Joan Gabel has been named 19th chancellor of the of the University of Pittsburgh.

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers_4life said:
Wonder how much the Securian board backlash prompted this?

Seemed like a “this is done plenty of other places and not really a big deal” that was made a big deal out of by some.
Click to expand...
Small deal until Securian starts trying to sell new products to... her direct reports.

She's a lawyer and should have known better. Avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are plenty of corporate boards in the Twins Cities that she could have joined and don't manage the U's endowment.

It was stupid to accept that position and the media / government reacted appropriately. Good riddance.
 
Last edited:

salzie said:
The vast majority of people aren't president of major public university.


The job by nature is agenda driven in public space. Good luck keeping politics out.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, there is zero % chance a university would actually hire anyone without a political agenda. It's not impossible though. It just won't happen because universities are stock full with corrupt shitbags.

There is a difference between impossible and unlikely to happen. It's certainly possible for Pat Reusse to eat healthy but he won't.
 

hello-world said:
Small deal until Securian starts trying to sell new products to... her direct reports.

She's a lawyer and should have known better. Avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are plenty of corporate boards in the Twins Cities that she could have joined and don't manage the U's endowment.

It was stupid to accept that position and the media / government reacted appropriately. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
Anyone who says it's a small deal either doesn't get it or doesn't pay taxes.

She was using her position to divert tax payer dollars to for her personal benefit. Is it common? Sure. Academia is full of absolute crooks.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Anyone who says it's a small deal either doesn't get it or doesn't pay taxes.

She was using her position to divert tax payer dollars to for her personal benefit. Is it common? Sure. Academia is full of absolute crooks.
Click to expand...
So since we don't hear anything about freeing University properties from the Sanford-Fairview merger, I assume there was nothing in it for her and she's letting them die on the vine?
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Oh yeah, there is zero % chance a university would actually hire anyone without a political agenda. It's not impossible though. It just won't happen because universities are stock full with corrupt shitbags.

There is a difference between impossible and unlikely to happen. It's certainly possible for Pat Reusse to eat healthy but he won't.
Click to expand...
My guess, the issue you have is the president most likely wont have your political agenda
 


Scottsdale Gopher said:
Typically we solve roster issues by looking at Western Michigan or Abilene Christian, so the shortlist presumably includes Edward Montgomery and Phil Schubert.
Click to expand...
Well played. But Montgomery (WMU) is a former member of the Obama Administration (he was the "auto czar" who worked to financially save Detroit in 2008), so that would send much of GH into a panic.
 





hello-world said:
Small deal until Securian starts trying to sell new products to... her direct reports.

She's a lawyer and should have known better. Avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are plenty of corporate boards in the Twins Cities that she could have joined and don't manage the U's endowment.

It was stupid to accept that position and the media / government reacted appropriately. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
I really think you, like the others, were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

Again, I suspect this is not such a big deal in other places. Because ... well, it really isn't.



Now, she says in today's STrib she was looking at and in contact with Pitt before any of the Securian stuff went down.

Not sure if I buy that. Her new Pitt contract specifically says she is allowed to be on boards.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Anyone who says it's a small deal either doesn't get it or doesn't pay taxes.

She was using her position to divert tax payer dollars to for her personal benefit. Is it common? Sure. Academia is full of absolute crooks.
Click to expand...
Wait ... what?

Could you please elaborate, sir?
 

Tlsbhansen said:
While that would be refreshing...we live in Minnesota and that is not possible. The Woker the better seems to be the mantra.
Click to expand...
The mild liberalism of Minnesota is the price you pay (along with slightly higher taxes) to live in a state that is one of the most educated, happiest, cleanest, and safest in America -- the socioeconomic opposite of the Deep South.
 



50PoundHead said:
She's probably been looking since the Securian thing hit the papers. I got the impression that she felt "other schools allow this" forgetting where she was.

This should be a better job than the candidates we end up getting to fill the role. The last few Presidents have been decent people, but I was always a bit disappointed that we couldn't do a little better. I can't remember how he did vis-a-vis athletics, but Yudof is the last guy in the job that I really felt was up to it
Click to expand...
Also wonder if the impending slog through the Fairview-Sanford merger, getting the legislature to fund purchasing the U's research medical facilities, and then building the new Academic Medical Center was going to be too much work/risk for her.

