Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ? [Archive]

LikaNui

June 16th, 2004, 11:21 AM

>> If you read the papers, you'll learn that "for cause" has only three criteria, and as far as I know Dobelle's committed none of the three. "Moral turpitude, felony offense, or incapacity to continue."
This is the regent's attempt to CYA, and they're probably gonna lose legally on that point. <<

Supposedly an announcement will be made today or tomorrow regarding the exact point of those 3 criteria were violated. The regents also had their attorney present for the entire meeting, so I'd guess chances are good that they're on pretty firm legal grounds for the firing.

>> Cayetano had it about right in the Advertiser's article. "No class," he said, talking about the method the regents used (firing the man while he was on vacation with no chance to rebut). <<

Some of the media reported that Dobelle had been told about the meeting well in advance but that Dobelle specifically declined to attend and instead chose to go on vacation.
Mind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the man; I just think we need to keep all the facts in mind here before jumping to conclusions based on gossip.
That would be a first for internet chat groups! ;)

Linkmeister

June 16th, 2004, 12:05 PM

LikaNui

June 16th, 2004, 12:09 PM

Regarding the notification, I was thinking of the "let's just tell his wife while he's out" approach, rather than just asking her to relay the message and ask him to call them. I'd call that a weak way out of a sticky situation.

???
According to almost every news outlet the regents did indeed place several calls to Dobelle during the day and evening yesterday and Dobelle did not return the calls.

Mocha

June 16th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Let's hope that Evan Dobelle will speak out and tell his side of the story, and you would think that people would be told that they're terminated in person!

Linkmeister

June 16th, 2004, 01:09 PM

???
According to almost every news outlet the regents did indeed place several calls to Dobelle during the day and evening yesterday and Dobelle did not return the calls.

We're misunderstanding each other here. I mean if the guy hasn't returned your calls, it's probably because he hasn't gotten messages for whatever reason. So my idealistic view of personnel management tells me you wait until you can speak directly to the individual you're firing; you don't resort to telling his spouse. What was so damned urgent they couldn't wait to speak to the man himself?

LikaNui

June 16th, 2004, 02:18 PM

>> We're misunderstanding each other here. <<

I thought maybe that was the case. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

>> So my idealistic view of personnel management tells me you wait until you can speak directly to the individual you're firing; you don't resort to telling his spouse. What was so damned urgent they couldn't wait to speak to the man himself? <<

Well, if it's true (as some in the media are specualting and others in the know are hinting at) that there are "financial irregularities", then yes, you'd want him fired on the spot.
BTW, I'm also seeing a lot of comments blaming this all on the regents appointed by Lingle, yet if you folks read the Star-Bulletin's story today you'll see just how many Democrats had some serious issues with Dobelle.

Albert

June 16th, 2004, 02:20 PM

Dobelle was on campus yesterday and again today. Can tell since his Porsche was parking in his reserved spot. Unusual, two days in a row.

Linkmeister

June 16th, 2004, 02:31 PM

If "financial irregularities" means the expense account argument, supposedly that had been resolved.

And what possible further "irregularities" could he commit while on vacation on the mainland? Did he take the only checkbook the UH has?

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say, because I really think he's gonna follow Dylan Thomas' advice:

"Do not go gently into the night
Rage rage against the dying of the light"

LikaNui

June 16th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Dobelle was on campus yesterday and again today. Can tell since his Porsche was parking in his reserved spot. Unusual, two days in a row.

Nope, the papers reported that his car was left in his spot there while he was on vacation.

Albert

June 16th, 2004, 03:24 PM

"on vacation on the mainland"

I'm puzzled by this. He left his Porsche parked at UH-Manoa while he went off to the mainland?

Mocha

June 16th, 2004, 03:30 PM

I haven't read any newspaper accounts...I tend to think the papers are biased toward the Democrats but that's just my take. That's why I'd like to hear what Dr. Dobelle has to say for himself and if he just fades away or fights!

LikaNui

June 16th, 2004, 03:58 PM

"on vacation on the mainland"

I'm puzzled by this. He left his Porsche parked at UH-Manoa while he went off to the mainland?

You were supposed to be using it while he was gone, Albert! :) Or, cover it with cat food. :D
Seriously, maybe he thought June Jones would wax it for him. :rolleyes:

dick

June 18th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Mocha, while you might have that perception of the newspapers here, it's important to see all sides of the story. I hate TeeVee news but watch all stations to see what all have to offer. I even read the 'Tizer daily just to see what they have to say (in addition to USAToday and NYT). Heck, I even read Honolulu Weekly, Midweek, and Ka Leo.

ontheleft

June 18th, 2004, 09:00 AM

>>you'll see just how many Democrats had some serious issues with Dobelle.

If it had been Democrats behind this action, it would have happened the right way -- in private, with Dobelle being given a chance to resign. The public execution we are witnessing is clearly the work of Lingle and her lackeys on the Board of Regents. No doubt her mentor Karen Hughes advised her on how best to exact revenge for Dobelle daring to endorse someone else for governor (oh the horror!).

Glen Miyashiro

June 18th, 2004, 09:05 AM

"on vacation on the mainland"

I'm puzzled by this. He left his Porsche parked at UH-Manoa while he went off to the mainland?
Albert, did you mean that the Porsche is parked on campus now? Or did you mean it was parked at College Hill, the president's house in Manoa (photo here (http://starbulletin.com/2003/09/28/special/art7e.jpg))? Who knows, he probably has multiple cars to begin with.

Albert

June 18th, 2004, 09:15 AM

It's gone this morning! I was afraid he'd get a ticket for parking in an unauthorized spot.

Yes, for some unfathomable reason, he evidently left his Porsche parked in the "reserved for the President" spot on campus when he traveled. I really can't think why he didn't leave it up on the hill at his big house (which may or may not have a garage).

(The Porsche was in that campus spot more often when he was traveling than it was when he was supposedly "at work").

It's really scandalous, firing him and how they did it, never mind that he didn't come close to fulfilling some of the grand ideas he had for UH-Manoa. And, as I said to some friends yesterday, I think he'll have a much easier time finding a new job than these "regents" will have finding a new president.

pzarquon

June 18th, 2004, 09:23 AM

You know, I agree that the whole Hirono thing was a dumbass move, and he definitely had a knack for rubbing folks the wrong way. He had big ideas, and problems with money, yada yada yada. And given the lack of information to date, I definitely agree the Board of Regents action reeks of a lack of class.

But tying things specifically to Lingle's appointees to the board seems a little too simplistic. I mean, if it were a purely political action, how did we get a unanimous decision rather than a party-line split? I mean, I've lost track of what members come from what political dynasty, but it seems plausible to me that if it was just Hirono-Lingle fallout, we'd have seen some dissent.

The only explanation I can come up with for the unanimous vote is either (1.) there is indeed somewhere some "moral turpitude" that we've simply not been privvy to that made the dismissal a no brainer, or, more likely, (2.) poor judgement or not, they decided that while they knew they had a snowball's chance in hell, they just had to take a shot at trying to weasel out of the $2.2 million severance package.

I agree with Albert, though... barring a humongous scandal erupting, I think Dobelle will not neccessarily go without a new job for long (though one analyst did say such a firing was the "kiss of death"), but the Regents have made it almost impossible to recruit a replacement... at least from anywhere but "inside." Which may be an added benefit, in their eyes.

