OU President Gallogly

[jedicurt]

And how many universities have their donations cut in half year over year?

Yes... But that doesnt mean that everything was okay with all of those donations.

Yes, ou has a massive hill to climb back up. But go find people who work with the finances and the provost office... Many believe that the new hill they climb will be much firmer

[Rover]

The same people complaining about the deficit cheer the state legislature taking a sledgehammer to higher ed funding. This wasn’t about correcting some financial control issues, it was very political. The bor could easily forced changes to procedures. In the end, they wanted to smash a legacy. This is like all the conservatives who demanded the federal deficit was threatening the country who now say it doesn’t matter and are running up huge numbers. It wasn’t ever the issue... the control of who gets the money and gain control is always the issue.

[BoulderSooner]

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

[Pete]

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

Link?

[onthestrip]

I only bring up Shannon because he has been an excellent yes-man to the powers that be. He rammed tort reform through the legislature, even calling a special session to do it once the law was held unconstitutional. He's built a lot of political capital. He checks a lot of boxes. He wouldn't be the first former politico to cash in his chips to run a University he's singularly unqualified to run. (Roger Webb, I'm looking at you).

Considering who just resigned, I don't see how anyone can reasonably believe that being actually qualified for the job is part of the Regents' analysis here.

I think he already cashed in his chips and is at a job that hes unqualified to run, president of Chickasaw owned Bank2

[Rover]

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

I believe pledges to the business school is up thanks to the dean that wasn’t chosen to lead OU and is now leaving to go to TCU.

[midtownokcer]

also according the the local news donation pledges are actually up this year compared to the last year under Boren

making overall donations up not down

Source?

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-donat...5264ac31e.html

As of Jan. 10, according to an internal office of development memo obtained by The Daily, the university has raised $48,905,322 during fiscal year 2019, which started July 1, 2018. At this point in fiscal year 2018, which started July 1, 2017, the university had raised $82,980,776.

[jonny d]

Source?

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-donat...5264ac31e.html

As of Jan. 10, according to an internal office of development memo obtained by The Daily, the university has raised $48,905,322 during fiscal year 2019, which started July 1, 2018. At this point in fiscal year 2018, which started July 1, 2017, the university had raised $82,980,776.

This may be what Boulder was mentioning.

https://newsok.com/article/5624555/a...l-pledges-rise

[Pete]

^

Reminder in that newsok article they are comparing pledges to the previous fiscal year that starts July 1; Boren announced his retirement in September. So pledges were way down due to uncertainty. And pledges are not income. They sometimes are not collected or reduced and even more often spread out over years.


I know Boren raised over $3 billion in private donations in his 24 years; that's over $125M per year and a lot of that was in 90's and 00's money.

When you account for inflation, you would have to raise much more now just to match what he did.


So, in 6 months Gallogly had brought in less than $49M (and of course, a good deal of that was from pledges under Boren) when in 2019 dollars Boren had been averaging at least $150M per year.


It's absolutely comical to try and diminish what Boren accomplished and as I've said from the very beginning, this is all about politics and not actual performance.

[ditm4567]

The mere speculation of Provost Kyle Harper being named interim president already has student organizations up in arms...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-stude...8d1a6414b.html

[dankrutka]

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

[jonny d]

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Someone on here mentioned TW Shannon, and this board was the most negative about him...not saying he is a good choice, though. But the BoR is most likely going conservative again, on this hire. so no matter who they pick, or what race, he won't be liked.

[mugofbeer]

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

[Rover]

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

[mugofbeer]

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

[soonerguru]

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

WTF you talking about bro? You are not qualified to speak on this matter. You're simply spitballing. As some people have mentioned upthread, Harroz was groomed for the position by Boren. You are adding nothing to the discussion by suggesting this at all.

[soonerguru]

Someone on here mentioned TW Shannon, and this board was the most negative about him...not saying he is a good choice, though. But the BoR is most likely going conservative again, on this hire. so no matter who they pick, or what race, he won't be liked.

Please stop. He is not a credible candidate and would be a terrible choice -- even worse than Glugly.

[Rover]

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

There were at least two already on campus who were ready to take over smoothly and professionally. One was dean of the business school, dismissing the fear that financial issues couldn’t be fixed. Unfortunately, the primary mission was to destroy the Boren legacy.

[jerrywall]

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Hopefully, if they're more open in the search process this time, they can address that second sentence.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

[aDark]

Board of Regents published their agenda for an 8:15 meeting, tonight. I'm predicting we have a new President announced tomorrow. Smart money says Joe Harroz. If not Harroz could be Turpen. If Turpen then I assume it's just as interim President while they construct a full-blown search.

[TheTravellers]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

Not surprised, been this way in IT for decades, the middlemen angled their way in and they're not going to lose their clout if they can help it. I was actually very (pleasantly) surprised/shocked when an in-house HR person for the company I work for actually contacted me for my current (and hopefully until I retire/die) job, that was something that had never happened in my 30+ year career, it's always been recruiters...

[Rover]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

And, if the new hire doesn’t work out, the regents can blame the placement consultant and avoid taking responsibility. Boards of all types try to evade their accountability by hiring consultants as a buffer. It’s a lazy way out.

[Pete]

This private search angle is relatively new.

I tend to think the motivation is based on wanting to control the outcome as much as possible without having to deal with input from others.

[dankrutka]

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

Well, considering the demographics of this country/state/university, there should be a ton of candidates who are non-white, males in every search. In reality, it's not the case as it seems they're choosing between 5-6 goold ol' boys. It's not affirmative action to have a second demographic group represented after 130 years of presidents. Just consider that Renzi Stone is on the Board of Regents. Why? Well, he's... a White guy... who is... well connected: A good ol' boy. C'mon. There is so much bias and implicit discrimination against non-White candidates that there's almost no chance the search won't be discriminatory. Don't just look at who the board chooses, but who they considered. Of course, the elitist board does it privately so they don't have to be accountable. It's a sham.

Let me add why this bothers me. I work at a university and I have worked at 4 universities over the last decade and the thing that consistently bothers me is the number of mediocre White men who quickly ascend to positions of power while more talented women and colleagues of color are passed over. I've seen it happen over and over. And I can go on and on about the mediocrity or incompetence of these dudes. I've also seen it happen at OU. It's just astounding how little attention as candidates historically marginlized groups get from leadership, but then I remember who is on the Board of Regents. Again, Renzi Stone is an example of White guy who in no way is qualified or deserving of his appointment. It's just frustrating to watch universities squander potential for their (hopefully implicit) bias.