Gonna be a big lift for whomever comes in, regardless.
 

fmlizard said:
The mild liberalism of Minnesota is the price you pay (along with slightly higher taxes) to live in a state that is one of the most educated, happiest, cleanest, and safest in America -- the socioeconomic opposite of the Deep South.
Click to expand...
Also the brutal winters. :(

Keeps housing prices (somewhat) down, though!
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
She was a part of Securian. Securian was getting a massive amount of money from the U of MN and therefore MN taxpayers. She was the President of the U of MN.
Click to expand...
I know that the U was a Securian client, I have no idea what they were doing for the U.

I don't understand the "obvious" conflict of interest of having Gable simply be a board member.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
She was a part of Securian. Securian was getting a massive amount of money from the U of MN and therefore MN taxpayers. She was the President of the U of MN.
Click to expand...
How isn't it obvious to EVERYONE how big of a problem it was?

Securian was handling more than $1 billion of endowment money. Who is she loyal to when decisions need to be made? If account executives start prospecting at the U, what would she do? Doesn't she have a fiduciary duty to the university and/or the tax payers of the state? If she does, then how isn't it violated by joining a board that overseas university money?

I mean, I'm not even digging that deep here. This should be simple stuff. Let's dig deeper.

Where is the U's General Counsel? Why is that office not informing the Regents about the legal and ethical issues? Is it packed full of Gabel toadies?

How did Powell approve of the Securian position? He's a former Fortune 500 CEO, and he was Chairman of the Board! He should have known about all the potential problems, yet he went along with it a anyway.

What the hell is going on at Morrill Hall?
 

salzie said:
My guess, the issue you have is the president most likely wont have your political agenda
Click to expand...
I'm shocked that you're completely incapable of having a real discussion on this and you resorted to finger pointing. Go look at my posts - I simply said that it's possible to hire candidates without any political agenda and you get into this finger pointing "then you must be a Republican".

But you're right, I was really angling for the U of MN President to be a Conservative and to bring a conservative agenda. I thought that would make sense. I was thinking it would make sense for the next president of the U of MN to ask for less money. Yep, you got me.

You've made it abundantly clear that your entire life is put through a political lens. Everything is politics to you. It's clear from your posts on this thread and your reaction to my neutral post. Politics makes up a really small percentage of my life. I'm drastically outnumbered in just about group I belong (family, job (firm is notoriously lefty), friends, city, etc.) and it has almost no impact on my life.

It's like with ESPN. I don't want my sports commentators to be leftist creeps, but I also have no interest in the righties like Whitlock or Travis. I just want to watch a guy throw a football.

It's the same with the next U of MN president. I don't care what the person's politics would be. I would assume they'd be liberals. What I want is someone who puts the university's best interests over their political agenda. In your world, that's not possible because you're, well, you.
 


Gophers_4life said:
I know that the U was a Securian client, I have no idea what they were doing for the U.

I don't understand the "obvious" conflict of interest of having Gable simply be a board member.
Click to expand...
I don't mean this in mean way, but I'm not sure how much more I can lay it out.

Lets say the head of MNDot owned a license plate company on the side. Then MNDot started using that license plate company. Every person who needs a new license plate has to buy it from MNDot and MNDot buys it from the company.

Do you think it's likely that MNDot chose that license plate company for reasons that are in the best interest of the taxpayers (Cheaper, reliable, quality, etc.)? It's impossible to tell because there is an obvious conflict of interest.

The head of MNDot's interest, in their position as the head of MNDot, is to look out for the best interests of the taxpayer $. They essentially are a fiduciary to the public's money. The obvious conflict would come in that they would have an interest in their license plate company being picked by MNDot whether or not it's in the best interest of the tax payer. The conflict of interest occurs whether or not the license plate company was really the best bid.

Keep in mind, the companies that are putting these people on their board know this as well. It's the reason they put these people on their board - they are hoping for favorable treatment. It's why board rooms are full of former presidents, former politicians, etc.
 

fmlizard said:
The mild liberalism of Minnesota is the price you pay (along with slightly higher taxes) to live in a state that is one of the most educated, happiest, cleanest, and safest in America -- the socioeconomic opposite of the Deep South.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, we have better ice fishing than the Deep South, too.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I'm shocked that you're completely incapable of having a real discussion on this and you resorted to finger pointing. Go look at my posts - I simply said that it's possible to hire candidates without any political agenda and you get into this finger pointing "then you must be a Republican".

But you're right, I was really angling for the U of MN President to be a Conservative and to bring a conservative agenda. I thought that would make sense. I was thinking it would make sense for the next president of the U of MN to ask for less money. Yep, you got me.