Glen Miyashiro

June 18th, 2004, 09:34 AM

Sigh. Well, at least he managed to get a new med school building for the university... although it's not quite finished, furnished, and occupied yet. :(

LikaNui

June 18th, 2004, 10:37 AM

I'm not taking sides since, like everyone else, I don't know the exact cause for the firing (though it's appearing more and more to be related to financial irregularities). And Dobelle was out of the state for 280 days last year!?
But I'm amazed about the preponderance of opinions by people who apparently are not following published reports.
They howl about the regents, yet even the Democrats admit that 4 of the 10 are Cayetano appointees and another one was appointed by Senate Leader Bunda. Clearly, 50% of the regents. And the vote was unanimous to fire Dobelle. To blame his firing on politics is obviously ludicrous.
Another thing everyone is screaming about is that Dobelle didn't have a chance to be at the meeting. Bullfeathers:
** The meetings were scheduled as far back as February.
** This is the second one since then that Dobelle has skipped and gone on vacation instead, booking those vacations after he had the schedule of meetings.
** The independent auditor advised Dobelle a long time ago that it was important for him to be at the meeting.
** He called on Monday to ask if he should be at the meeting and was told "yes". He implied he would be there. Then he didn't show up.
** The regents tried to reach him numerous times during and after the meeting. As president of a major university, and as someone who needs to be instantly reachable for a wide variety of potential reasons, he obviously has a cellular phone and/or pager. He was just ducking the calls.
** Firing him on the spot and changing the office locks right away to prevent unauthorized access to documents serve only to pretty much confirm financial irregularities are the issue.

And last but most definitely not least: the regent meeting was scheduled to be an open public meeting but it was Dobelle himself who exercised his right to make it a closed meeting! HELLO? If the man had nothing to hide, why did he insist on it being a closed meeting? (And again, his insisting on that clearly proves he did know about the meeting in advance.)
All of the above has been repeatedly published and aired by the news media over the past couple of days.
Apparently a large portion of the public doesn't pay attention.

LikaNui

June 18th, 2004, 10:40 AM

Sigh. Well, at least he managed to get a new med school building for the university... although it's not quite finished, furnished, and occupied yet. :(

Becuase Dobelle has not raised anywhere near the $160 million he promised to provide for it!
The man made lots and lots of promises but came through on very few.

Mocha

June 18th, 2004, 11:30 AM

When is Evan Dobelle expected back? I heard him say that he contacted most of his close friends whom he worked with...interesting that all the locks on the doors were changed immediately upon the firing! I hope they (regents) tell the truth and are honest with the public.

Albert

June 18th, 2004, 02:03 PM

"And Dobelle was out of the state for 280 days last year!?"

Guess that's why I didn't see his Porsche parked outside Bachman Hall that often.

(It was parked down the hill from his soon-to-be-vacated big house today, looks like there isn't even a driveway there, much less a garage.)

BKHale2007

July 10th, 2004, 08:41 AM

Did anyone see this. I forgot that he was a judge at a Miss America pageant. I think the Board of Regents tried to contact Dobelle, but couldn't. Otherwise, they would have fired him face-to-face.

http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2004/06/firing-of-evan-dobelle.html

ruth

July 14th, 2004, 11:11 AM

I just don't get the praise that Dobelle is getting via the Letters to the Editor in both the Bulletin and Advertiser. I'm not convinced that he did all that much for UH. Instead, he managed to create a very top-heavy organization with "name" executives that are way overpaid.

On top of that, he carries himself with the kind of arrogance and lifestyle that is truly an insult to the way people live here. I'm not against people earning themselves a posh lifestyle. But, if you're earning it on our backs, then you better have something to show for it.

I have to agree with Ryan that to say this issue is tied to the Hirono situation is a little simplistic. I have to believe that there are more reasons for his firing than that.

Certainly one-sided, but the DangerousEquations.com Web site at least gives more detailed reading about the situation.

Also, see these LTEs that were written by two women I highly respect at UH.

Amy Agbayani
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jun/24/op/op02aletters.html

Meda Chesney-Lind
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jul/08/op/op03aletters.html

Some people criticizing the firing not only take aim at the Regents but by association at Hawaii as a whole, as if *we* failed and that *we* don't have what it takes to become "world-class." Considering the complexity of the situation, to characterize the conflict this way turns Hawaii into a caricature that I'm not particularly proud of, especially because it's not a true representation.

Albert

July 14th, 2004, 01:21 PM

Well, he did get a fairly harsh drubbing in today's Weekly, mostly explaining why he has so little support. Too many un-kept promises.

I was surprised, though, to read that he could actually stay at UH as a tenured professor. Can't imagine he'd want to it ...

LikaNui

July 14th, 2004, 01:23 PM

I just don't get the praise that Dobelle is getting via the Letters to the Editor in both the Bulletin and Advertiser.

See the letter in today's Honolulu Weakly, which finally is one of the few that points a finger in Dobelle's direction (and it also mentions Meda's letter and directs people to Ian's website).

Jazzaloha

July 14th, 2004, 09:29 PM

First, I want to give props to Lika Nui for post 25. I think he makes some valid points. It certainly does seem that Dobelle is manipulating the situation to make the regents look bad.

Anyway, Ruth asked wondered why readers seemed to like Dobelle. Here are some of the good things Dobelle claimed to do for the university:

creating a strategic plan, a medical school, a film school and an organizational structure that was broad throughout the islands;

making the two-year colleges entrepreneurial and offer baccalaureate degree on the neighbor islands and throughout Oahu (similar to the University of California system);

liberated the two-year colleges from being under the chancellor's silo into institutions that can now be entrepreneurial throughout all the islands;

helped secure a six-year contract for faculty with a 31 percent pay increase. He claims that this was his number one goal from the beginning and that "There's no other university in this country that has a six-year contract and refusing to raise tuition."

I consider this a pretty good showing, and I haven't heard anyone really talk about how these things are either not good for the university or why Dobelle does not deserve credit for them.

Furthermore, let's remember that we should evaluate his performance within three year period he has been here--a period in which 9-11 occurred, which would make fundraising even more diffficult. The key question is did we give he and his team enough time to prove themselves? The authors of the article "Dangerous Equations" remark that based on the two years Dobelle has been here, they don't see the world-class institution he said he would deliver. I don't think that's a realistic or fair expectation.

Maybe the Regents will have be able to make a strong case for their decision. I hope they do, and I hope their explanation removes any doubt about the wisdom and motives of their decision. But they have not done that so far, I can't help but feel cynical and skeptical that they will try to wait until the furor dies down.

A couple final thoughts. First, politics does not have to manifest itself specifically in the form of Dobelle endorsing Hirono. Dobelle angering connected university administrators or politicians with his changes could be another way that politics manifests itself in this decision. Let's remember that the BOR was also criticized for being political by one of the accrediting organizations.

Finally, I don't know what the exact reasons are for the firing, but I do know that change is very difficult to make in Hawaii. People who try to make change--especially big changes--are often attacked and crushed. Whether this is the case in the Dobelle situation is unknown, but it's a factor you can't easily dismiss.

LikaNui

July 15th, 2004, 09:07 AM

First, I want to give props to Lika Nui for post 25. I think he makes some valid points. It certainly does seem that Dobelle is manipulating the situation to make the regents look bad. Thanks; and I think you're the first to reply to post #25. The lack of responses was interesting. Anyway, it was written because it was frustrating to read so very many comments from folks who apparently weren't following and assimilating the actual news. Perhaps the most telling point there was that it was Dobelle himself who insisted that the meeting be "closed" and not open!

