tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post116618785161053157..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: UI President Search XVUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166465087065844992006-12-18T12:04:00.000-06:002006-12-18T12:04:00.000-06:00I think it is ok for people to post as anonymous b...I think it is ok for people to post as anonymous but when there is more than one anonymous person posting it is confusing. Could some of these folks use something other than anonymous to post.<BR/><BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166416124279466122006-12-17T22:28:00.000-06:002006-12-17T22:28:00.000-06:00When one reads the 'plans' Michael Gartner reveals...When one reads the 'plans' Michael Gartner reveals it becomes increasingly obvious that the 'plans' are invented on the go.<BR/><BR/>From the PBS question about the new presidential search:<BR/>"Gartner: WELL, WE'VE SCHEDULED A MEETING FOR MONDAY TO DISCUSS THAT. I DON'T KNOW."<BR/><BR/>So the man who pontificates about a strategic plan for the future HAS NO PLAN FOR THE PRESENT.<BR/><BR/>That is incredible. Ten months of search. Countless meetings. 200,000 or 300,000 later. And the man who is the President of the BOR is making it up as he goes?<BR/><BR/>Unbelievable. Unreal.<BR/><BR/>Malfeasance. Simple out and out malfeasance.<BR/><BR/>Go back and read it again.<BR/><BR/>He is making up his plans as he goes along.<BR/><BR/>As Nick Johnson says, there are references on this thing called governance. Maybe Gartner should read them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166412916581612022006-12-17T21:35:00.000-06:002006-12-17T21:35:00.000-06:00That column by Elbert in the Register is typical o...That column by Elbert in the Register is typical of the condescending paternalistic don’t-worry-you’re-pretty-lil-head you-can’t-handle-the-truth baloney that passes for journalism in corporate newsrooms these days. Is this a private corporation or a public institution? Do public officials have a duty to be transparent and accountable for their actions? Does the press have a duty to hold them accountable? It is that simple. And yes, the answers are complicated and it requires good investigative reporting and editors that have more dedication to public service than the bottom line.<BR/><BR/>Gartner understands this and he knows how cheap his slurs are when he makes decisions behind closed doors and then says his detractors are not telling the truth. We have no recourse but to speculate when public business is conducted behind closed doors. <BR/><BR/>And Yepson has no business pretending to be a reporter on PBS when he has made it clear over and over that he has an agenda. I don’t always disagree editorially with him but it is pathetic to watch him pretend to agree with Gartner in order to trash the University. It is obvious he is in pig’s heaven wallowing in Gartner’s mud.<BR/><BR/>We wouldn’t be in this mess if the press were doing its job. They should have been doing in-depth reporting about the relationship between Wellmark and UIHC fifteen years ago. They should be constantly asking where the profit motive advances the public good in health care and where it doesn’t. How does managed care incentivise medical decisions on the part of physicians and on the part of patients and to what end? Who benefits? The citizens of Iowa may be getting a fantastic deal but if they were you would think certain folks would be crowing about it and they are strangely silent. I don’t doubt that we all benefit from the generosity and civic mindedness of Regents and donors but their personal success does not give them license to avoid competition in the market or avoid accountability in public affairs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166408684945927252006-12-17T20:24:00.000-06:002006-12-17T20:24:00.000-06:00Gartner claims the disagreement between him and th...Gartner claims the disagreement between him and the UI community is about who is in charge. Hardly.<BR/><BR/>The argument is about what's best for the University. The reason that faculty, staff, and students want to participate in the search is that history has demonstrated that such involvement leads to the selection of great presidents. Our brief history with a regent-led search committee with heavy regent participation suggests that that approach leads to a disaster.<BR/><BR/>Members of the BOR are concerned citizens, typically with diverse and impressive talents. Rarely, if ever, though, do they have much knowledge about the "industry" of higher education. Any responsible board member in that position would be eager for advice from the people in the "company" who do know the industry. This BOR has been deaf to such advice-- witness the bizarre decision to fiddle with the Regents Admission Index cut score for admission after receiving a unanimous recommendation from a seven-member team of experts.