You've made it abundantly clear that your entire life is put through a political lens. Everything is politics to you. It's clear from your posts on this thread and your reaction to my neutral post. Politics makes up a really small percentage of my life. I'm drastically outnumbered in just about group I belong (family, job (firm is notoriously lefty), friends, city, etc.) and it has almost no impact on my life.

It's like with ESPN. I don't want my sports commentators to be leftist creeps, but I also have no interest in the righties like Whitlock or Travis. I just want to watch a guy throw a football.

It's the same with the next U of MN president. I don't care what the person's politics would be. I would assume they'd be liberals. What I want is someone who puts the university's best interests over their political agenda. In your world, that's not possible because you're, well, you.
Click to expand...
Again, the job is for president of a public university. Politics are going to come into play and politics many on here don't like. They're going to what they think is best for the U of M even though it won't align with many of political views I've seen here.

I probably could've phrased it better, but it is what it is. Whatever the next president does is going to be viewed under a political slant and the politics of the president will likely shape their approach.

Their "agenda" is what they think is best for the University and it likely won't fit those who bitch about woke (people need to stop saying woke, pro woke, anti woke, they all sound like fucking idiots), taxes, perceived administrative bloat, etc


I actually don't know your politics, I just took a guess based on your posts. I avoid our OT board (yes, you can find few from me, but none recently). And you got all pissy. I agree with some of your points, but the simple fact is, politics isn't going away in a job that is very public about the states largest public university.

I don't care who they hire so long as they do good job. I do know who they hire will continue to push for state funding, diversity, and to grow the University. I don't think these should be politically driven agendas, but they'll be perceived that way particularly by more conservative natured people
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Oh yeah, there is zero % chance a university would actually hire anyone without a political agenda. It's not impossible though. It just won't happen because universities are stock full with corrupt shitbags.

There is a difference between impossible and unlikely to happen. It's certainly possible for Pat Reusse to eat healthy but he won't.
Click to expand...
you consider this a neutral post?
 

Gophers_4life said:
I really think you, like the others, were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.
Click to expand...
This is a mountain.

The issue isn't her taking a board seat. It's that she tried to take a board seat at Securian, specifically. In other words, she was going to get paid ~$100K per year in passive income by a investment manager to do nothing. Her biggest asset to Securian was her position at one of their biggest clients.

The U pays Securian to manage part of its endowment. If the U can't impartially judge its investment advisors without conflicts of interest then it can't act in the best interest of the endowment. She should have been fired on the spot for trying to accept that position and Securian shouldn't have offered it in the first place.

It was a bribe.

Nobody would care if she had taken the same position at Target. (In fact, would probably see it as a good thing).
 
Last edited:

hello-world said:
This is a mountain.

The issue isn't her taking a board seat. It's that she tried to take a board seat at Securian, specifically. In other words, she was going to get paid ~$100K per year in passive income by a investment manager to do nothing. Her biggest asset to Securian was her position at one of their biggest clients.

The U pays Securian to manage part of its endowment. If the U can't impartially judge its investment advisors without conflicts of interest then it can't act in the best interest of the endowment. She should have been fired on the spot for trying to accept that position and Securian shouldn't have offered it in the first place.

It was a bribe.

Nobody would care if she had taken the same position at Target.
Click to expand...
Correct. A Board or Regents who actually oversaw the university instead of acting like supplicants to the President, should have unanimously reprimanded her.

Instead the majority approved it.

What kind of mentality did the President have when she was offered the BoD position? It could only been about her finances, social status, and/or prestige. It certainly wasn't about the U.

Look at what happened with the President of the Duluth campus. He was a regent with no experience in education and got that job. The Board of Regents is too cosy with the President at best and engaged in corrupt, self-dealing at the worst.

Do all the Regents want handouts?

The governance at the U is a joke. To my knowledge, nothing is being done to address it.
 


fmlizard said:
Here's the thing. The U is almost certainly going to hire a new President with progressive values.

Minnesota is the most educated state in America by some measures. College educated people are rapidly shifting toward the Dems nationwide, and Minnesota will only continue to self-sort into a bluer state as time passes.

Young people who form the vast majority of the U's student body (customer base) are the most progressive demographic in America, and vote for what some call "woke" more consistently than anyone.

They want someone who represents their values at the U. Because their parents (and especially grandparents) keep saying that kids are the future, that they worry what kind of country and world they will grow up in...and then run to the ballot box to drown out everything their kids want their world to be.
Click to expand...
I see you were not a history or political science major.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom