Let’s hope they don’t…
For the Record: More foolishness from a member of #umn Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
Professor Cohen continues commenting on the Strib.
In a spectacular example of dunderheadedness we find the following comment in the Star-Tribune from Professor Jerry Cohen, of the University of Minnesota, who is unfortunately a member of our Academic Freedom and Tenure committee
"You miss the point.I think most published works have good and bad reviews and Elliott is a faculty member at a major university.He has credentials, it is not the argument.No matter, if his commentary lacksobjectivity, if he personally benefits by résumé ‘padding, if he basks in the attention, then he has conflicts of interests that need to be considered.Like FOX news, the story may be of an important event, but the bias makes the report suspect.No matter how many liked his book, his lack of objectivity is on the record."
So according to Professor Cohen, Dr. Elliott lacks objectivity, benefits by resume padding, and basks in attention which means he has conflicts of interest?
This man definitely has great potential for administration at the U of M, but not for serving as a member of an academic freedom and tenure committee.
Monday, June 1, 2015
For the Record: U of M faculty member of Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Steps Over Line?
As I commented to my Academic Senate colleagues:
Carl Elliott apparently feels he has some special insight or unique knowledge of clinical research practice because he repeatedly faults President Kaler for not meeting with him to gain this critical information.His curriculum vitae provides little to warrant this claim.Instead, it shows a significant enhancement of his professional accomplishments attributed to his very public rebukes of this University’s administration by him over the years.His online presence links this activity with advertisements for his book ‘White Coats, Dark Hats’.Similarly, Leigh Turner’s CV is enhanced by almost two pages with 22 items entitled ‘Public service & scholarship requesting an investigation of psychiatric clinical research at the University of Minnesota.’Matthew Lamkin’s CV similarly benefits from such ‘accomplishments’.When, in the course of academic pursuits, does scholarship cross over into vested interests/conflict of interest?
Maybe their expertise into bioethics makes them so insightful into ethical dilemmas that the fact that their actions embellish significantly their own disciplinary credentials is not important and we should remain attuned to their professional demands for righting the university?However, as Sally Satel notes in her review of ‘White Coat, Black Hat’ “…Carl Elliott’s sensational and depressing message, which is that most doctors are dupes and the rest are corrupt” makes one wonder about full objectivity.Ms. Satel notes her concern that ‘The Wild West days of free-ranging drug salesmen, lavish gifts, and pharma-scripted talks are largely over. But Elliott’s book unfortunately keeps alive the impression that corruption, both subtle and overt, is rife.’“Without actually intending it,” Elliott writes, “we have constructed a medical system in which deception is often not just tolerated but rewarded.”Is this, as Ms. Satel seems to imply, sensationalism for the sake of book sales or a committed scholar who fails to recognize change?
Carl Elliott has made us aware of possible motives as he notes in his satirical essay ‘How to be an academic failure: an introduction for beginners’ when he explains prophetically: “If you are feeling a little too comfortable with success, it doesn’t usually take much work to dig up some sort of ethical problem to expose. Conflict of interest, research scandals, malpractice lawsuits in waiting -- any of these will do. Go to a dean or a hospital administrator, kick up a fuss with your Institutional Review Board…” and then he goes on to note “In bioethics, there is always somebody for you to alienate.”As quoted in the Satel review ‘Elliott…dispels any promise of even-handedness: “I do not claim to offer a balanced picture of contemporary American medicine. My interest is in how medicine has gone wrong, not in what there is to admire.”’
It is this lack of any premise of even-handedness along with a clear track of conflict of interest, from resumé padding to book sales, which has me questioning the motivation of these colleagues.As the Rush Limbaughs and Fox News of the world have found, unbalanced pictures of complex situations can make for some handsome rewards.Ethical decisions almost always involve judgments of facts and situations that are subject to various interpretations and influences – judgements that typically are in the gray area without a clear black/white delineation. Lack of objectivity or even the perception of the lost even-handiness can exclude an individual from having their opinions taken seriously.Have these three clearly crossed that line?
As members of the University of Minnesota faculty or its alumnus, these professors have an innate conflict-of-interest when attacks on the university enhance their resumé and thus, as bioethicists, should recuse themselves from active participation.The response of President Kaler and his administration has so far been professional and even-handed, and he has brought outside reasoned analysis of the situation to focus rightly on better ways forward.That way forward to a better future is complex, will require lots of thoughtful deliberation, and is likely to be a rather rocky-road to travel with changes in processes, academic focus and research cultures.This university deserves and hopefully will reap the benefits provided from both continued thoughtful and studied input from outside and informed and debated directions provided best through the processes of faculty governance.
Jerry Cohen, Professor, member of the Faculty Senate and member of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, University of Minnesota
===========================
Simply pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