Here are some of the good things Dobelle claimed to do for the university: creating a strategic plan, a medical school, [...] The plans and ideas may have been okay, but the issue is his numerous proclamations that he personally could raise $160 million very quickly. A couple of years later, and the figure is next-to-zilch, but the project is well underway and UH is holding the bag to pay the tab.
And in other Dobelle news...
Did anyone see the article in today's Star-Bulletin?!? Check it out at http://starbulletin.com/2004/07/15/news/index4.html . A sample of that article notes:
"Fired University of Hawaii president Evan Dobelle used $45,000 of UH Foundation money for an opinion poll that asked whether his public image was damaged after he endorsed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mazie Hirono, the Star-Bulletin has learned."
But it gets even more interesting, regarding the president of the polling firm Dobelle hired in a non-bid contract:
"The nonbid contract to conduct the poll was entered into on Oct. 24, 2002, and was signed by Dobelle on Nov. 5 -- election day. Gorman, a friend of Dobelle's, said he has known the former UH president since Dobelle worked for Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ed Brooke in the early 1970s."
Hmmmmm. And then:
"The contract with Opinion Dynamics was for $90,000 plus expenses for two polls -- with a second poll to be conducted in June 2003. In a handwritten note on the contract, Dobelle wrote, "no more than $99,999 for both surveys." Under university procurement policies, all consultant contracts in excess of $100,000 require prior Board of Regents approval."
Heh.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

LikaNui

July 15th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Posted moments ago on the Advertiser's website:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jul/15/br/br03p.html

"The University of Hawai'i Board of Regents has postponed for a week any discussion of a potential mediated settlement with fired president Evan Dobelle." (etc.) "The regents promised a fuller statement later today."
Far more interestingly, it also says:
"The regents offered Dobelle's attorneys a chance to open today's meeting to the public. But his attorneys declined."
So. Once again, Dobelle wants a public meeting to be closed. As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm'..."
:eek:

Albert

July 15th, 2004, 12:40 PM

I saw Dobelle in the Safeway at Manoa Marketplace yesterday, mentioned it on hawaii.test and that rascal "raf" asked if he was filling out an application.
;)

pzarquon

July 15th, 2004, 12:44 PM

The contract with Opinion Dynamics was for $90,000 plus expenses for two polls -- with a second poll to be conducted in June 2003. In a handwritten note on the contract, Dobelle wrote, "no more than $99,999 for both surveys." Under university procurement policies, all consultant contracts in excess of $100,000 require prior Board of Regents approval.That's priceless. "I want to help you, so since I can only pick you if the cost is less than {x}, please make sure your bid is for {x-1}." I mean, it's an open secret that this kind of stuff happens, but to think he left physical, personally-linked proof like this just diminishes any estimation folks might have as to his supposed brilliance.

ruth

July 15th, 2004, 01:07 PM

Hey Jazz and LikaNui,

Thanks for your responses.

Perhaps I was jumping the gun in saying that Dobelle should have "something to show for" during his presidency. Certainly he has made some accomplishments to move the University forward, which Jazz mentions.

For anyone wanting to read the context of Dobelle's defense (from which it appears Jazz acquired some of his points), here's an interview from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5353461/

About the medical school - In late 2001, just months after Dobelle's presidency began, he was able to lobby the Legislature to provide $150 million for the Medical School in Kakaako - kudos to him. Yet, the other $150 million that he has promised to raise has not been secured. We broke ground with that uncertainty. At the the center of the disappointment with Dobelle is, as LikaNui mentioned, his inability to follow through on his promises.

I will say that the strategic plans for a system similar to the UC system is something I do support.

Regarding faculty contracts, I find that Dobelle taking credit for the faculty agreement to be somewhat insulting, considering that even a full professor doesn't make as much as some of his lower-paid executive staff. In addition, there is a possibility that a tuition hike in 2006 will help pay for the steeper salary increases in the later years.

See http://starbulletin.com/2004/04/09/news/story3.html for more information. Also, check out John Radcliffe's response to Dobelle's claim in this Starbulletin LTE:
http://starbulletin.com/2003/07/17/editorial/letters.html

The approved contract provides for:

- 1 percent raise retroactive to July 1
- 3 percent raise this year
- 2 percent raise next year

The 5, 9 and 11 percent raises come 2006 through 2008.

Those are manini increase rates when viewing increased pay he was commanding for this staff in just *one* year:

General counsel: $130,008 (before Dobelle), $256,248 (after)
VP Academic Affairs: $133,968 (before Dobelle), $260,000 (after)
VP Administration: $125,164 (before Dobelle), $227,016 (after)

That's just a snippet of the table provided in the Dangerous Equations article. Of course the table includes many executive posts that didn't exist before. It's amazing the excruciating process required for faculty to get such tiny pay increases, but for executives, the huge salaries happen at the blink of an eye.

Let's just say that I welcome any leader who can affect change in Hawaii. I'm just not certain that if all the change Dobelle's brought (or claims to have brought) - some of them good, some still unrealized, some cosmetic - are worthy of his price tag as well as the cronyism inherent in his style. For instance, I would think (or *hope*) there are leaders out there who can develop a strategic plan for UH without doing so by means of having us pay for overpriced Bachmannite friends. This simply doesn't sit well in my gut.

Jazz, like you, I hope the Regents come up with substantial reasons for Dobelle's ouster. They might in fact not be able to present legal ground for their actions, though we'll simply have to wait and see.

For me personally, his cronyism and approaches (depicted by Meda Chesney-Lind's letter) are enough for me to not want him around. However, that alone is not "cause" by definition. I had a queasy feeling about him when he was first hired, and it really has never left.

I do think the mess caused by the firing will make it horribly difficult for Hawaii to find a competent replacement, which ultimately is very sad whether we agree with what the Regents did or not.

Thanks for engaging this discussion.

Ruth

Jazzaloha

July 15th, 2004, 05:58 PM

LikaNui,

I've talked with prominent politicians recently, and many of them complained about the way the press breeds mistrust in public officials and institutions. I can't help thinking about this when I read that Starbulletin article you quoted above.

The title "Dobelle used $45,000 for Image Rating Poll: One question asked if his support for Hirono was viewed negatively." My first impression was that the poll was strictly conducted to determine the public's perception of Dobelle. But later the according to the the company conducting the poll 90-100 questions were asked about the issues affecting the university--ranging from "what programs are important and community college funding." A poll like that seems appropriate to me. In addition, asking the public what they liked or didn't like about the actions of Dobelle are legitimate questions, imo--especially since those aren't the only questions being asked (which is what the title implies).

The article and title seems written to sound scandalous. Now, the poll and the hiring of Dobelle's friend may or may not be scandalous, but the journalists would have to answer some questions for this to be so:

1. Was the poll a legitimate tool to improve the university?
2. Was the poll done well?
3. Given the poll and the way it was conducted, was the cost appropriate?

These are the main questions. If the answers were negative, then I think it would be fair to write the article in tone that conveyed a scandal. But the article does not answer these questions. Mentioning that Dobelle limited the contract to $99,999, contracted a friend and asked about the public's perception of himself is all innuendo. If the poll was a legitimate tool, done well and was given for a fair, price the issues in the story would mean very little.

I want to reiterate again that we must evaluate Dobelle's accomplishments within the three year period--and I would argue we should factor in 9-11, especially when evaluating his fundraising performance. Do people feel he fell way short of what he should have accomplished given this time period and given his salary (and the salary of his team)? I'd like us--and the Regents--to focus on this question. If they, or anyone else, can make a strong case that he did fail given the time frame, etc., I would totally support his firing. But we haven't come close to answering this question.

Instead, we hear about his high salary and the high salaries of his team (as if they are instantly guilty because of these high salaries); we hear about his arrogance and his extravagant life-style. (Hey, I'd rather have an arrogant president that's transforming the university into a great academic institution, than a humble president that creates a mediocre one any day!) To me, if he has made significant progress given the three year time frame, etc., these criticisms are irrelevant. What is troubling about the press is that they don't seem to recognize this. They do seem to be trying to answer the questions most, and I can't help but feel that they care more about creating reporting a scandal to sell more papers.

