State Rep Barnhart cites "blanket opposition" to UO Board

1/27/2011: Colton Totland in the ODE does a good interview:

PB: I agreed to co-sponsor the proposal because I think it is very important to have this conversation in the legislature. A subject is always open to new information, but at this point I am convinced that the funding proposal is in the best interest of the University and the state of Oregon. If Lariviere can raise the matching amount of money from donations, then the University becomes modestly well-funded and the state doesn’t even have to pay half in the long run because it is a bond measure. Now, the other issue in the proposal, the University’s separate board of directors, is a lot more complicated and will require a lot more conversation. But I think blanket opposition, at this stage, is problematic.

This is the co-sponsor of the legislation talking. The New Partnership is dead, unless Knight makes a public ultimatum to the legislature asking if they really want to explain to the voters how George Pernsteiner and Paul Kelly talked them into walking away from an $800 million gift. And even then it’s iffy.

It’s time for Plan B: toss the deadwood administrators, slow the bloat, redirect what we’ve got to teaching and research, cut the subsidies to the coaches, and just buckle down and concentrate on running a good university.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.