OU President Gallogly

[ditm4567]

including giving the false impression that OU's debt load was dangerously high, as it was later proven it is well within norms.

What do you mean by "well within norms"? Not trying to be combative, honestly just curious.

[Pete]

What do you mean by "well within norms"? Not trying to be combative, honestly just curious.

After Gallogly made that claim, there were several reports comparing OU's debt to similar-sized universities, including OSU, and that OU was quite typical in this regard.

The articles are posted in this thread.

[David]

I'd be willing to listen to and believe any accusers of Boren if any came forward with a story that checks out, but so far it's just the university opening an investigation and no names named. Given the man at the helm and what has been reported about him and his intentions toward Boren, OU's administration needs to put more on the table if they want this to look like anything other than a fulfillment of “You tell him that I am the meanest son of a bitch he has ever seen, and if he ever crosses me again, I will destroy him.”

[Rover]

Do you realize how stupid it is to assume that sae has something to do with this. If we knew something conclusively, do you not think it would’ve been more advantageous to have brought it up 4 years ago when all of that happened. Some of you all just have the blinders on and want to believe that Boren was Jesus Christ or something. It is hilarious.

i created the title, it was literally the headline in the Oklahoman and it is a factual statement.

Factual doesn’t mean it isn’t misleading and dishonest.

Sorry so many SAEs had their feelings hurt. If they were really concerned they would have put forth a real solution to the perpetuation of racist traditions in their own society and maybe even disassociated voluntarily til they could prove they had extinguished that activity. Sometimes excommunication is the correct response. OUs African American population deserved swift and decisive action.

The defense of Gallogly on this board seems to be fueled by football conference affiliation, political ilk, and anger for racist activity retribution. I’ve yet to see discussion of real academic and student development.

[soonerheart]

To those not living in a bubble but in the real world of finance.. a drop in donations to most universities could have been easily anticipated many months ago.

The Tax Law changes tied to sports tickets is impacting donations to many universities ...but that’s not all... as seen below smaller donations which is what OU is more dependent on were expected to take a hit.

But I am sure the anti Gallogly forces will never not try to exploit this in spite of the fact that Gallogly could resign and the fight would go on for many years if need be because of how poorly OU had been managed for the benefit of the states economy that has seriously pissed off most of those who really matter and those who will have power at OU for a very, very long time.

Some people donated a lot more money last year so they could apply their donations under the old tax rules for the next 2 or 3 tax seasons....This is a huge reason for the drop of donations at OU that the OUdaily and the Transcript and others here are not even honest enough to report. I know plenty of OU donors who did this with their donations tied to their tickets.

From DECEMBER 28, 2017
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charita...m-the-tax-law/

“millions of relatively small donations that moderate-income people give to mainstream charities could be sharply reduced, they say. That means charity could become less of a middle-class enterprise and a more exclusive domain of the wealthy, who tend to give to arts and cultural institutions, research facilities and universities”

“For the large number of taxpayers who'll no longer itemize, "their cost of giving goes up dramatically," said Patrick Rooney, a professor of economic and philanthropy and director of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. "It will absolutely have a negative impact."

[Pete]

^

Right on cue.

[Rover]

Lol. Baghdad Bob has resurfaced in Norman, OK.

That’s some pretty good spin there. Gotta give it to him/her.....they stay on point with their messaging. Make Norman Great Again.

[soonerheart]

^

Right on cue.

^Such a frustrating responses to the truth of the tax law changes that are impacting all universities....Something that people like you willing ignore out of your dislike for someone and his people who actually know what’s going on in the real world of modern day finance and how tax laws have changed.

You had might as well accept the fact that the Gallogly’s vision for OU is not going anywhere for decades. It will last for a very long time after he is gone.

Like it or not... it’s a fact that more people are starting to take back their states universities demanding reforms. OU is no different.

[Rover]

I'm reminded of a story about an outgoing President who was fired from a company and his replacement. I'll change the names:

Boren to Gallogly: This is not an easy job and soon, things will get rough for you and the Board will want answers. So, I have prepared 3 letters marked 1-2-3. Open them as needed.

After the first year, things weren't going so well, so in advance of the annual board meeting, Gallogly goes to the safe and takes out envelope 1. It says: " There were lots of people who were second guessing me and didn't like me. Blame me for the troubles."

Gallogly used the advice and the board agreed that Boren had been a problem in their eyes.