Ruth,

I want to address some of the points you raise.

First, until Dobelle, have all university presidents and his/her staff gotten instantly quick pay raises? Like the frontline workers, many public administrators struggle to get an increase in pay. I think it's important to remember that the BOR had a say in these pay raises, so we shouldn't blame Dobelle exclusively for them. Second, didn't the BOR recently approve of a really high pay hike for one of the clerks (or some position related to the administration)? Seeing the huge increase doesn't look very good, but that by itself is not proof that they have not performed well or committed a wrong. We need to ask if it is reasonable and fair. And do we get our monies worth.

You obviously don't feel like the increase is worth it, but I would like to hear why you feel that way. I'm bothered by the fact that many people seem to think that the increase in salaries--by themselves--are enough to condemn Dobelle.

I feel the same about "cronyism." Who Dobelle selects is irrelevant if we feel like these people produce the results we want--given the specific time frame we are evaluating them. Think of a football coach like June Jones. Is it "cronynism" if he selects his friends or people he likes for his assistants? We could care less, as long as his teams win. And that's appropriate. I think it would be unfair to restrict the Coach Jones from choosing his staff. Doesn't this also happen with CEO's in the private sector? Why is it appropriate in the private sector and "cronyism" in the public sector?

When the UH hired Dobelle, and allowed him to choose his staff, I was really happy that they were going to give this approach a try. Give him the money, let him choose the staff, and give him freedom. If he does well--in a reasonable amount of time--then we can keep him. If he doesn't, fire him. That's fair to me. It just seems like we have given up on this approach prematurely.

Linkmeister

July 15th, 2004, 08:09 PM

One of the things I've noticed in all this coverage is the appearance of envy in most stories. The attitude seems to be "he was making too much, so he deserved to get fired." Channel 4's reporters seem offended at his salary. (I'm only singling them out because that's what I watch at 5:00 and 6:00pm).

It would be interesting to learn what other University Presidents at institutions of comparable size make.

ruth

July 15th, 2004, 09:14 PM

I did not say the Regents can do no wrong. If they are partly to blame - then blame them. I have no problem with that.

You were the one who pointed out the salary contract as one of Dobelle's "accomplishments." I was just pointing out why it was so absurd for him to claim that accomplishment, given the alternate value system he has for his staff.

I feel that the "why" of your question has been adequately answered in my earlier posts, supported by the public criticisms made by everyday people at the university. I provided the references and links. And there are many others. We both have Google.

Apparently, we differ in philosophy. You believe the end justifies the means:

I'd rather have an arrogant president that's transforming the university into a great academic institution, than a humble president that creates a mediocre one any day!

I don't think it has to be one or the other. How about a humble president who transforms the university into a great academic institution.

I'm already not warm to Dobelle based on what I've read so far. But, like I said, we'll just have to see what the Regents have to say. I probably will save further discussion until that time.

LikaNui

July 16th, 2004, 09:28 AM

>> Mentioning that Dobelle limited the contract to $99,999, contracted a friend and asked about the public's perception of himself is all innuendo. <<

Not innuendo, but fact, apparently. The report said that there was a handwritten note from Dobelle on the contract itself saying it had to stay under $99,999! Assuming the report is true, then it's certainly not innuendo. It's only surprising that Dobelle did that and left himself wide open to such a flagrant case of cronyism and such a glaring example of trying to beat the system.
And that's just one of a whole lot of complaints about Dobelle, including his massive absenteeism from the state for extensive travel which brought precious little, if anything, for UH in return. Plus his intentionally missing not one but two regent meetings to discuss his position; how the regents rescheduled a meeting at his request and then he still skipped it; how it was Dobelle himself who insisted that the meetings be closed to the press and public, etc. etc.
The truth is out there. We just won't know it until the mediation is finished and the parties are allowed to speak.
BTW, I recall some media reports that when Dobelle left his prior job the staff and teachers held a "thank God he's gone" party; it would be interesting to get more factual details on that, as well.

Jazzaloha

July 16th, 2004, 05:46 PM

Ruth,

So you're saying the contract for the UH faculty was not good? Most people seem to believe that the contract was a pretty good one. I would like to see how it compares with faculty at other universities.

I don't know if I'm saying "the ends justifies the means." What I'm saying is that performance matters. Furthermore, performance, ultimately, matters more than if a president is arrogant or not. (How do we define arrogance anyway? I don't think there are many successful executives that have not been accused of being arrogant. There's a fine line between arrogance and confidence.) Sure, I would prefer a president that is humble and performs well, but I would not oust a president that can deliver the goods just because he/she is arrogant. Let's flesh out what I mean by "delivering the goods." I'm talking about a university that provides a top notch education and a set of marketable skills for more of Hawaii's citizens; about a institution that helps diversify the economy--perhaps developing ideas and industries in health care, agriculture, film, sustainable energy and envrionmental issues; and a university that strengthens Native Hawaiian culture. I'd tolerate some arrogance if a president could bring these things about.

I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you, but I wanted to comment on one other thing you said earlier:

"For instance, I would think (or *hope*) there are leaders out there who can develop a strategic plan for UH without doing so by means of having us pay for overpriced Bachmannite friends."

I don't think you have to overpay friends to get a good strategic plan, but I think you have to pay a significant amount to get talented people that can develop a good strategic plan. I think good administrators/managers are really crucial to running a successful organization, and if you want really competant individuals you have to pay a considerable amount to get them (or else they leave to go the private sector).

Lika,

What is innuendo is that Dobelle did something improper and scandalous. Those facts, by themselves, hardly prove that. The writer makes it appear as if he did something wrong, and the article is written that way, too.

The fact that he went $1 under the amount that would require approval (or scrutiny) from the BOR is not something wrong in and of itself. The effective principals, public administrators "beat the system" everyday just to do a good job. You wouldn't be able to function if you had to follow every single procedure and rule in bureaucracy. Many public administrators find loop-holes or play with the procedures just to function. I don't know if you remember Pat Hamamoto's speech to the Legislature, but she talked about principals and administrators in the DOE having to work around the system. Now, there are times when people work around the system from bad motives. That is something we should not condone. But the fact that people manipulate the system, does not mean they have actually committed something that they should be punished for.

The fact that he hired a friend is not bad in and of itself either. Is that friend a respected professional in the field? Are the fees he charged typical to the services he provided? Is it not unnusual for other universities to conduct such polls? Did the friend actually provide a valuable service and a reasonable cost?

If the Starbulletin dug up facts that showed Dobelle hired someone who was not highly regarded, paid that person a fee that is way above typical fees, and that many well-respected university officials would call such a poll a waste of money, than I believe that is scandalous and Dobelle should be blasted for that. But without these kinds of details, it's just innuendo.

Regarding the absenteeism, I don't know if that's something good or bad. I'd also like to know more details. What was he doing while he was away, and what happened as a result? Did his absence hurt the running of the university?

Regarding his skipping meetings. I think he bears responsibility for that. Those incidents you mention suggest that he and the board were having difficulties. Where the blame lies is not clear.

I would argue that without the facts to the above questions the facts that the starbulletin did print, along with the way they wrote the piece, is innuendo.

pzarquon

July 22nd, 2004, 06:25 AM

There's a fairly long piece in tomorrow's issue of The Chronicle of Higher Educationabout this whole brouhaha: Wipeout in Hawaii (http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i46/46a02301.htm). It's always helpful to see how a tempest in a teapot looks like from afar. Dobelle has some choice quotes:
Mr. Dobelle chalks his problems up to micromanagement by regents who were resistant to change. "It's time for them to come off the plantation," says Mr. Dobelle, who characterizes his firing not as a squabble between a board and a president but "a battle for the soul of Hawaii." Mr. Dobelle, 59, is quick to point out his accomplishments, saying he has turned the university system around. "I accomplished everything I set out to do," he says, seated on the verandah of the presidential house on a green hillside near Waikiki Beach. "I launched a new era." Hmm. Manoa Valley is near Waikiki Beach? I suppose by Mainland standards...