<BR/><BR/>Bah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166395072279019492006-12-17T16:37:00.000-06:002006-12-17T16:37:00.000-06:00Quick comment on indigent care vis a vis Wellmark....Quick comment on indigent care vis a vis Wellmark.<BR/><BR/>At a regents meeting Regent Neil pointed out the bottom line had fallen at the UIHC, which he used as a point of criticism against President Skorton.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line feel because Insurance companies, and medicaid, medicare reduce compensation to the UIHC. When these sources of revenue fall, there is less surplus to cover the cost of indigent care. Soon the UIHC is operating at a loss, again which so many academic medical centers now face. That would mean cuts in staff and services.<BR/><BR/>Wellmark simply decided it's own level of reimbursement. It did not negotiate. That seems very un-free-market-like. Thus some of the contentiousness between Skorton and the Board.<BR/><BR/>To say Wellmark is not responsible for indigent care is to miss a point. Health care unlike many other 'markets' bears a responsibility for the common good. If a person cannot afford vaccinations or diabetes car that has effects not only on that person but on public health.<BR/><BR/>Wellmark should be involved in indigent care because:<BR/><BR/>1. This is a problem for all health care, providers, insurance companies, government etc. It is a moral, as well as public health obligation to take care of the medically indigent.<BR/><BR/>2. Again if the amount of reimbursement Wellmark gives to the hospital is too low, the UIHC is in financial peril. Although that situation may help Wellmark's bottom line, everyone should agree that it is poor long term policy.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>The final point would be that there was WAY too much of a cozy relationship between the leaders of Wellmark and the Regents that oversee the Univ of Iowa.<BR/><BR/>I dare the author of the piece in the Des Moines Register to find any other Board of Regents in any other state so packed with conflict of interest.<BR/><BR/>The fox clearly were tending the hens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166374101243907242006-12-17T10:48:00.000-06:002006-12-17T10:48:00.000-06:00President Skorton so UNDERPERFORMED that he became...President Skorton so UNDERPERFORMED that he became president of Cornell University, which (cliche coming) last time we checked was in the Ivy League.<BR/><BR/>The Univ of Iowa flounder so badly under Skorton's leadership that a president given a bad division manager job review, had to go to a 2nd or 3rd rate college.<BR/><BR/>What are these fellows in Des Moines smoking?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166372560510786272006-12-17T10:22:00.000-06:002006-12-17T10:22:00.000-06:00It is interesting that Gartner (and apparently Yep...It is interesting that Gartner (and apparently Yepsen) are holding Iowa State President Geoffrey as a example of shining leadership.<BR/><BR/>In fact, Yepsen's piece today was quite a little diatribe against the Univ of Iowa. I guess he doesn't like a democratic system either.<BR/><BR/>What does it take to please Gartner and Yepsen. A one day conference on 'Bio-fuel-sources' or somehting. How superficial.<BR/><BR/>When you read Gartner's and Yepsen's comments, I am struck by how superficial they are. What the hell are they talking about?<BR/><BR/>1. Why was Skorton considered 'underperforming'? Give the data Gartner and Yepsen. Was it decrease in grants? Decrease in academic papers? Decrease in degrees? Or was it that he fought Wellmark?<BR/><BR/>2. And what is this "six-figure paychecks, sweet benefits, light teaching loads and outside incomes of some faculty members" that Yepsen refers to? Can he justify he bombastic comments? Is Yepsen saying the Surgery department is underworked, overpaid, and on cruise? Would you spend a day with a neurosugeon Mr. Yepsen? Please?<BR/><BR/>I find the entire mess, a sordid exercise in superficial heresy that proves nothing.<BR/><BR/>Facts people facts. I though journalism was facts.<BR/><BR/>Prof Kurtz has produced a document of facts.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Gartner is busy with spring training and all but could he produce a document of his visions, his plans, and his critiques of the U of Iowa? Rather then going on public TV with a few softballs thrown at him, and using 'great' every other word, could Mr Gartner produce a simple document getting to the point. Specifically:<BR/><BR/>1. Why did Skorton displease him (or the board). Don't sugarcoat it.