OU President Gallogly

[BoulderSooner]

I had always heard Boren was grooming Harroz for the position. I think he would do a good job, but if the regents are distancing themselves from Boren I wonder if that will hurt Harroz's chances to the extent that Harroz was Boren's "guy" for the job.

that most certionally hurt him the last time around

[PhiAlpha]

i'll agree with all of the others, and i don't think Gallogly was perhaps the best person for the job... but i know several people who work specifically with University finances who would state that this one wasn't as misleading as some people would like to think.

I know a few people in the accounting/finance departments and they 100% would agree with your statement about financial part.

[Pete]

^

Even if there were serious financial issues, that is also at the feet of the regents.

That financial responsibility is the most important part of their oversight and they have to review and approve all budgets, contracts and major expenditures.


Why is any/all blame constantly aimed at Boren instead of Clay Bennett & Co.?

[jonny d]

^

Even if there were serious financial issues, that is also at the feet of the regents.

That financial responsibility is the most important part of their oversight and they have to review and approve all budgets, contracts and major expenditures.


Why is any/all blame constantly aimed at Boren instead of Clay Bennett & Co.?

You are not wrong.

I will say though, Regents normally have other full-time jobs, so they rely heavily on those in the trenches for info. If those providing the info aren't getting them the proper info, that is on those with hiring ability. The regents don't hire a ton of staff at colleges. So it goes to the top, the president, who is the top hiring authority for most at the college.

[Pete]

You are not wrong.

I will say though, Regents normally have other full-time jobs, so they rely heavily on those in the trenches for info. If those providing the info aren't getting them the proper info, that is on those with hiring ability. The regents don't hire a ton of staff at colleges. So it goes to the top, the president, who is the top hiring authority for most at the college.

No different than any Board of Directors.

And that defense does not fly when the crap comes down in a court of law.

[jedicurt]

Why is any/all blame constantly aimed at Boren instead of Clay Bennett & Co.?

i'm not. i think both have been at fault, i'm not going to give Boren a pass on it. and like i said when Gallogly first got hired, i think he was brought in specifically to make the deep cuts the Board felt needed to be done to get back on track.

i have much more faith in their ability to hopefully move forward with a much better choice for president. they got lazy under boren, and just let him do whatever he wanted financially, and they finally woke up and realized a change was needed. brought in a fall guy, and now are in a much better financial place

[aDark]

I don't think the budget is nearly as bad as the news would have you believe. It's been said before in this thread, but when you compare OU's budget and debt status with other like-kind state universities you'll see it's quite average.

If I were wearing a tin-foil hat I'd suggest that the BoR was *done* with Boren and a select few people schemed a way to get him to resign by building a narrative that the University was a sinking ship. Then, they hired Jim Gallogly to come in and make cuts. This plan clearly went terribly.

It will be telling to hear if the BoR now start saying that the finances have been corrected despite the fact that fundraising was WAY down this year.

Either way, the job is a lot less attractive than it was before Gallogly came in.

[David]

Not necessarily true.

You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Burns Hargis hasn’t been a grand slam for OSU.

It’s more on Gallogy than stupid business guys.

That's fair.

Hargis was a former regent for the OSU system.

Very, very different than someone like Gallogly who had zero educational management experience of any kind.

On the other hand though, so is this.

[Timshel]

Ya - If I were a betting man I would put some money on the BoR being very fractured at the moment. Not a situation that most potential presidents with a lot of options would want to walk in to.

[Rover]

I don't think the budget is nearly as bad as the news would have you believe. It's been said before in this thread, but when you compare OU's budget and debt status with other like-kind state universities you'll see it's quite average.

If I were wearing a tin-foil hat I'd suggest that the BoR was *done* with Boren and a select few people schemed a way to get him to resign by building a narrative that the University was a sinking ship. Then, they hired Jim Gallogly to come in and make cuts. This plan clearly went terribly.

It will be telling to hear if the BoR now start saying that the finances have been corrected despite the fact that fundraising was WAY down this year.

Either way, the job is a lot less attractive than it was before Gallogly came in.

It is not unusual for governing boards to hire someone because of their powerful personality and ability to get things done and then fire them because they have a powerful personality and get things done. The BoR couldn't control Boren and he was a moderate in a hard Tea Party state who wouldn't succumb to right wing political agendas. The Gaylords wanted to control OU like Boone does at OSU, but Boren didn't fit their political or social ideal. Once Bennett took over Boren was a cooked goose.

BTW, Burns is a died in the wool hard right Republican banker backed by an even farther right Boone Pickens. OSU finances get overlooked.

[Rover]

You are not wrong.

I will say though, Regents normally have other full-time jobs, so they rely heavily on those in the trenches for info. If those providing the info aren't getting them the proper info, that is on those with hiring ability. The regents don't hire a ton of staff at colleges. So it goes to the top, the president, who is the top hiring authority for most at the college.

If the regents can't live up to their obligations, rather than shirk their responsibility, they should resign. If they are accepting the position to get preferred tickets to football games instead of wanting to do the hard work of oversight, then they should resign. Regent isn't an "honorary" position. They are the final say.