Mocha

July 23rd, 2004, 09:35 AM

Very interesting Pzarquon! I didn't know that Evan Dobelle did not have a doctorate and assumed that having a doctorate was a requirement. Thanks for the link...more to come I guess in this on-going saga. :(

Krash Kolohe

July 23rd, 2004, 01:13 PM

TalkStink.com (http://talkstink.com/archives/2004/07/21/dobelle-doesnt-deny-he-said-it/): We could go on, but why rehash the facts when our insider at the UH Board of Regents offered us this quote: Massa Dobelle 24/7 done took care o’ us. Sheeeiit. He dun did be 9-to-5 wit’ confidence an’ done took care o’ wassups own. When we wuz done workin’ in da fields masta’ Dobelle gave us some badass whippin’ t’ git our asses in shape.
Oh my...good ting..I stay ova hea... and you guyz stay ova dea....and the wind stay blowin' da uddah direction..dis one really smells baaaad! Like one peeg farm in Maile!

BKHale2007

July 30th, 2004, 07:38 AM

Ilind.Net Weighs In
The Dobelle settlement is on the record. He got less than his contract would have paid, although he still walks off a millionaire. But he gives up his claim to tenure, loses the teaching position and the "incentive fund". The Regents withdraw the "for cause" label and Dobelle drops any claims that they acted improperly. And details of his administration remain secret, for now at least. But what's this "research" thing that we'll pay him for over the next two years? It's not like he's ever had an active research or publishing agenda. And what happened to his professed love of teaching? I'm with the UHPA--this bargaining with faculty positions is one of the more troubling aspects of the deal.

Albert

July 30th, 2004, 09:39 AM

I think he did amazingly well. Get fired, and the people who fired you then pay you $125,000 a year for being a "researcher"?

Of course he loses his fancy house and his reserved parking spot for his little Italian car .... but you can't have everything.

(Although why he'd want to stay at UH-Manoa I just can't imagine .... well, at least not beyond understanding 125 grand.)

LikaNui

July 30th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Of course he loses his fancy house and his reserved parking spot for his little Italian car.
Pssst, Albert: Porsche is German, not Italian.
;)

Glen Miyashiro

July 30th, 2004, 11:35 AM

Lee Cataluna's column (temporary link here (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/ln/lee)) sums it up pretty well. This isn't about Dobelle's performance, it's about the regents' appalling mishandling of this mess.

LikaNui

July 30th, 2004, 11:56 AM

The KHON morning news called the settlement "a Dobelle victory".
I don't think so.
Dobelle was forced to resign from his prestigious, highly visible and highly paid job after only 3 years of a 7-year contract. (The alternative was for the firing to stand; there was absolutely no discussion of him keeping the president's job.)
Dobelle was forced to accept less than half of the severance package ($1.05 million instead of $2.26 million).
Dobelle was forced to accept a 75% pay cut.
Dobelle was forced to give up $1.51 million of salary. (For the 4 years remaining on his contract he would've earned $1.76 million; instead, he'll get $250,000 total for 2 years as a researcher.)
Dobelle was forced to lose $496,000 in extra incentive pay.
Dobelle (or his estate) was forced to have to repay $400,000 to the university for his life insurance policy.
Dobelle was forced to lose tenure. (His 2-year research position is non-tenured.)
Dobelle was forced to give up the right to the title "President Emeritus".
Dobelle was forced to waive his right to privacy for all information regarding the dispute (except for confidential attorney documents). (Remember, it was Dobelle and not the regents who demanded that the last three meetings be closed to the public.)
So, considering all that, how can one possibly claim it as a Dobelle "victory"? And if that's a victory, what the heck would comprise a loss?!?
As for Dobelle's future, what other university will hire him now, given his track record here and before here? He's taken a major career hit. This cannot be considered a "victory" either.
The regents, on the other hand, made a smart move to settle, avoiding far far more in future legal fees than they gave up in the settlement. A good business decision.
As for the future, Dobelle says he wants to stay in Hawaii and is considering going into politics. After all that's happened, I think that raises issues of his sanity.
:eek:

Jazzaloha

July 31st, 2004, 09:53 AM

One of the most disturbing things about the settlement was the Regents' statement about apprising Dobelle about the firing "for cause" knowing full well that an explanation by Dobelle could change their decision. For the life of me, I can't understand why they didn't apprise him of the firing before actually firing him. Is it the BOR's policy to fire first and then ask questions later? Maybe Lee Cataluna's explanation is the correct one:

The regents felt disrespected, like a gang of school kids who didn't get their propers. They worked themselves into a lather and decided to catch that sassy so-and-so behind the bandroom during lunch recess and show him who's boss.

If that's true, we must really look at whether the current BOR is really fit to oversee the university. In this whole debacle, where is the accountability of the BOR? I'm not even talking about removing them. I'm just talking about demanding an explanation. Where are the politicians and Governor asking for an explanation?

Clearly, Dobelle is partly to blame for the situation, but that doesn't leave the BOR blameless--particularly if we look at the way they handled the situation.
Whether Dobelle won or lost, money close to his severance package will still need to be paid out. In addition, and more importantly, the reputation of the UH has been severely damaged. The irony is that this is one of the criteria for "for cause" firing, and the BOR seems way more guilty of this than Dobelle.

What really upsets me is Patricia Lee's statement that there will be no other comment about the matter. I can't believe her temerity. There are serious questions of the BOR's handling of the situation, and they feel like they don't need to explain anything?

Finally, I want to say that I really don't think Dobelle understands local culture very well. I don't know if some of his comments are taken out of context, but I got that impression especially from that article in the Chronicle of Education. Whether his not understanding local ways warrants his termination is subject to debate. It certainly doesn't explain or justify the BOR handling of the situation.

It seems that the whole situation could have been avoided. Where is the accountability for the BOR?

BKHale2007

August 1st, 2004, 07:46 AM

Today's Ilind.net has more on the Dobelle settlement and a response to Cataluna's column.

LikaNui

August 3rd, 2004, 11:44 AM

>> For the life of me, I can't understand why they didn't apprise him of the firing before actually firing him. Is it the BOR's policy to fire first and then ask questions later? <<

I can't think of anyone who has ever been told of a firing in advance. It wasn't a layoff, where one might reasonably expect a heads-up; it was a firing. BANG, you're outta here. Locks changed on the office; records and computers sealed and removed, etc.
Further, Dobelle had plenty of advance warning, yet he willfully skipped two or three earlier meetings with the BOR.

>> I'm just talking about demanding an explanation. Where are the politicians and Governor asking for an explanation? <<

Keep putting the pressure on the Office of Information Practices; they're the ones who will release all the info.

>> Whether Dobelle won or lost, money close to his severance package will still need to be paid out. <<

As it turns out, UH will end up saving money after the settlement. In addition to the items listed in my earlier reply, we can also include the savings gained by having gotten rid of all four of Dobelle's extremely expensive cronies that he brought from the mainland, all of whom have left or resigned since his firing. This includes UH Financial Officer Whit Sloan, External Relations Officer Paul Costello, and two others.

LikaNui

August 4th, 2004, 08:33 AM

Keep putting the pressure on the Office of Information Practices; they're the ones who will release all the info.