<BR/>2. What is his vision for the Univ of Iowa. Lay it out.<BR/>3. What does he think of the complex health care situation? Why should politics enter into those negotiations.<BR/>4. Why was Ms Freund his top candidate? What about her conflict of interests?<BR/><BR/>These are important questions. A leader needs to lead, not fight with superficial rhetoric any sharp-tongued newsman get spew.<BR/><BR/>Answers, Mr Gartner. Answers and vision will persuade people. Not rhetoric, and hyperbole, and snide comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166310011657396762006-12-16T17:00:00.000-06:002006-12-16T17:00:00.000-06:00Anonymous commented about indigent care but prison...Anonymous commented about indigent care but prison inmate care is a similar problem.<BR/><BR/>UIHC and the Iowa Department of Corrections have had a long association. I think that when it was established the legislature appropriated funds for prison inmate medical treatment at UIHC. Over time the appropriation diminished to zero or near zero but UIHC was still required to provide the needed inmate treatment at a cost of about $6 million per year.<BR/><BR/>I did some checking and it appears to me that $6 million would correspond to a UIHC patient surcharge of 1.5%. This appears to me to be an unintended consequence. <BR/><BR/>Another costly aspect of this policy is that prisoners who need medical treatment not available at their prison are transported to UIHC from all over the State when there were medical facilities that could have provided the needed services that were much closer. Most of the prisoners I have seen at UIHC are chained to a restraint chair and are accompanied by two guards. The good news is the DOC is concerned about public safety and has taken measures to prevent an escape. The bad news is that these measures costs about $75 per hour.<BR/><BR/>I think this policy should be reviewed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166309836554777752006-12-16T16:57:00.000-06:002006-12-16T16:57:00.000-06:00Some questions:1. Why is a flaming liberal like M...Some questions:<BR/><BR/>1. Why is a flaming liberal like Michael Gartner behaving very much as a neo-conservative? A liberal should welcome open meetings, grassroots participation, and a democratic all-involved organization. Meanwhile in this case, Gartner is promoting a closed-meeting, top-down, dictitorical type organization.<BR/><BR/>Gartner even throws in a good measure of anti-academic, anti-intellectual rhetoric. That is very weird for a 'liberal'.<BR/><BR/>Does he favor an open, grass-roots governance, UNLESS Michael Gartner is involved?<BR/><BR/>2. Why the resignation of Tom Bedell? And why the name-calling on his part? He is a guy who has been invited many times to speak at the Univ of Iowa, and now he finds that a open discussion, and an organization that speaks up 'disgusting'? Again, a reputed liberal who apparently backtracks when liberal ideas are exercised.<BR/><BR/>Further if leadership is important on the Board of Regents, is Bedell telling us that his leadership does not extend to difficult times? That when the going gets tough, he is going to turn tail and resign?<BR/><BR/>That sort of leadership is not exemplary. When there are troubled times real leaders find a way to LEAD. I suppose Dwight Eisenhower should have resigned when faced with D-Day.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, the leaders in this episode are not impressive. Gartner has resorted to closed meetings, sneaky attacks upon faculty, and overall anti-academic stances (and he leads university systems? huh?). Bedell has simply run away. Vilsack has washed his hands to campaign for the presidency. Wahlert and crew have subverted the search for a President. Other than Downer, no one has stepped forward to do what a true leader should do.<BR/><BR/>Given this vacuum of true leadership, is it any wonder the faculty steps in to add to the mayhem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166303147073070752006-12-16T15:05:00.000-06:002006-12-16T15:05:00.000-06:00From the Dec 29, 2004 Board of Regents Meeting. A...From the Dec 29, 2004 Board of Regents Meeting. At debate is a resolution that expresses confidence in President Skorton to negotiate with Wellmark.<BR/><BR/>Regent Neil (who said he had resigned from Wellmark) contested the resolution, and even called into question President Skorton’s handling of the UIHC. Regent Neil also wanted to hand Wellmark a 60 day extension.<BR/><BR/>President Skorton talked about politicizing the Board of Regents. How that could potentially hurt the U of Iowa.<BR/><BR/>Other Regents commented on the tension at the meeting.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, with all the political wrangling at the meeting, the calling out of President Skorton, and the interesting flight of Regent O’Neil from his conflict of interest (which is later recanted), this could have been one more brick in the wall between Skorton and the Univ of Iowa Board of Regents.<BR/><BR/>This is one example of a possible conflict of interest. Someone needs to look at the entire history of the BOR vis a vis Skorton. That was one of the issues that brought the U of I to the mess it is in today.<BR/><BR/>This may go well beyond Gartner. It may speak to the basic structure and governance of the Univ of Iowa.<BR/><BR/>Any resolution must address the governance of a state university in an environment that is increasingly commercial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166301496106972012006-12-16T14:38:00.000-06:002006-12-16T14:38:00.000-06:00Conflict of Interest?Look at the interesting case ...Conflict of Interest?<BR/><BR/>Look at the interesting case of David Neil.<BR/><BR/>Neil is a UAW man from Waterloo. He was appointed to the BC/BS board in 1999 (now Wellmark).<BR/><BR/>Neil was also appointed to the Iowa board of Regents in 1998. (he is at least the 4th recent BOR appointee to have direct connections to Wellmark: Forsyth, Wahlert, Neil, Arbisser)<BR/><BR/>Look at the Board of Regents Meeting from Dec 29, 2004. You can see the exchanges between David Skorton, and Regent Neil. You can see Skorton talk about the contract between Wellmark as not really being Regents business. You can see Neil making it Regents business.<BR/><BR/>You can also see Regent Arbisser involved. That would be Mr Dr Arbisser, whose wife, Mrs. Dr Arbisser was on the Wellmark Board.<BR/><BR/>Very curious to note that Regent Neil had resigned from the Wellmark board in Dec 2004 (or so he said he did), so he could participate more in UIHC-Wellmark interactions.<BR/><BR/>Later Neil resigned from the Iowa BOR in early 2005.<BR/><BR/>And interesting to note that Mr Neil, is once again on the Board of Wellmark.<BR/><BR/>Short resignation wouldn't you say? Curious interactions, wouldn't you say?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, Mr Neil is extremely altruistic. Or perhaps Mr Neil is extremely connected.<BR/><BR/>Whatever, these conflicts of interest do not look good.<BR/><BR/>Again, if government in Iowa has intellectual honesty left, someone needs to start looking at these connections, and put people under oath...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166299402753675302006-12-16T14:03:00.000-06:002006-12-16T14:03:00.000-06:00The issue of 'self insurance' is a side issue at t...The issue of 'self insurance' is a side issue at the UIHC. It would take a real expert to explain the association between the Univ Iowa insurance options and Wellmark. However, this is not entirely the issue.<BR/><BR/>A type self-insured program would be like Student Health at the UIHC. Students come in, however are not billed. The institution takes care of the student.<BR/><BR/>Some UI select policies may be designed for UI employees. Other insurance options are simply Wellmark.<BR/><BR/>If the UIHC is 'self insured' then it is very good at self-flagellation<BR/><BR/>For instance the UIHC bills a procedure at 200 (say); Wellmark offers the UIHC 40.00 in compensation (this is typical). If this is the UIHC self-insurance then it is in the business of screwing itself.<BR/><BR/>When an official diagrams out the health insurance-academic hospital relationships, and products, and reimbursements, you can be sure it will look like the FBI diagram of a Mafia family.......<BR/><BR/>Someone expert should also explain who takes risk in all this Mafia, I mean hospital business.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166298392862159982006-12-16T13:46:00.000-06:002006-12-16T13:46:00.000-06:00(Continued)Wellmark delivers certain dollars to th...(Continued)<BR/><BR/>Wellmark delivers certain dollars to the UIHC for care. However, not only does the UIHC have to deliver care to insured Wellmark 'covered lives' but also to other Iowans, many of whom have no insurance. Who pays for that?<BR/><BR/>1. The state of Iowa pays for some of this indigent care. Hardly enough.<BR/>2. The UIHC must make more than it's costs on insured patients, to cover indigents.<BR/><BR/>This problem has vexed academic centers all over the country in the past 25 years. The 'health insurance industry' does not want to cover indigent patients. The states do not want to cover these costs, especially with tight budgets. So who does cover the costs?<BR/><BR/>This is a very complex problem, and is not likely to be solved soon, because of the many vested players. However, note that indigent care has brought academic hospitals to bankruptcy.