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.

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

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

^

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.

^^


board of regrets

I like that.

^

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:yeahthat: That may be the understatement of the year.

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?

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??

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

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'.

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?

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

Yes... But that doesnt mean that everything was okay with all of those donations.

Yes, ou has a massive hill to climb back up. But go find people who work with the finances and the provost office... Many believe that the new hill they climb will be much firmer

The same people complaining about the deficit cheer the state legislature taking a sledgehammer to higher ed funding. This wasn’t about correcting some financial control issues, it was very political. The bor could easily forced changes to procedures. In the end, they wanted to smash a legacy. This is like all the conservatives who demanded the federal deficit was threatening the country who now say it doesn’t matter and are running up huge numbers. It wasn’t ever the issue... the control of who gets the money and gain control is always the issue.

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

Link?

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.

I think he already cashed in his chips and is at a job that hes unqualified to run, president of Chickasaw owned Bank2

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

I believe pledges to the business school is up thanks to the dean that wasn’t chosen to lead OU and is now leaving to go to TCU.

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

Source?

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-donations-down-significantly-during-chaotic-period-at-university/article_7adaf0f2-30ab-11e9-abdf-0765264ac31e.html

As of Jan. 10, according to an internal office of development memo obtained by The Daily, the university has raised $48,905,322 during fiscal year 2019, which started July 1, 2018. At this point in fiscal year 2018, which started July 1, 2017, the university had raised $82,980,776.

Source?

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-donations-down-significantly-during-chaotic-period-at-university/article_7adaf0f2-30ab-11e9-abdf-0765264ac31e.html

As of Jan. 10, according to an internal office of development memo obtained by The Daily, the university has raised $48,905,322 during fiscal year 2019, which started July 1, 2018. At this point in fiscal year 2018, which started July 1, 2017, the university had raised $82,980,776.

This may be what Boulder was mentioning.

https://newsok.com/article/5624555/at-ou-cash-donations-fall-pledges-rise

^

Reminder in that newsok article they are comparing pledges to the previous fiscal year that starts July 1; Boren announced his retirement in September. So pledges were way down due to uncertainty. And pledges are not income. They sometimes are not collected or reduced and even more often spread out over years.


I know Boren raised over $3 billion in private donations in his 24 years; that's over $125M per year and a lot of that was in 90's and 00's money.

When you account for inflation, you would have to raise much more now just to match what he did.


So, in 6 months Gallogly had brought in less than $49M (and of course, a good deal of that was from pledges under Boren) when in 2019 dollars Boren had been averaging at least $150M per year.


It's absolutely comical to try and diminish what Boren accomplished and as I've said from the very beginning, this is all about politics and not actual performance.

The mere speculation of Provost Kyle Harper being named interim president already has student organizations up in arms...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-students-voice-concerns-over-potential-selection-of-ou-interim/article_0511487a-7701-11e9-a5eb-0fe8d1a6414b.html

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Someone on here mentioned TW Shannon, and this board was the most negative about him...not saying he is a good choice, though. But the BoR is most likely going conservative again, on this hire. so no matter who they pick, or what race, he won't be liked.

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

WTF you talking about bro? You are not qualified to speak on this matter. You're simply spitballing. As some people have mentioned upthread, Harroz was groomed for the position by Boren. You are adding nothing to the discussion by suggesting this at all.

Someone on here mentioned TW Shannon, and this board was the most negative about him...not saying he is a good choice, though. But the BoR is most likely going conservative again, on this hire. so no matter who they pick, or what race, he won't be liked.

Please stop. He is not a credible candidate and would be a terrible choice -- even worse than Glugly.

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.
There were at least two already on campus who were ready to take over smoothly and professionally. One was dean of the business school, dismissing the fear that financial issues couldn’t be fixed. Unfortunately, the primary mission was to destroy the Boren legacy.

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Hopefully, if they're more open in the search process this time, they can address that second sentence.

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article228950794.html

Board of Regents published their agenda for an 8:15 meeting, tonight. I'm predicting we have a new President announced tomorrow. Smart money says Joe Harroz. If not Harroz could be Turpen. If Turpen then I assume it's just as interim President while they construct a full-blown search.

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article228950794.html

Not surprised, been this way in IT for decades, the middlemen angled their way in and they're not going to lose their clout if they can help it. I was actually very (pleasantly) surprised/shocked when an in-house HR person for the company I work for actually contacted me for my current (and hopefully until I retire/die) job, that was something that had never happened in my 30+ year career, it's always been recruiters...

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article228950794.html
And, if the new hire doesn’t work out, the regents can blame the placement consultant and avoid taking responsibility. Boards of all types try to evade their accountability by hiring consultants as a buffer. It’s a lazy way out.

This private search angle is relatively new.

I tend to think the motivation is based on wanting to control the outcome as much as possible without having to deal with input from others.

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

Well, considering the demographics of this country/state/university, there should be a ton of candidates who are non-white, males in every search. In reality, it's not the case as it seems they're choosing between 5-6 goold ol' boys. It's not affirmative action to have a second demographic group represented after 130 years of presidents. Just consider that Renzi Stone is on the Board of Regents. Why? Well, he's... a White guy... who is... well connected: A good ol' boy. C'mon. There is so much bias and implicit discrimination against non-White candidates that there's almost no chance the search won't be discriminatory. Don't just look at who the board chooses, but who they considered. Of course, the elitist board does it privately so they don't have to be accountable. It's a sham.