It worked. The BOR said they will release the documents today.
:)
Funny thing, though. Since that announcement, Dobelle's attorney is suddenly backpedaling like crazy about what material he wants released.
:mad:

Linkmeister

August 4th, 2004, 07:59 PM

David Shapiro (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/op/david) had a few choice words to say today about the Governor and her hand in this mess.

I learned something, too. I must have missed this bit in the papers:
Dobelle took heat for hiring former associates from the Mainland.

Well, two of his "cronies" who bailed out of UH were quickly snapped up by Stanford and Harvard universities.

Then he goes on to say this:
Do you think the fact that what's good enough for Stanford and Harvard isn't good enough for us might have anything to do with why our university is among the national leaders in underachievement?

Now, the latter might be a cheap shot, and I'm sure no UHPA members will like it, but it seems to be aimed at the Gov. and her Regents. I'm sure all of us, whether alumni or not, look at the lists of universities that publications like U.S. News put out. I know I do, and I always seem to find UH listed in the lower quintiles; I've often wondered why.

BKHale2007

August 9th, 2004, 07:47 AM

The Meaning of the Dobelle Incident (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/08/op/op07a.html)

Ian Lind responds
August 9, 2004 - Monday

Luckily I didn't actually read Bob Rees' infuriating column ('The meaning of the Dobelle incident') in yesterday's Honolulu Advertiser until sometime in the early afternoon, so was blissfully unaware for half the day that I was again among his targets.

I really should give Rees his due. After all, he is very good at what he does. He is a master of the snide comment, the gratuitous insult, the McCarthyite innuendo, the loaded phrase, the degrading witticism, the anonymous allegation, and the ad hominem attack. Although a civil libertarian in other contexts, as a writer he appears to believe passionately in guilt by association. He cares little for "facts" or fact checking, for any semblance of fairness, or for the possibility--however small--that his preconceptions might be wrong, preferring instead to begin with his own conclusions and make up whatever it takes to give his inventions the illusion of substance.

Yesterday's column is vintage Rees. He begins by asserting a conclusion, then musters various bits and pieces that are at best vaguely related, beats his chest about how brilliant his insight is and then declares it proven and moves on to the next claim, never bothered by the notion that he has presented absolutely no evidence to back up his position.

In yesterday's column, for example, he leads off with the charge of political retribution, reciting the obvious tensions created by Dobelle's endorsement of Mazie Hirono in the last election, assuming--as if the whole world agrees--that such an endorsement was patently proper. He avoids pesky expert opinions such as those cited by the Chronicle of Higher Education which noted that such endorsements are both rare and ill-advised. He sidesteps the point that the ouster movement began with regents appointed by a Democrat and gained support from key Democrats like Rep. Mark Takai, the House Higher Education chairman.

Rees cites a KITV report as evidence that the Board of Regents unfairly rushed its decision to fire Dobelle, but ignored the same station's report that the decision was moved forward in part in response to "Dobelle's concerns that newly named regents who had not been part of the evaluation process would vote".

But don't bother Rees with contrary evidence when he's on a roll.

Then suddenly the Rees rant on retribution was pau without presenting any evidence of retribution whatsoever and he was spinning off to his next point. The reader's head spins, drawn on by an almost prurient interest in who Rees will slander next.

Farther along, Rees is in full stride when he gets to the section he calls "think local, act provincial", in which he simply derides those who criticized Dobelle's administration without ever attempting to tackle the substance of their arguments.

His avoidance of substance left me confused. Certainly he's not saying concerns about racism, sexism, or the patterns of discrimination they create are parochial. But that's precisely what he is saying, at least when it seems to fit the needs of his argument of the moment.

And much of what Rees presents to bolster his preconceptions is just plain and simple wrong.

In the same "think local" section, he quotes from what he describes as "the response of the university" to comments by Ted Hong. But the quote is not the university's response but what was described by the Star-Bulletin as a personal comment added to a UH release by Paul Costello. A small but significant difference.

Other errors are much more egregious. As far as I can tell, looking at records filed with the Campaign Spending Commission, retired UH professor and Board of Regents member Byron Bender never made the $12,000 in contributions to Gov. Lingle that Rees' so boldly attributes to him.

John Radcliffe, associate director of the faculty union, describes the Rees style this way:

What he does is say something which is true (Byron Bender)and then in a truly McCarthyite way sort of duct tapes it to something outrageously false (gave $6,000 in 2002--same as he gave in 1998) creating a third, implicitly wrong thing to leave in the minds of his readers....When caught, and mostly he is not, he will then say something like, --"Well, Byron Bender was President of UHPA (true) in 1998 (false) and in 2002 (false) and UHPA gave a bunch of money (true) to Lingle, so that's the same thing." Which it most certainly is not.

There's no doubt that Rees' one-liners, which he uses to dismiss or trivialize others, obscure rather than enlighten.

Radcliffe points to his own speech, cited by Rees, and invites others to compare the Rees comment with the original. I have to say it is a hell of a speech!

And I would certainly invite readers to return to my extended comments about Dobelle's ties to First Hawaiian Bank, which are far more nuanced than Rees gives credit for (see my entries for August 7-8, 2002).

There's much more to be said, but the sun rises in half an hour. Seeing the sunrise is important, debunking Rees less so.

pzarquon

August 9th, 2004, 09:51 AM

Here's a link to the Bob Rees column (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/08/op/op07a.html) Ian is responding to. Fascinating that the Advertiser would run it at all, considering Rees already has a venue essentially at his disposal in the Honolulu Weekly. Though, I suppose any writer would jump at the chance to reach a wider audience...

Rees repeats a lot of points that were essentially covered already, like the whole "fired while he was out of town" thing... despite the fact that Dobelle clearly made it a point to be out of town when things relevant to his future as UH president were on the agenda and on record well in advance. And Ian's right, Rees' simple presumption that Dobelle's Hirano endorsement was a non-issue is especially glaring.

FWIW, the sections that find pointless opportunities to take potshots at Ian are:
There were attempts by Dobelle's critics to rally support against him by accusing him of racism and antipathy toward locals... Professor Meda Chesney-Lind, whose husband often employed his Web site blog to impugn Dobelle's motives, wrote to this newspaper on July 8: "One additional comment about the Dobelle legacy: I have never seen an administration that treated women and minorities so badly. ... Moreover, he made no secret of his disdain for the Asian women (and other women) from the previous administration." "Web site blog"? :p And:
When an individual is under attack in Hawai'i, we have a nasty habit of gratuitously piling on the cheap shots. For example, blogger Ian Lind once noted that Dobelle was doing his banking at First Hawaiian. This prompted Lind's question, pregnant with innuendo: "Is it a coincidence that FHB chief Walter Dods was on the selection committee that chose Dobelle for the job?"Here's what Ian actually wrote (http://ilind.net/diary/aug_2_02.html).

By the way, in deference to Ian, I think a brief excerpt and a link to his response would be preferable to republishing the entire entry here verbatim. Just a friendly note for the future!

LikaNui

August 9th, 2004, 12:48 PM

Rees repeats a lot of points that were essentially covered already, like the whole "fired while he was out of town" thing... despite the fact that Dobelle clearly made it a point to be out of town when things relevant to his future as UH president were on the agenda and on record well in advance.

Not just once, but twice!
And readers should remember that the BOR made TEN phone calls to Dobelle on and around the day of his firing which he refused to return, although other people were able to reach him those same days.
Plus, it was Dobelle who insisted that the BOR meetings be closed to the public... also not just once, but twice.
I guess Bob Rees forgot those facts too. :rolleyes:

BKHale2007

August 9th, 2004, 04:17 PM

Generally I'll post only an excerpt of something that's already online but today's Ilind.net entry was so choice I excitedly posted it all. Any thoughts on the TV coverage of Dobelle?