<BR/><BR/>Wellmark wants to keep costs down (as costs go up, in part to inflation, in part to regulation, in part to profits from insurance and bigpharma). How can Wellmark do this:<BR/><BR/>1. Pay hospitals less. Obviously.<BR/>2. Develop wellness programs.<BR/>3. Shift costs.<BR/><BR/>Simply put Wellmark will pay hospitals less, thus not covering the costs of indigent pateints. 'Not our problem' Wellmark says. Go to your state govt.<BR/><BR/>Wellmark like all health insurance companies will dump the sicker, more costly patients. Those patients become indigent, and then who pays for their HEAVY hospital bills. 'Not us' says Wellmark.<BR/><BR/>That is called cost shifting where Wellmark keeps the profitable healthy patients, and dumps the expensive sick patients onto the public roles.<BR/><BR/>Wellmark makes a 'profit' (called surplus), the state picks up the indigent patients, and the costs shift from the insurance company to the taxpayers.<BR/><BR/>There are fights about this all over the country. Skorton said 'simply enough'. We need revenue to supply health care to all Iowans. The state is not giving us enough. So we are going to cancel the contract between Wallmark and the UIHC.<BR/><BR/>That led to a dispute. However, again Skorton's bosses have VESTED interest in Wellmark's well being (so to speak). Skorton displeased those interests. The dispute was settled. Skorton was then treated as an under-performing district manager and given less a salary raise. That led, in part, to his leaving the U of I.<BR/><BR/>Thus:<BR/>1. Wellmark wants to keep costs down, but will do that according to it's owns interests and 'surplus', as well as cost shifting.<BR/>2. Those who claim there is no conflict of interest need to explain all the connections, and all the facts, and all the history.<BR/><BR/>This is a microcosm of the health care industry mess in the US, and an example of the conflicts of interests that even today plague governments everywhere, even Washington DC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166297921204723012006-12-16T13:38:00.000-06:002006-12-16T13:38:00.000-06:00Many years ao during the Vietnam War the Rock Isla...Many years ao during the Vietnam War the Rock Island Arsenal had a large contract with the UI computer center that was paying for most of the cost of the center. The RIA started to throw their weight around telling the UI when to jump and how high. This was not an acceptable state of affairs and the UI terminated the contract (the were other issues so the process of resolving the matter was complex).<BR/><BR/>The amount of money involved then was substantial so it took a lot of guts on the part of Sandy Boyd to do that but he had the full support of the computer committee.<BR/><BR/>The contract with Wellmark is much larger than the one with the RIA and the new president will need the nearly full support of the BOR to face down Wellmark. Under the present circumstances that will not happen and the new president will have to accept what Wellmark is willing to offer. In other words the new president will not be able to work for the best interests of the UI. In my view this is not an acceptable state of affairs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166296187371460582006-12-16T13:09:00.000-06:002006-12-16T13:09:00.000-06:00I have been watching from the sidelines for awhile...I have been watching from the sidelines for awhile, but can't avoid contributing any longer. Everyone should listen to or read the transcript from Michael Gartner's interview on IPTV yesterday. It is very disturbing:<BR/><BR/>http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/transcript_detail.cfm?ipShowNum=3416<BR/><BR/>(1) He has already decided the composition of the search committee. He has already decided the president's qualifications and CONTINUES to lobby for Freund. Yet, again, he incorporates flawed logic in his argument regarding the committtee. Gartner's idea -- populate the search committee with donors, because this is an increasingly important funding source for higher education.<BR/><BR/>The biggest source, however, is TUITION. We need someone who understands the academic landscape and emerging tuition models. Can you say, "Provost" Regent Gartner? -- I know, Gartner chokes on it every time. Of course, Provost Hogan is about the only administrative leader since Skorton to stand up to Gartner.<BR/><BR/>While he is correct that philanthropy is increasingly important, we already have expertise easily tapped and not necessarily with special interests (which donors would have). Can you say "UI Foundation," Michael Gartner?<BR/><BR/>Why not include a VP from the Foundation? They know the ENTIRE landscape of giving and have the UI interests at heart, rather than their own special interests. Let's put one of them on the search committee.