UA Trustees

[ZippyRulz]

http://www.uakron.edu/bot/board-memos.dot?folderPath=/bot/docs/2015/

Link to the BOT meeting minutes In case anyone is interested in following their actions.

[Dave in Green]

I see from the last meeting minutes that the Department of Associate Studies changed its name to the Department of Applied General and Technical Studies, and despite the implied polytechnicity in this move there were apparently no news stories or protests generated in response.

[ZippyRulz]

ABJ is on the prowl..

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/university-of-akron-trustees-who-are-they-1.614439

[LZIp]

I have to say there is some serious irony in the state having issues with spending when it is essentially "signed off" by people they have appointed.

[bengalboardgg]

The trustees at Akron are way too involved in day to day weeds. They should stick to broader issues. Too many political frauds are on this panel. No one with any gravitas. A lot of people playing the role of the "King Maker" while propping up their paper President hired last summer.

[K92]

Blackballed!

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/08/university_of_akron_professor_1.html

[Captain Kangaroo]

Blackballed!

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/08/university_of_akron_professor_1.html

The people sitting through that meeting should kiss the feet of whomever blackballed that guy. Jesus...they'd have been there all night listening to him drone-on. Larry Snider = Human Nyquil.

[bengalboardgg]

The people sitting through that meeting should kiss the feet of whomever blackballed that guy. Jesus...they'd have been there all night listening to him drone-on. Larry Snider = Human Nyquil.

I would tend to agree. I nodded off reading his sermon. I would also bet that had he had his audience that his talk would not have been as bold as his writing. Perhaps he would have had a bluetooth speaker playing the steel drum band in the room to pace his talk? Now the world will never know.

[Z.I.P.]

Thanks for the No-Doz Cap'n. I can tell you though, that the UA SDB are world-renowned. And he seems to know of what he speaks. Aloha pumehana from the isles.

[ZippyRulz]

So the state is appointing groupthinkers to the BOT.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/jane-bond-ua-board-suffers-from-group-think-1.629443

[Dave in Green]

Former Trustee Jane Bond has longtime family connections to UA, and no one ever questioned how much she cared about her alma mater. She was often at odds with the rest of the Board of Trustees, sometimes being the only member of the BoT to vote against such items as salary raises for Dr. Proenza and increases in tuition. When Governor Kasich had all of former Governor Strickland's appointments reviewed it was discovered that a paperwork error resulted in her never being officially confirmed by the Ohio Senate. So she was forced off of the UA BoT, which pleased some and disappointed others.

[ZippyRulz]

That plus she always went around saying "the name is Bond, Jane Bond."

[Lee Adams]

Did the Board of Trutsleess already recommend a move of the f.ball program to a lower level?

[ZippyRulz]

Recommend to whom? They would be the ones making the decision. Some disgruntled faculty have spouted off about a lower division but it's FBS or nothing at all.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Why FBS or nothing at all?

[ZippyRulz]

FCS is not cost/benefit-effective and we're not moving soccer/hoops/track/etc. to Div. II/III.

[ZachTheZip]

FCS loses money at a faster rate than FBS, even with the reduced scholarships. There's no good reason to consider FCS when its primary appeal turns out to have the opposite effect. And you can't drop football to a lower division without taking all other sports with it: you can't have sports in multiple divisions (with a few grandfathered exceptions, mostly dealing with hockey).

[Lee Adams]

Lets assume that the statement that Akron could not drop its football program to 1-AA or D-2 w/o 'taking' those other sports with it is accurate. And,lets assume that 1-AA doesn't significantly help the financial situation. Since some folks over on Buchtel Ave have already apparently made noises about 'de-escalating' sports programs,we may not want to dismiss this talk out of hand. For instance,would a drop to D-2(which is essentially where Akron came from) result in significant savings for the athletic department? What are the obstacles to making such a move in one or multiple sports?

What do you do with Infocision? Well,considering there is only actual seating on the East and West sides and some of the west side is exclusive seating there could be ways to cut back capacity and use some of that space for other purposes. Football is a huge expense for the AD. Its going to get the scrutiny over the next couple of years.

Obviously,the soccer and B.ball programs have performed at consistently higher levels than the football program. A move to a lower level would be devastating for B.ball and soccer. But, the new regime has already vaporized the baseball program without batting an eye. Scarborough says he needed the baseball field to build a main entrance to UofA off Exchange. If thats the type of thinking that is going on over there,I wouldn't say any decision is not possible.

Hope it doesn't happen,but...