LikaNui

August 10th, 2004, 08:30 AM

Here we go again:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/10/news/index2.html
In today's Star-Bulletin, a story about a $25,000 donation, specified as being solely for educational studies, was instead spent on a promotional video about Dobelle. The donor has demanded the return of his money, and this was part of the mediation process between Dobelle and the BOR.
:eek:

Jazzaloha

August 10th, 2004, 11:19 AM

Lika said,

"I can't think of anyone who has ever been told of a firing in advance."

But you have heard of supervisor's hearing the other side before deciding to fire him/her--especially when the supervisors believe a hearing from the employee could affect his/her decision, right? The BOR admitted that hearing from Dobelle could have changed their decision to fire "for cause," yet they still went ahead and publicly fired him "for cause" before hearing from him.

So far the information released doesn't come close to justifying these actions. And except for a few letters and editorials, there is no call to investigate the boards actions or consideration for their removal. That doesn't concern you, Lika?

You know I'm not a big fan of Bob Rees, but I agree with the essence of what he said:

We're a narrow-minded bunch — nearly a mob at times — opposed to meaningful change, fearful of new ideas, resentful of any perceived transgression into what we label "local" and perfectly willing to let our political establishment destroy our chances for the future for the sake of its petty political feuds.

I was born and raised here, and I love Hawaii. But, unfortunately, I think what Rees says above is largely true. I recently interviewed many prominent local public officials, including the former Gov. Cayetano, Waihee, Mayor Harris and Rep. Ed Case. Many of them spoke about the difficulty to make changes in Hawaii, and they spoke about it in a way that is sympathetic to what Rees says above.

What I'm really concerned about is that the BOR actions was an act of retaliation--particularly a retaliation for the changes Dobelle made. It's when these things are allowed to occur--especially without any scrutiny--that public officials that oversee public institutions will not make the changes that will significantly improve their organizations. These are the kinds of improvements that can increase the effectiveness of the services they provide; eliminate waste and save tax dollars; improve worker morale, etc.

But we rarely see these kinds of changes, and part of the reason is that when you make significant changes, people who benefit from the status quo, get mad. They use whatever means at their disposal to either prevent the change or punish the person who made them. Administrators who have worked in Hawaii for a while, know this, (That's one of the things that maybe Dobelle didn't realize.) and there are very few adminstrators that want to stick their neck out in this way.

Unless, these kinds of retaliation are stopped, we're not likely to see very much meaningful change. At the very least we should investigate the BOR's actions to assure the public that these actions weren't a form of retaliation. It doesn't look like that's going to happen.

LikaNui

August 10th, 2004, 01:21 PM

scrivener

August 10th, 2004, 03:12 PM

Ruth brings up excellent, well-articulated, valid points, but I'm with Jazzaloha on this one. "Cronyism" is only really an applicable term when people who otherwise seem unfit or unqualified are given jobs. If a guy with experience and a vision--I like the June Jones comparison a lot--knows what he wants to accomplish and how he's going to do it, of course he's going to put in place the people he knows can do the job.

Education is a lot like business. New strategies and ideas come forth all the time, but unless time is given for them to take serious effect, NO plan really works. A university and its reputation and its standing are long-term, big-picture things that take real time to move in any direction. Some people--especially those who perhaps thought the school was fine the way it was--may have been put off by Dobelle, but I haven't heard ANY administrator at ANY level of government EVER who had as much of a plan as Dobelle.

Really, is no direction at all better than the direction we've been taking lately? I don't think so. Dobelle got reamed on this one, and so did the State of Hawaii.

Jazzaloha

August 10th, 2004, 04:22 PM

>> But you have heard of supervisor's hearing the other side before deciding to fire him/her--especially when the supervisors believe a hearing from the employee could affect his/her decision, right? <<

Very rarely, but not very darned often. And in any case, their dispute with Dobelle had been going on for months back and forth, with his possible firing being a topic in the news for quite some time. It's not like Dobelle didn't know his head was on the chopping block.

Very rarely? If you're a supervisor, and you're considering firing one of your employees, but you're not sure. And you feel that hearing the employee's side of the story could stop you from firing that employee, you're telling me you would fire that person without talking to them? You're telling that happens in most cases? C'mon.

Furthermore, the situation may have been going on for months, but that doesn't mean that Dobelle knew he was going to get fired. He even said as much. Also, the BOR admitted that discussing the matter with Dobelle could have changed their decision to fire him "for cause." Yet, they fired him before they did this. If that's the typical behavior for employers, that's really sad. Personally, I don't think it is. It certainly isn't professional, nor something I would condone.

BKHale2007

August 11th, 2004, 08:41 AM

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/08/op/op07a.html

The Rees column linked above has a correction.

Correction: University of Hawai'i regent Byron Bender did not donate money to Linda Lingle’s gubernatorial campaigns in 1998 or 2002. A previous version of this story incorrectly said Bender had made contributions in each of those years.

LikaNui

August 13th, 2004, 09:22 AM

It seems there are plenty of 'smoking guns' in the BOR minutes released late yesterday.
Perhaps most interesting is that the Cayetano-appointed regents wanted to fire Dobelle last year, and it was the Lingle-appointed regents who talked them into waiting and into giving Dobelle a chance! This flies in the face of countless opinions of letter-writers and media guessers who say the firing was political (and who continue to ignore the fact that the firing was a unanimous vote).
But there are plenty of other fascinating revelations.
Excerpts from the Star-Bulletin reports ( http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/13/news/index9.html ):

"E-mails between Kit Dobelle and John Gorman, president of Opinion Dynamics, show that Dobelle called Gorman to ask him to change the date of the poll to February 2004 instead of 2003 and to have "the sensitive information removed."

And to disprove those who claim the BOR didn't try to contact Dobelle the day of the firing:

"The minutes indicate several attempts were made throughout the day to reach Dobelle through his chief of staff, Sam Callejo, and executive assistant, Kristen Blanchfield, and Dobelle did not return the calls.
"At 6:50 p.m. Hawaii time, or 11:50 p.m. Central Daylight Time, the night manager of the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago went up to Dobelle's room and gave the message to Kit Dobelle to call the university.
"The night manager told the regents that a male voice could also be heard in the room, which she assumed was Dobelle's."
[Who would be in his wife's hotel room at midnight except Dobelle himself?]

And check this out:

"Dobelle, a former mayor of Pittsfield, Mass., flew the sheriff of Pittsfield to Hawaii and put him up in a Waikiki hotel at university expense. Dobelle told the regents he was recruiting the sheriff to work on an educational program, but administrators of the program said they never heard of him.
"Dobelle also used university funds for air fare and hotel expenses for the men's squash coach at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., where Dobelle formerly was president, saying he was recruiting the coach, even though UH does not have a squash program."

Then this, while Dobelle still had five years left on his contract and which indicates he did know his job was in jeopardy:

"Ousted University of Hawaii President Evan Dobelle used school resources to hunt for jobs on the mainland during the past year, according to newly released documents.
"E-mails sent between October 2003 and June 2004 by Dobelle, wife Kit and executive assistant Kristin Blanchfield show that Dobelle made inquiries into openings at five mainland colleges, including the University of Massachusetts, the University of Wisconsin, Boston University, Washington College in Maryland and Whitman College in Washington state.
"At least one e-mail indicated that Dobelle attempted to set up meetings on the mainland with potential employers while on UH business."