Before the second year Board meeting, things still weren't better, and in fact were worse. So, Gallogly goes to the safe and gets envelope 2. The message: "Blame the economy"

Gallogly goes to the board and implores that he needs more time. Everyone knows there were problems with the economy, tax laws, regulations, etc. The Board thinks it makes sense.

Leading up to the third board meeting, things were in even more of a mess. Gallogly goes to get envelope 3 because 1 & 2 proved to be sage advice that save his butt. Upon opening the third envelope he read: "PREPARE 3 ENVELOPES!"

It sure hasn't taken Gallogly and his sycophant(s) long to open and use envelope 2! Can't wait for envelope #3

[FighttheGoodFight]

I think you also underestimate the amount of faculty and staff who donate while working at OU. I have a feeling a lot of them aren't happy right now and have ceased their donations.

[Rover]

Like it or not... it’s a fact that more people are starting to take back their states universities demanding reforms. OU is no different.

There we go....took a while but the masking is coming off. Make America Great Again. Back when people knew their place.

Take back our universities from all those evil liberals who prize knowledge over opinion, facts over propaganda, diversity over purity of linage, knowledge growth over greed, multi-nationalism over white nationalism, globalism over protectionism. Take it back from the "intellectual" tea sippers.

Hmmm.. where have we heard this before?

[Boulder92]

^Such a frustrating responses to the truth of the tax law changes that are impacting all universities....Something that people like you willing ignore out of your dislike for someone and his people who actually know what’s going on in the real world of modern day finance and how tax laws have changed.

You had might as well accept the fact that the Gallogly’s vision for OU is not going anywhere for decades. It will last for a very long time after he is gone.

Like it or not... it’s a fact that more people are starting to take back their states universities demanding reforms. OU is no different.

You are right to be frustrated that your point about the tax law wasn't taken seriously. There were projections that the change regarding deductions would indeed cause people to donate less. The projections I saw suggested it would cause a 3-5% cut:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ha...ity-2018-11-27

It turns out that to be even less. Most charities are flat or up this year:

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...least-for-2018

Either way, it hardly explains OU's drop of 40% in donations.

You made a reasonable suggestion which was worth investigating. The numbers suggest that we should look for other explanations.

[Rover]

^Such a frustrating responses to the truth of the tax law changes that are impacting all universities....Something that people like you willing ignore out of your dislike for someone and his people who actually know what’s going on in the real world of modern day finance and how tax laws have changed.

And, we might ask how those tax laws got changed, and by whom. Let's see.. the right wingers got this deduction included to offset the corporate give-away of lowering their taxes, while at the same time they have been dramatically decreasing state level funding. This has been as an attempt to drive publicly funded universities to grovel at the trough of corporations who have dramatically cut their own R&D spending and want access to the R&D available to them through state universities and students working for practically nothing.

[Rover]

The Philanthropy Outlook uses empirical data produced through rigorous analysis to develop projections for total giving, giving by source and giving to three types of recipient nonprofits (education, health and public-society benefit organizations), and describes how different economic variables and other factors will impact giving in 2019 and 2020. The report examines the complex environment for philanthropy and emerging trends related to giving by high-net-worth individuals/households.

The study’s key findings include:

Total charitable giving is predicted to grow (3.4 % in 2019 and 4.1% in 2020), rising above the historical 10-year, 25-year, and 40-year annualized average rates of growth.

Giving by individuals is predicted to grow (2.1% in 2019 and 3.4% in 2020), but will trail the rate of growth for total giving.

Giving by foundations (7.0% in 2019 and 6.1% in 2020) and giving by estates (5.4% in 2019 and 5.6% in 2020) are expected to experience strong growth, outpacing growth rates for total giving in 2019 and 2020.

Giving by corporations is also projected to grow (3.2% in 2019 and by 2.6% in 2020), but will lag behind rates of growth for total giving.

Strong growth rates are projected for giving to education (3.5% in 2019 and 5.7% in 2020) and giving to health (5.2% in 2019 and 4.4% in 2020). These types of nonprofits have traditionally been associated with high-net-worth giving.

[Colbafone]

Rover, Boulder, please, quit with the bringing in real facts and legit sources to make the Pro-Gallogly crowd look silly. It really hurts their "don't care lol Boren sucks (he was gay ya know) haha MAGA lol" arguments. Also their "take the colleges back from the students" arguments.

But for real. PhiAlpha and Soonersomeone...dudes. Y'all looking bad.

[mugofbeer]

And, we might ask how those tax laws got changed, and by whom. Let's see.. the right wingers got this deduction included to offset the corporate give-away of lowering their taxes, while at the same time they have been dramatically decreasing state level funding. This has been as an attempt to drive publicly funded universities to grovel at the trough of corporations who have dramatically cut their own R&D spending and want access to the R&D available to them through state universities and students working for practically nothing.

This just proves you have absolutely no clue what the function of a research university is. Students are taught how to locate funding (which is done all over the corporate world, too. It's a great ability to acquire), conduct proper research, taught how to go through the processes, the documentation, etc. Some universities have such great funding that they have made incredible discoveries. Of course much of the funding comes from corporations and it ought to. It also comes from individuals and it comes from the government. As for working for practically nothing, that is what a school does. It's called SCHOOL. No one is forcing anyone to do any of this work and everyone doing it is free to move on anytime he or she wishes.

Edit: Also, a school cannot give the results of it's research back to a specific corporation. Schools own the results and often benefit financially from the results Many universities have created separate non-profits to take in research funding and to hold the financial benefits the research can bring, including partial ownership of new business ventures resulting from the research discoveries.

[Rover]

This just proves you have absolutely no clue what the function of a research university is. Students are taught how to locate funding (which is done all over the corporate world, too. It's a great ability to acquire), conduct proper research, taught how to go through the processes, the documentation, etc. Some universities have such great funding that they have made incredible discoveries. Of course much of the funding comes from corporations and it ought to. It also comes from individuals and it comes from the government. As for working for practically nothing, that is what a school does. It's called SCHOOL. No one is forcing anyone to do any of this work and everyone doing it is free to move on anytime he or she wishes.

I've been involved from the corporate side, so yes I do understand how it works.
I'm all for research grants to universities under the right agreements and for the right reasons. But when some grants are given so that universities research reveals expected results, it is not right.

And students or not, they should be paid appropriately. Companies benefit from the output. Professors can share in the revenue that results. But, like athletes, the students should be paid. Universities are not to replace corporate R&D or to make corporations look good.

[mugofbeer]

I've been involved from the corporate side, so yes I do understand how it works.
I'm all for research grants to universities under the right agreements and for the right reasons. But when some grants are given so that universities research reveals expected results, it is not right.

You know, I'm sure there are some isolated cases where something like that may have happened but in order to do that, the corporation would have to criminalize the professor. This should be quite easy to spot and to bring into the open. It doesn't mean corporate money, in general, is tainted.

I have a PHD relative at a prominent school who is involved in entomology research that supports a controversial position. I can vouch that he is quite liberal and quite prominent in his field, traveling worldwide to give speeches and present his findings. He is 100% honest and has not been bought off by corporations but I can guaranty you most on the left would accuse him of being bought off because his research results don't support the standard "green" position. Sometimes the research simply doesn't support the popular standing on a subject - sort of like the anti vaccinator (sp?) crowd.

[Rover]

You know, I'm sure there are some isolated cases where something like that may have happened but in order to do that, the corporation would have to criminalize the professor. This should be quite easy to spot and to bring into the open. It doesn't mean corporate money, in general, is tainted.

I have a PHD relative at a prominent school who is involved in entomology research that supports a controversial position. I can vouch that he is quite liberal and quite prominent in his field, traveling worldwide to give speeches and present his findings. He is 100% honest and has not been bought off by corporations but I can guaranty you most on the left would accuse him of being bought off because his research results don't support the standard "green" position. Sometimes the research simply doesn't support the popular standing on a subject - sort of like the anti vaccinator (sp?) crowd.

Or, "No, injection water doesn't create earthquakes"?

I agree most research is above board, but it doesn't take criminalizing a prof to manipulate the system. It is sort of like Pete's spotlight on writing favorable stories on advertisers. There are lots of straight up great journalists with integrity, but there are plenty that are opportunistic also. Let's not be too naive (or in my case, maybe too cynical )

[soonerheart]

You are right to be frustrated that your point about the tax law wasn't taken seriously. There were projections that the change regarding deductions would indeed cause people to donate less. The projections I saw suggested it would cause a 3-5% cut:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ha...ity-2018-11-27

It turns out that to be even less. Most charities are flat or up this year:

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...least-for-2018

Either way, it hardly explains OU's drop of 40% in donations.