[ZippyRulz]

John Zipp commentary: University board selection process needs shake-up

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/12/08/1-university-board-selection-process-needs-shake-up.html

[Hilltopper]

John Zipp commentary: University board selection process needs shake-up

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/12/08/1-university-board-selection-process-needs-shake-up.html

If the Democrats were in power and had selected their guys on the boards this guy wouldn't be saying anything. If you want to make the selections, win an election. The people have spoken!

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

If the Democrats were in power and had selected their guys on the boards this guy wouldn't be saying anything. If you want to make the selections, win an election. The people have spoken!

Hilltopper did you read the editorial? I agree with what he had to say and the thrust of it was to remove politics from the boards as much as possible, along with increasing representation to (among others) students, alumni and faculty. Why would you have issue with these changes? Political patronage is almost always a bad, bad thing, and I would love to see politics from both parties removed as much as possible from higher education.

Edited December 9, 2015 by SeeTeeZip

[ZZZips]

Hilltopper did you read the editorial? I agree with what he had to say and the thrust of it was to remove politics from the boards as much as possible, along with increasing representation to (among others) students, alumni and faculty. Why would you have issue with these changes? Political patronage is almost always a bad, bad thing, and I would love to see politics from both parties removed as much as possible from higher education.

Mr. Zipp's comments seem well intentioned but self serving as a university professor. Why doesn't he just say that people who build, lead or own successful businesses with loyal satisfied employees aren't wanted in his university environment.

In business, if you move to a new company and recruit some of your top performers from your former place of business to come with you, you are considered to be enhancing your new employer. Sometimes it fixes problems and the the existing employees love the change. Other times it causes resentment and poor morale. In business it is called "recruiting". Success or failure of the process is all over the map. In government we give the same process a negative term "patronage". Why do you think that in a governmental situation the same process is "almost always a bad, bad thing"?

[Balsy]

Mr. Zipp's comments seem well intentioned but self serving as a university professor. Why doesn't he just say that people who build, lead or own successful businesses with loyal satisfied employees aren't wanted in his university environment.

In business, if you move to a new company and recruit some of your top performers from your former place of business to come with you, you are considered to be enhancing your new employer. Sometimes it fixes problems and the the existing employees love the change. Other times it causes resentment and poor morale. In business it is called "recruiting". Success or failure of the process is all over the map. In government we give the same process a negative term "patronage". Why do you think that in a governmental situation the same process is "almost always a bad, bad thing"?

First: Education (as in the act of learning, and teaching) isn't a business. Though it does have something in common with business: it's a system, with many complex interactions between many variables.

Second: Groupthink is universally bad, which is really what ZeeTeeZip and the editorial article is referring too. Groupthink is a psychologial phenomena that happens in groups, which often yields irrational, poorly planned and executed, decisions. There are many case studies to show how bad group think is, including some from the business world: The Bay of Pigs Invastion, The lack of Precaution at Pearl Harbor are a couple examples I remember reading about in psychology that I took at UA.

Group think can be avoided by maintaining a diverse group of decision makers, where power is not isolated in one particular place, and all invested parties have a voice at the table. This allows for conversation, and give members the opportunity to consider things they may never had considered before. To arrive at the best fact driven decisions, participants need to leave politics, bias, beliefs, opinions, feelings etc...at the door. This is difficult for people to do, which is why you must rely on a diverse group of people to help arrive at the best solution. Science itself is a model for how to eliminate those things: where there is diverse thought and diverse disagreement; those with the best arguements that are supported by the best evidence win out after convincing others withing the group.

A group of yes men, or a group of the "Good Ol' Boys" is not a prudent way of making decisions.

[Hilltopper]

Balsy, do really think that a bunch of strong minded business men are just going to be a bunch of "yes men"? Most people who achieved the level of success needed to be considered for the position of trustee at a major institution got there because they know how to make informed, thoughtful decisions. In fact I would say that many may in fact be a "my way or the highway" type.

[Balsy]

Balsy, do really think that a bunch of strong minded business men are just going to be a bunch of "yes men"? Most people who achieved the level of success needed to be considered for the position of trustee at a major institution got there because they know how to make informed, thoughtful decisions. In fact I would say that many may in fact be a "my way or the highway" type.

I want you to note "my way or the highway" is also a problem of groupthink, perhaps "our way or the highway".

You've got to understand the premise of what I'm saying which is based on groupthink. Apply what you just said to all the disasters that occured because of groupthink. There have been military leaders, presidents, and businessess that have all fallen to groupthink because they were of all the same way of thinking/mindsets etc. I mean do you think the poor decisions that came to head at Pearl Harbor was the result of military leaders not having success needed to achieve high levels of military command? And that's the problem...having all people at the table, from all basically the same background, or way of appointment IS inherently the problem in groupthink.