Let me add why this bothers me. I work at a university and I have worked at 4 universities over the last decade and the thing that consistently bothers me is the number of mediocre White men who quickly ascend to positions of power while more talented women and colleagues of color are passed over. I've seen it happen over and over. And I can go on and on about the mediocrity or incompetence of these dudes. I've also seen it happen at OU. It's just astounding how little attention as candidates historically marginlized groups get from leadership, but then I remember who is on the Board of Regents. Again, Renzi Stone is an example of White guy who in no way is qualified or deserving of his appointment. It's just frustrating to watch universities squander potential for their (hopefully implicit) bias.

This private search angle is relatively new.

I tend to think the motivation is based on wanting to control the outcome as much as possible without having to deal with input from others.

Right. Which means that not only do all the criticisms come out immediately once the candidate is announced resulting in a negative start, but the board also can't benefit from public/media/student feedback. These private searches are not only dumb but arrogant.

I think people are starting to move beyond that.

What evidence do you have to support this thought of yours?

Well, considering the demographics of this country/state/university, there should be a ton of candidates who are non-white, males in every search. In reality, it's not the case as it seems they're choosing between 5-6 goold ol' boys. It's not affirmative action to have a second demographic group represented after 130 years of presidents. Just consider that Renzi Stone is on the Board of Regents. Why? Well, he's... a White guy... who is... well connected: A good ol' boy. C'mon. There is so much bias and implicit discrimination against non-White candidates that there's almost no chance the search won't be discriminatory. Don't just look at who the board chooses, but who they considered. Of course, the elitist board does it privately so they don't have to be accountable. It's a sham.

Let me add why this bothers me. I work at a university and I have worked at 4 universities over the last decade and the thing that consistently bothers me is the number of mediocre White men who quickly ascend to positions of power while more talented women and colleagues of color are passed over. I've seen it happen over and over. And I can go on and on about the mediocrity or incompetence of these dudes. I've also seen it happen at OU. It's just astounding how little attention as candidates historically marginlized groups get from leadership, but then I remember who is on the Board of Regents. Again, Renzi Stone is an example of White guy who in no way is qualified or deserving of his appointment. It's just frustrating to watch universities squander potential for their (hopefully implicit) bias.

you thinking Renzi is not qualified shows all of your bias

Joseph Harroz named interim President

http://newsok.com/article/5631630/ou-regents-name-ou-law-school-dean-joseph-harroz-as-interim-president

Joseph Harroz named interim President

http://newsok.com/article/5631630/ou-regents-name-ou-law-school-dean-joseph-harroz-as-interim-president

Good choice!

Good choice!

i agree he is very very qualified

predictably the pushback against him has already started

What has not been discussed is why Gallogly is suddenly gone.

When Boren retired, he announced in September and stayed on the job during the search and didn't leave until the end of the following June.

Gallogly makes this sudden announcement and now they are saying Harroz's appointment is effective immediately and he will be in that role at least 15 months.


People are owed an explanation for the sudden departure of Gallogly, not just the BS in the press releases.

My guess? They are about to announce the Boren investigation findings and Gallogly wanted to be far away from it.

Also Harroz is a very good choice. I wish him the best and expect to see him as full president next year.

you thinking Renzi is not qualified shows all of your bias
At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

I actually agree with you. He should have defended why he is qualified, rather than just bashing. But Stone is the CEO of Saxum, and has served on numerous Boards (PR Council, among others).

My guess? They are about to announce the Boren investigation findings and Gallogly wanted to be far away from it.

But he and the regents have said over and over again he had nothing to do with this.

So why run away?

At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

Yes, my point wasn't that Renzi Stone hasn't done anything, it's that he's less qualified than other candidates. You also can't just consider him individually, but with any organization, you have to consider what each person brings to the team. The OU Board of Regents is homogenous in so many ways that adding Renzi added little new. There are so many qualified candidates in other areas that could have contributed more. But, again, opportunities open up if you live in that same bubble as the rest of the Regents.

And, look what we get, the Regents oversee a public institution with absolutely no transparency, university, or public input? After the chaos at the university, you'd think someone might reach include faculty and students in some way? Nope. The our-homogeneous-privileged-group-knows-best-for-everyone mentality is not appropriate for public servants.

I actually agree with you. He should have defended why he is qualified, rather than just bashing. But Stone is the CEO of Saxum, and has served on numerous Boards (PR Council, among others).
So, what is the make-up of his client base, boards he sits on, etc.? Renzi is a smart guy and knows how to get where he wants to go.

So, what is the make-up of his client base, boards he sits on, etc.? Renzi is a smart guy and knows how to get where he wants to go.

I have no idea. But im sensing a bias against Stone here.

Here is his bio on Saxum's website: https://saxum.com/who-we-are/about/

Harroz will fill the position vacated by James L. Gallogly, who announced his retirement on Sunday evening after just 10 months as university president.

Harroz's appointment is effective immediately and will serve as interim president for at least 15 months.

Pretty damn wild that Gallogly quit and was interim replaced within a week. What the heck happened?

Not even a week.

Abrupt announcement on Sunday night, replacement named to start 'immediately' on Thursday night.


I wonder if Gallogly is still in Oklahoma.

Not even a week.

Abrupt announcement on Sunday night, replacement named to start 'immediately' on Thursday night.


I wonder if Gallogly is still in Oklahoma.

It was always a rumor he flew home every weekend. Not sure he even took up much residence in the Boyd house.

It was always a rumor he flew home every weekend. Not sure he even took up much residence in the Boyd house.

I wonder who paid for those flights?

I wonder who paid for those flights?

he is close to being if not already a billionaire

Again, Renzi Stone is an example of White guy who in no way is qualified or deserving of his appointment.

You had me, until this one. Not sure what your personal beef is here, but you would be hard pressed to find many (if any) that have direct dealings with Renzi, that would agree with your sentiment.