OU President Gallogly

[ultimatesooner]

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders

[Rover]

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders

So please enlighten us vs throwing out a vague passive aggressive accusation. What change orders, when, what was the specific context of each, and give both sides to the argument. And, what is your personal knowledge of and involvement in the determination of the project execution?

After 3 decades involvement with construction I can say that change orders are usual. There are many reasons that these happen and to make them sound unnecessary or arbitrary, or wasteful is disingenuous or misleading.

[soonerguru]

So basically Glugly is fixing the financial situation by being a sh-tty, terrible fundraiser. Snort.

https://newsok.com/article/5624555/a...rlyAccess=true

[artynok]

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders

I do know of one instance, there was an addition built onto the Price College of Business that was supposed to be a snack bar. It was fully built out, custom cabinets, counter tops, just needed food to be able to open. It was decided it was too large of a space so all of the cabinetry and stone countertops were torn out. Only thing that could be re-purposed were the appliances. I worked at OU for 8 years, I don't have a dog in this fight, I think Boren did great things for the University. But it was probably time for some fresh ideas.

[Rover]

I do know of one instance, there was an addition built onto the Price College of Business that was supposed to be a snack bar. It was fully built out, custom cabinets, counter tops, just needed food to be able to open. It was decided it was too large of a space so all of the cabinetry and stone countertops were torn out. Only thing that could be re-purposed were the appliances. I worked at OU for 8 years, I don't have a dog in this fight, I think Boren did great things for the University. But it was probably time for some fresh ideas.

And you know this was ordered by Mrs. Boren and not the Dean of the Business School?

What was the space ultimately used for?

[Colbafone]

Another example of that was the new Couch center.

If you aren't aware, they tore down the old Couch and then buildt a really pretty new facility. Problem is, it's NOT owned by OU. It's contracted. It has a total room for something like 4k students and it's maybe 15% full from what I've heard. Several of the retail tenants have already closed up shop there. The salon and restaurants seem to be doing alright.

This was one of the last things Boren did. And while it looks pretty, it's sort of a money pit. There has been talks from Gallogly to back out of the contract on ou's part and just leave it to the ownership company to deal with. It's hasn't worked out as well as they had planned. ESPECIALLY since OU doesn't own it.

Also, when this was opened, I guess in the contract it was agreed to close the Kate Center food court/cafeteria. This was done to drive more students to these new restaurants. Again, OU doesn't own them. OU owns and operates Kate and Kate made them a lot of money and was also more convenient to get in and out of. So while not a TON of money lost there, it's still been a problem. And many people want it open again.

[Pete]

^

Counch dining wasn't torn down, it was a remodel.

OU owns the building and land and has contracted for food service for a long time, which is common at universities and corporations.

Same with the union and a bunch of other campus dining locations.

[Colbafone]

^

Counch dining wasn't torn down, it was a remodel.

OU owns the building and land and has contracted for food service for a long time, which is common at universities and corporations.

Same with the union and a bunch of other campus dining locations.

Sorry sorry, I meant Cross Center, not Couch.

[Pete]

Ah, gotcha.

Remember that the new residential colleges were slow to fill and are now highly occupied.

Last report I saw indicated that heading into last fall Cross was 28% leased. I'm not even sure all the units were completely finished by the time school started.

I'd be incredibly surprised if OU could just back out of the contract with the housing company that built Cross. No way a company builds a huge complex like that and doesn't have a long-term contract. From reports, it sounds like OU is just leasing the land to this housing developer.


Gallogly was complaining the residential colleges lose money. But the entire point was to provide nice housing on campus that was somewhat reasonable and to keep students engaged. All types of studies show great benefits to universities for keeping students on campus, such as higher retention and graduation rates.

They weren't supposed to be a money-maker. How much profit do any of the university buildings generate? That's not the point of it all.

Such a strange way to look at things. Should each building constructed on campus generate enough money to pay for itself? This isn't the business world where every project is judged by its own P&L.


BTW, OU did something similar with Traditions Square apartments on the site of the old Yorkshire Apartments near the law center.

[Colbafone]

I absolutely hear you. I have a good buddy who manages some important stuff at Headington. He's met with some of the BoR and with Gallogly himself about making experiences better for OU's athletes, as well as doing the same at the other dorms. And he's said, from Gallogly himself, that Gallogly would prefer to just get out of the Cross contract. Now that might just be frustrated talk and nothing that would actually happen, but Gallogly is definitely not happy and it definitely wouldn't have been built had he been president a few years ago. For good and bad there.

I'm just bringing it up since its somewhat interesting to look at the contrast between Boren and Gallogly outside of political mindsets. Boren was ALL about stuff like Cross and Traditions. With Gallogly, there is NO WAY that stuff would have been built.

[Pete]

Honestly, I hope he's not in Norman long enough that to do anything but somewhat balance the books and move on.

If he stays for more than a couple of years I'm sincerely worried about the long-term damage to the university and its reputation.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Honestly, I hope he's not in Norman long enough that to do anything but somewhat balance the books and move on.

If he stays for more than a couple of years I'm sincerely worried about the long-term damage to the university and its reputation.

I expect someone new by Summer 2020. I think the books will be balanced in his view and they will bring someone new in. I am not 100% sure he really enjoys being president of OU.

[Rover]

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

[mkjeeves]

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

Right on. Except that's an insult to Amazon.

[emtefury]

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

[Rover]

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

First, you are making assumptions based on one sided propaganda. Secondly, even assuming there can be a tightening of controls, applying controls still should be consistent with the prime directive of the organization. Failure to understand the difference between a corporation seeking profit and a University trying to educate and inspire leaders for tomorrow is just arrogance, ignorance, or worse (political agenda as in right wing social engineering). This is not to mention the ham handed and vindictive style in which it was done.

[dankrutka]

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

As has been pointed out a million times in this thread, OU was carrying similar debt to many peer institutions all the while creating one of the best campuses in the country. The transformation of OU's entire campus under Boren is absolutely stunning.

[Quicker]

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

This article was linked once already but it really does a great job of explaining what brought us to this point...

‘’At OU, tuition has increased by nearly 69 percent since the 2006-2007 school year. And there have been major building projects on campus in the last decade, including new dormitories and classroom buildings. Even though the percent of OU’s budget that was covered by state dollars continued to decline — it’s 20 percent lower since fiscal year 2008 — OU’s budget overall was increasing, growing 51 percent in the same time period.

“With higher education, I think there was this mentality that the funding was cut, but they raised tuition even more and kept right on going without looking for efficiencies or ways to save money and to not increase tuition any more than necessary on students,” Hickman said. “And so that was an issue, one of several that strained relationships between legislators and the university.”

This financially strained relationship was exacerbated by the clashing political ideologies and ways of doing business between Boren and the growing Republican presence in Oklahoma’s state government. No longer did calling in favors to long-standing colleagues, writing editorials in newspapers or trying to persuade legislators across the aisle — all things Boren was used to doing — work, Hickman said.

The tipping point was in 2016, when Boren was heavily promoting his penny tax initiative to raise the state’s sales tax by one cent to support common and higher education, which voters turned down in November 2016.

There was significant opposition to Boren’s campaign, and legislators weren’t pleased he was injecting himself back into their political process.‘’

http://www.oudaily.com/crimson_quart...b3935d479.html



..

[emtefury]

As has been pointed out a million times in this thread, OU was carrying similar debt to many peer institutions all the while creating one of the best campuses in the country. The transformation of OU's entire campus under Boren is absolutely stunning.

Just because everyone else is in debt doesn’t mean we need to be keeping up with the Jones’s. OU can provide a quality education without having the best and fanciest stuff. One would then ask why would students go to OU without fancy stuff. The answer is lower tuition.

[emtefury]

First, you are making assumptions based on one sided propaganda. Secondly, even assuming there can be a tightening of controls, applying controls still should be consistent with the prime directive of the organization. Failure to understand the difference between a corporation seeking profit and a University trying to educate and inspire leaders for tomorrow is just arrogance, ignorance, or worse (political agenda as in right wing social engineering). This is not to mention the ham handed and vindictive style in which it was done.

The prime directive of a college is to educate students. Not be in deep debt because we bought a bunch of fancy stuff. It has nothing to do with “right wing social engineering.” It is reality.

[dankrutka]

Just because everyone else is in debt doesn’t mean we need to be keeping up with the Jones’s. OU can provide a quality education without having the best and fanciest stuff. One would then ask why would students go to OU without fancy stuff. The answer is lower tuition.

A university like OU can carry debt, but having a high quality education and beautiful campus is part of the selling point to attract students, bring back alumni, and create a quality place to work. Any increase in debt can almost completely be explained by the state legislature, which slashed spending. Boren literally promoted a solution to the problem the legislature created and voters turned that down. Yes, you can quit worrying about campus beauty and amenities, cut tuition well below peer institutions, and guess what? If OU starts acting like a lower tier institution then students, faculty, and alumni will start treating OU like one. No problem. I work at a tier 1 univesrity in the region and we're beautifying our campus and building amenities to make our campus more attractive. Our campus community would love to see OU continue to lower its standards as you suggest*.

*Obviously, as an OU alum I do not actually want to see this even if a decline at OU would benefit us.

[soonerguru]

Glugly is screwing the pooch, and he knew he would wilt in Boren's shadow. That's why he is trying to destroy his legacy. His job was to perform a political hit, get paid, and move on. He doesn't give a s-it about the college experience. He already is failing at fundraising and has no clue how to run a prestigious academic institution. I hope Clay Bennett survives his brain cancer and has time to reflect on his effing terrible decision to hire this assclown.

[Quicker]

Ah, gotcha.

Remember that the new residential colleges were slow to fill and are now highly occupied.

Last report I saw indicated that heading into last fall Cross was 28% leased. I'm not even sure all the units were completely finished by the time school started.

I'd be incredibly surprised if OU could just back out of the contract with the housing company that built Cross. No way a company builds a huge complex like that and doesn't have a long-term contract. From reports, it sounds like OU is just leasing the land to this housing developer.


Gallogly was complaining the residential colleges lose money. But the entire point was to provide nice housing on campus that was somewhat reasonable and to keep students engaged. All types of studies show great benefits to universities for keeping students on campus, such as higher retention and graduation rates.

They weren't supposed to be a money-maker. How much profit do any of the university buildings generate? That's not the point of it all.

Such a strange way to look at things. Should each building constructed on campus generate enough money to pay for itself? This isn't the business world where every project is judged by its own P&L.


BTW, OU did something similar with Traditions Square apartments on the site of the old Yorkshire Apartments near the law center.

Hmmm...

"I discovered on July 2nd, my first day in office, that we had significant items of expense - rent - that we were paying to the Cross Apartments," Pres. Gallogly said, referring to the new, third-party upper-class housing at Asp Avenue and 4th Street.

Gallogly says both he and the OU Regents had been told that the school had no financial responsibility for any of that. "Today," he stated, "I know that we have 7-plus million dollars a year of expenses related to that, and prior management told me that was zero."

http://www.news9.com/story/39234678/...a-overspending

[Pete]

^

Even if true, yet another Gallogly dig and right out of the gate.

Why not merely say, "We are going to look into how to reduce costs in student housing" rather than making an allegation of deliberate lying by 'prior management'?

Do you know how many things I found to be different than what I was told by prior management in jobs I've had? You merely learn, understand, fix it and move on. That's why new people get hired.

Maybe there was simply a misunderstanding? Why not give the benefit of the doubt and concentrate on solutions? I suspect 'prior management' would have a different opinion of what was actually shared about this situation.


I've never heard so much bellyaching and blaming by anyone in that type of position, other than maybe a president who keeps blaming their predecessor 2 or 3 or 4 years into their own term... And everyone but their most blind supporter knows it's incedibly weak and just silly politics.

[dcsooner]

^

Even if true, yet another Gallogly dig and right out of the gate.

Why not merely say, "We are going to look into how to reduce costs in student housing" rather than making an allegation of deliberate lying by 'prior management'?

Do you know how many things I found to be different than what I was told by prior management in jobs I've had? You merely learn, understand, fix it and move on. That's why new people get hired.

Maybe there was simply a misunderstanding? Why not give the benefit of the doubt and concentration solutions? I suspect 'prior management' would have a different opinion of what was actually shared about this situation.


I've never heard so much bellyaching and blaming by anyone in that type of position, other than maybe a president who keeps blaming their predecessor 2 or 3 or 4 years into their own term... And everyone but their most blind supporter knows it's incedibly weak and just silly politics.

+1 I quit donating to OU until this guy is gone. It appears others have as well. Let his wealthy supporters on the Regents and the legislature make up the shortfall