<BR/><BR/>Gartner keeps blathering on about a dean-led search -- but the DEANS THEMSELVES have suggested it should be faculty-led.<BR/><BR/>The faculty should be very appreciative of this gesture by the deans. They are clearly getting it and understand and care about creating a process that will engender a successful search. I hope the faculty recognizes this.<BR/><BR/>The deans' emphasis on a rapid search suggests something further -- Fethke is a Gartner puppet. He says things that almost immediately appear in the press out of Gartner's mouth. A great case in point is the following overheard at Fall Commencement from Fethke -- that we should have a search committee heavily populated by donors to UI.<BR/><BR/>I had to do a double-take to make sure Gartner wasn't at Commencement.<BR/><BR/>It is good that the deans won't be led around by Fethke. We might as well have Gartner sitting in Jessup. So, the sooner the search is conducted, the better. <BR/><BR/>To make matters worse, consider the recent Board of Regents meeting in Iowa City, where the new admissions standard was discussed. The index that was passed was well-below what would be indicative of a qualified student. Moreover, it was NOT what was proposed by the committee that studied this. Yet, Fethke sat there like a statue while Provost Hogan and Tom Rocklin (in charge of undergrad matters for the Provost) argued for a more rigorous standard. Why didn't Fethke support the UI? Because he is Gartner's puppet. He is no more competent as our president than Gartner is as a regent. We need him out as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>Some suggestions to expedite things:<BR/><BR/>(1) Faculty led search, put a dean on there (they seem to be aligning with faculty). <BR/>(2) Make sure students and staff are involved, too.<BR/>(3) Include someone from the Foundation.<BR/>(4) Let Downer (only Regent with integrity standing) be the regent's rep.<BR/>(5) Automatically include anyone in the top 25 from the prior search (if they agree to be included). <BR/>(6) Have a one-month open application period to allow additional candidates to apply.<BR/>(7) Make a choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166291828679946662006-12-16T11:57:00.000-06:002006-12-16T11:57:00.000-06:00Some interesting speculations and questions over a...Some interesting speculations and questions over at the <A HREF="http://mypc.press-citizen.com/forums/message.php?id_forums=1&id_messages=447" REL="nofollow">Press-Citizen forums </A>.<BR/><BR/>Is the search being structured in a way that will allow Gartner to pick the next president? Or, with a more positive spin, are the Regents being careful to structure the search such that they will be immune to charges that Gartner picked the next President?<BR/><BR/>The BOR has the responsibility to pick the next president. <B>But,</B> they also have the responsibility to that job well. To do it well, the Board should listen very carefully to the accumulated wisdom on the campus and engage in vigorous debate among themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166281332045176792006-12-16T09:02:00.000-06:002006-12-16T09:02:00.000-06:00All of the university's health plans are indeed se...All of the university's health plans are indeed self-insured, with Wellmark as the administrator.<BR/>http://www.uiowa.edu/hr/benefits/FAQ/FAQ-GEN.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1166201094554099422006-12-15T10:44:00.000-06:002006-12-15T10:44:00.000-06:00A serious question arises about malfeasance.Can a ...A serious question arises about malfeasance.<BR/><BR/>Can a person entrusted to guiding a very vital public institution cause this much trouble? The Present of the Board of Regents has held possibly illegal closed door meetings, interfered with deliberate proceedings including the search for a new U of Iowa President, and apparently misused information against faculty members (regardless of whether he says he ordered the information dug up). <BR/><BR/>Can the Board of Regents President cause this much mischief, as he pleases? Can he be privy to any sort of information about faculty, students, and staff of the Univ? TO throw out and use as he wishes?<BR/><BR/>Consider these 'loose cannon' actions. Consider what appears to be massive conflict of interest on the boards of 2 institutions (Wellmark and Univ of Iowa; It would be like Officials of Hy Vee sitting on the BOR as the Univ declares Hy Vee the exclusive food vender).<BR/><BR/>Where is the State's Attorney General to investigate? And will the State House launch an honest investigation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com