You made a reasonable suggestion which was worth investigating. The numbers suggest that we should look for other explanations.

Both links fail to account for the changes made to donations tied to ticket locations which had many OU people making 3 years’ worth of donations in 2017. At OU most donations are not coming from the extremely wealthy like those giving to many other charities that were not impacted by the tax law changes nearly as much as less well-off people.

Furthermore many donations at OU are made at the end of the year and are directly tied to the performance of the stock market and oil & NG. The last 1/3 or so of 2018 was very bad for the market and those links do not account for the market drop.

It’s very reasonable to see why donations would have dropped in 2018. Had Boren still been around he would have been dealing with the same tax law changes and a drop in donations.


I’m sure there are individuals who hate Gallogly, this OU BOR and the entire OU support system made up of people who matter by so much that they have withheld their donations. They are only causing harm... because Gallogly and his vision for OU isn’t going anywhere for decades.

The forces in this state are in the process of controlling the excesses at OU that do not contribute to this state’s economy. It won’t be long before Stitt starts forcing changes at OSU and at colleges in our state. We are just now starting to see similar movement in a few other states.

[Boulder92]

Both links fail to account for the changes made to donations tied to ticket locations which had many OU people making 3 years’ worth of donations in 2017. At OU most donations are not coming from the extremely wealthy like those giving to many other charities that were not impacted by the tax law changes nearly as much as less well-off people.

Furthermore many donations at OU are made at the end of the year and are directly tied to the performance of the stock market and oil & NG. The last 1/3 or so of 2018 was very bad for the market and those links do not account for the market drop.

It’s very reasonable to see why donations would have dropped in 2018. Had Boren still been around he would have been dealing with the same tax law changes and a drop in donations.

You're not really helping your case here. Now you are arguing that a 40% drop totalling $34 million is because people front-loaded their donations in 2017. And yet OU foundation reports the 2017 donations totalled $104 million while in 2016 they were $126 million. Shouldn't they be up, not down, if people made all these extra donations in 2017 instead of 2018?

Based on zero evidence you're claiming OU is some black swan outlier of a survey of thousands of charities? That, unlike OU, their donors consists of mostly wealthy people who don't care or aren't savvy enough to front load their own donations? Show me actual evidence, or I don't buy it.

And you are arguing based on zero evidence that nearly half of all the money given to OU happens in the last few weeks of the year? And the people giving to OU check their brokerage balances before donating? Again, I doubt it had much effect. Even if some folks reduced their donation by the biggest drop in the market, that would only explain a small fraction of the reduction in donations.

And of course you're ignoring the main point of the linked article. The data shows clearly that folks' donations are little affected by whether or not they get a deduction for doing so. Donations are overwhelming driven by their support for the mission of the organization.

[mugofbeer]

Or, "No, injection water doesn't create earthquakes"?

I agree most research is above board, but it doesn't take criminalizing a prof to manipulate the system. It is sort of like Pete's spotlight on writing favorable stories on advertisers. There are lots of straight up great journalists with integrity, but there are plenty that are opportunistic also. Let's not be too naive (or in my case, maybe too cynical )

I don't see how it couldn't if what they found wasn't what was reported. I mean l imagine injection water causes them, it makes sense but if research data handled properly doesn't support a certain outcome, but the project results are reported differently, the overseeing prof has to be bought off. You would probably have to have students in on it, too.

[Rover]

I don't see how it couldn't if what they found wasn't what was reported. I mean l imagine injection water causes them, it makes sense but if research data handled properly doesn't support a certain outcome, but the project results are reported differently, the overseeing prof has to be bought off. You would probably have to have students in on it, too.

And yet differing research shows differing results. Change a parameter here or there and ..... again, true facts can also be made to mislead. Funny how honest everyone is yet how predictable some things are.

[Bunty]

It didn't seem right to me from the start to hire someone as in Gallogly, who had no experience, whatsoever, in running a university. At least Burns Hargis had a little bit of something from being a regent.

[PhiAlpha]

It didn't seem right to me from the start to hire someone as in Gallogly, who had no experience, whatsoever, in running a university. At least Burns Hargis had a little bit of something from being a regent.

How much prior experience did Boren have in running a university?