[Pete]

If we are to believe there was some sort of big financial mess at OU, then it would also be true that 2 very bad things happened in a relatively short period of time, both under the leadership of Chairman Bennett:

1. The board did not fulfill its fiduciary responsibility
2. They hired someone that didn't even last a year and caused an incredible amount of acrimony

[jedicurt]

If we are to believe there was some sort of big financial mess at OU, then it would also be true that 2 very bad things happened in a relatively short period of time, both under the leadership of Chairman Bennett:

1. The board did not fulfill its fiduciary responsibility
2. They hired someone that didn't even last a year and caused an incredible amount of acrimony

oh, completely agree with both of those points. but i do have reasons to believe they were in a big financial mess, and that mess goes back decades and was just gradually getting worse and worse

[Pete]

^

They were making a net profit until the last couple of years.

And even when Gallogly stepped in they were projecting a $14.5M loss... On a budget of over a billion. Perspective is important.


I'm very sure that there was tons of excess and maybe even mismanagement. But that is only half the financial equation; Boren also raised billions (literally) and left the school with a billion-dollar endowment.

So, let's please pump the breaks on implying there was some sort of massive financial mess (why is this always offered in the vaguest ways?) that none of us ever saw and that the entire board of regrents chose to overlook until recently.

[jerrywall]

^^

board of regrets

I like that.

[jedicurt]

^

They were making a net profit until the last couple of years.

And even when Gallogly stepped in they were projecting a $14.5M loss... On a budget of over a billion. Perspective is important.


I'm very sure that there was tons of excess and maybe even mismanagement. But that is only half the financial equation; Boren also raised billions (literally) and left the school with a billion-dollar endowment.

So, let's please pump the breaks on implying there was some sort of massive financial mess that none of us ever saw and that the entire board of regrets chose to overlook until recently.

i'm not just implying... i'm basing it on my 9 years experience working at OU, and what i saw, as well as from people who dealt regularly with OU finances for the last 2 decades. yes... the balance sheet was good for OU. but many on here are using that to imply that everything was great under Boren and that the Board of Regents was wrong if they brought someone in just to correct things they thought needed to be corrected.

yes, Gallogly was an awful hire for OU, yes the BOR sat and did nothing for years when Boren was President and just let him keep making OU his dream campus (whether good or bad). i'm not disagreeing with any of it. so i'm not saying the Board has no responsibility or blame in this. but i'm also not saying Boren is protected from blame as well.

yes, the loss seems small due to the amount of money that was being brought in... but that doesn't mean that you can imply that the money was being well spent.

[Pete]

So, what exactly is the "financial mess"??

Balance sheet AND income statements have been solid. Debt is in line with peer universities.


It seems this term is being applied to perceived waste, and even if true, that is a very, very different thing than a 'financial mess'.

Spending is only half the equation.

[jedicurt]

I can only speak for my experiences of miss management and gross over spending within It. As well has the constant restructuring with no end goals in mind, just changing things for the sake of change... But going into those specifics will only be of one department and that will be the argument back against it.

So let me contact my friends and see if they are willing to let me share a few of the many examples they have given me over the past year, as this conversation has come up. Due to them still being employees, and that information potentially being traced back to them, I must has their permission to share first

[Midtowner]

Suggesting someone went to these schools because they couldn't get into OU is a big assumption. People go to different schools for different reasons. Cost savings, distance, prefer smaller school, scholarships, programs, etc. I am more concerned with what they have accomplished after leaving school.

I only bring up Shannon because he has been an excellent yes-man to the powers that be. He rammed tort reform through the legislature, even calling a special session to do it once the law was held unconstitutional. He's built a lot of political capital. He checks a lot of boxes. He wouldn't be the first former politico to cash in his chips to run a University he's singularly unqualified to run. (Roger Webb, I'm looking at you).

Considering who just resigned, I don't see how anyone can reasonably believe that being actually qualified for the job is part of the Regents' analysis here.

[Jeepnokc]

Considering who just resigned, I don't see how anyone can reasonably believe that being actually qualified for the job is part of the Regents' analysis here.

That may be the understatement of the year.

[BG918]

I had always heard Boren was grooming Harroz for the position. I think he would do a good job, but if the regents are distancing themselves from Boren I wonder if that will hurt Harroz's chances to the extent that Harroz was Boren's "guy" for the job.

Maybe the BOR rethinks that decision based on what happened with Gallogly.

Thoughts on bringing in someone from academia not at all affiliated with OU or Oklahoma?

[BoulderSooner]

I don't think the budget is nearly as bad as the news would have you believe. It's been said before in this thread, but when you compare OU's budget and debt status with other like-kind state universities you'll see it's quite average.

If I were wearing a tin-foil hat I'd suggest that the BoR was *done* with Boren and a select few people schemed a way to get him to resign by building a narrative that the University was a sinking ship. Then, they hired Jim Gallogly to come in and make cuts. This plan clearly went terribly.

It will be telling to hear if the BoR now start saying that the finances have been corrected despite the fact that fundraising was WAY down this year.

Either way, the job is a lot less attractive than it was before Gallogly came in.

were those other schools running 47 mil in the hole on a year to year basis??

[BoulderSooner]

So, what exactly is the "financial mess"??

Balance sheet AND income statements have been solid. Debt is in line with peer universities.


It seems this term is being applied to perceived waste, and even if true, that is a very, very different thing than a 'financial mess'.

Spending is only half the equation.

lying about alumni donation % to get a better college ratings .. is also a pretty big deal

[Pete]

lying about alumni donation % to get a better college ratings .. is also a pretty big deal

Even if true, has nothing to do with any 'financial mess'.

[Pete]

were those other schools running 47 mil in the hole on a year to year basis??

And how many universities have their donations cut in half year over year?