3/11/2012: Whole letter here, well worth reading:
In the worst instances, universities with local boards meander toward excellence, if they are lucky. They often must accommodate the tastes of local board members while trying to execute longer term plans. My experience with a local board and with the NCAA leads me to conclude that many of the problems universities in Division I have with NCAA violations are related to boards or board members who tell the president when and how to hire and fire coaches and when to look the other way in the face of possible infractions because “things” are going well.
That could never happen at UO of course. Ray’s letter is for the 3/16 OUS Board meeting on this subject. Presumably Pres Berdahl will send around his own letter soon.
It is very simple — Ed Ray is in favor of the OUS board because OSU is getting many millions per year in extra subsidies, thanks to their largesse.
dead duck knows Ed Ray from old duck scholar days with Ray in same area, but Ed would do well to read best research on how different types of universities will have to survive (e.g. rizzo and ehrenberg at cornell. Strong, underfunded flagsips, such as Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, and Michigan will have to survive on nonresident tuition, that’s obvious, but land grants, without the same market strength out of state, will either have to cut extension programs even more or insist that their constituencies contribute more to support them. Until now, OUS has ‘solved’ this political dilemma by putting rest of OUS, esp, UO on half rations. RL blew the whistle on the scam, refused to stop blowing and is gone. Let’s hope Berdahl’s national stature helps us. Ray is right that local boards bring their own problems, but as last anon notes, their ox isn’t the one being gored is that mixing metaphors if you’re a dead duck?
OSU and OIT teach more expensive programs- Engineering and technical programs are more costly to teach- so the RAM associates a higher value per student. Otherwise the reason UO gets less is because we teach a dramatically lower percentage of Oregonians.
We must stop misrepresenting what happened with Lariviere. He gave massive raises to those over 100k, when the rest of the state was on furloughs, despite the Governor requesting a specific cap on compensation.
I understand that he was popular, but misrepresenting why he lost the job doesn’t help anyone.
I want a lot of great things in the new president, but I think we all know that the first thing a President needs to be is EMPLOYED as president or nothing he/she does will matter. We need to stop thinking the entire universe ends after Springfield and realize that we need someone who plays well with others.
Misrepresenting what happened and rabidly defending Richard will only discourage reasonable people from applying, and will sentence us to relive the past few months when the next man/woman gets fired for trying to carry the rich donors water against the will of the state again.
Ray’s analysis of local boards seems reasonable. Plus the fact that of Berdahl, Lariviere, and Ray- Ray is the ONLY person who has EVER worked for a local board.
The raise story for firing LaRiveiere is a a canard. OSU gave raises as well. Ray did not ask permission either. If it was a firing offense for not asking, then why does Ray have a job?