And yet another bullet in the smoking gun:

"Evan Dobelle authorized the diversion from a $25,000 gift from a wealthy New York donor who specified that the money be used for Jewish studies, according to documents released yesterday by the University of Hawaii.
"The Star-Bulletin reported earlier this week that the Martin Gruss Philanthropic Fund made the donation in May 2002 to fund lecturers in Jewish studies but that the money was used to pay for thousands of dollars of Dobelle's expenses, including a $7,000 promotional video."
[This refers to a promotional video about Dobelle himself; not about the University.]

This morning's Advertiser, which has far less information than the Star-Bulletin, notes ( http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/13/ln/ln07a.html ):

"Documents show that Dobelle began job-hunting as far back as last October — as his relationship was seriously deteriorating with the regents, but long before they moved to remove him as president."

and

"An e-mail from John Gorman, whose Massachusetts firm Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted a survey for Dobelle, notes that Dobelle had e-mailed him asking him to change the date of the second survey from February 2003 to February 2004 and noting that Dobelle wanted "the sensitive information removed."

The new items above are only a small part of the reasons Dobelle got canned.
So, what do you folks think now that you've got the info you wanted released?
:eek:

LikaNui

August 13th, 2004, 01:37 PM

Great letter from Ian Lind's wife in today's Advertiser, too!

BKHale2007

August 14th, 2004, 06:41 AM

Here's a link:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/13/op/op10aletters.html

Check out the Aug. 14 Ilind.net for more on Rees. Ian says a line was cut from his wife's letter.

But the Advertiser cut out the final sentence of the letter that was submitted, which read:

I admit to finding myself puzzled as to why this is the case, but I have even more difficulty understanding why the Advertiser would grant so much attention to an individual with this intellectual track record.

I hope this edit reflects an issue of available space rather than an indication that questions of accountability are also a source of irritation for the state's largest newspaper.

Here's the most insightful comment I heard about the Dobelle controversy this week: "They (the Board of Regents) had to fire Dobelle," one UH employee quipped. "It was the only way to get his attention."

Also check out this week's Pacific Business News. It has an article on Dobelle's resignation from the Aloha United Way 2005 fundraising chairmanship and an editorial on Dobelle's firing.

BKHale2007

August 14th, 2004, 08:29 AM

Here's HawaiiReporter.com's reportage:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8792f858-fac8-44c5-8c53-ff352e50ed42

BKHale2007

August 19th, 2004, 06:59 AM

Even more discoveries, detailed in today's Ilind.net entry. Dobelle insisted on being featured as prominenetly as the governor in the UH athletic media guide.

BKHale2007

August 21st, 2004, 08:59 AM

Today's Ilind.net

August 21, 2004 - Saturday

What struck me about the UH Board of Regents/Dobelle documents is how early in his tenure serious issues arose between the president and the board, and what a poor job was done reporting on them. No wonder Dobelle can publicly complain about being ambushed by a hasty and unfair board. The public had been left in the dark, with little opportunity to learn about the problems as they were building over time, despite signals which, it appears in retrospect at least, should have raised red flags for the reporters covering the university.

Emails released along with other UH documents included an exchange between Dobelle and Advertiser reporter Bev Creamer which offered grist for newsroom gossip this past week. The emails prompted Malia Zimmerman, writing in Hawaii Reporter, to raised a question of media bias (scroll down to the bottom of Zimmerman's column of August 13 for the section on bias).

I think that about sums it up. There was friction early on, and it wasn't really noted.

And here's a more recent item from HawaiiReporter.com. I bolded the most revealing part.

Dobelle’s Priorities Askew

In documents released to reporters about the reasons behind the recent firing of University President Evan Dobelle are some correspondence that show the priorities and thought process of the man who called himself "visionary.

There was correspondence showing that despite the housing crunch on the University campus, Dobelle had allowed four young men who were sons of friends of his from the mainland to live for free in the dorms. But according to emails, the young men did not act gentlemanly and actually stole property from the room. Dobelle told the school to cover the cost rather than bill the parents or students.

LikaNui

August 21st, 2004, 11:08 AM

Thanks for the updates (which I've also seen on Ian Lind's website).
Isn't it interesting that all those folks who were howling about the regents have suddenly gone quiet after all the new revelations? (Especially the one where it was the Cayetano-appointed regents who wanted to fire Dobelle a year ago but the Lingle regents talked them into waiting!)
I don't think we've heard the last of all this, though; I expect a few more revelations about Dobelle to surface. Remember the memo from the faculty lady (who was later fired) that warned Dobelle of his wrongdoing and implied there was a lot more that could come out?! One hopes that someone is following up on that.

BKHale2007

August 22nd, 2004, 08:35 AM

Today's Ilind.net has another update, about how "available" Dobelle was.

August 22, 2004 - Sunday

The documents released by the University of Hawaii Board of Regents help to clear up another issue: whether or not the BOR made the decision to fire Dobelle while he was traveling on the mainland and "unavailable".

Jazzaloha

August 23rd, 2004, 06:11 PM

"Isn't it interesting that all those folks who were howling about the regents have suddenly gone quiet after all the new revelations? (Especially the one where it was the Cayetano-appointed regents who wanted to fire Dobelle a year ago but the Lingle regents talked them into waiting!)"

First of all, I take by this comment that you think that the BOR's actions are vindicated, that no further investigation of them need to take place?

Second, maybe Dobelle wasn't fired because he endorsed Mazie, but politics can manifest itself in other ways. For example, Dobelle's changes could have upset both legislators, university administrators, and faculty--not because those changes were bad for the university--but because those changes made those individuals uncomfortable or even lose power. These individuals would use whatever connections they had--including connections to legislators or BOR--to retaliate against these changes. This kind of politicking is non-partisan. One of the accrediting organizations also criticized the Board for politicking as well.

Finally, I know what it's like to work for the government, and my feeling is that if you scrutinize any department head or high-level administrator close enough, I'd bet you could find many of the kind of errors committed by Dobelle. Of course, most of these individuals avoid making changes on the level that Dobelle did and therefore, avoid making the kind of enemies that would expose these errors.

I'm not saying that these oversights and "misconduct" by Dobelle are acceptable, but I am saying that I'm not convinced they rise to the level of a "smoking gun" either. If the kind of "wrong-doing" committed by Dobelle is committed by other department heads, politicians, etc., I think it would be wrong to criticize Dobelle for these things.

BKHale2007

August 24th, 2004, 07:33 AM

Today's Ilind.net

More from the Dobelle files. This exchange in the formerly confidential draft minutes of the Board of Regents June 2, 2004 executive session jumped out at me:

“President Dobelle stated that he wished the Board would treat him the way he treats his son Harry—with patient guidance. Regent Lagareta replied that she is not President Dobelle’s mother and she would much prefer to have an employer to employee relationship and an effective working partnership than a parent to child relationship with him.

LikaNui

August 24th, 2004, 11:03 AM

JazzAloha wrote:
>>First of all, I take by this comment that you think that the BOR's actions are vindicated, that no further investigation of them need to take place? <<

No, what I wrote was "Isn't it interesting that all those folks who were howling about the regents have suddenly gone quiet after all the new revelations? (Especially the one where it was the Cayetano-appointed regents who wanted to fire Dobelle a year ago but the Lingle regents talked them into waiting!)"
So, I said nothing there about the BOR's actions, I merely noted that all the posters and letter-writers and columnists who were howling are suddenly silent. See? I was talking about those folks making comments, not about the BOR themselves.
And in actuality I have indeed said all along that the BOR is not entirely without blame in their handling of the situation. They need (and have sought) guidance in how to better handle their duties.
In today's litigious society, being on any board is a tough job.

>> Second, maybe Dobelle wasn't fired because he endorsed Mazie, but politics can manifest itself in other ways. For example, Dobelle's changes could have upset both legislators, university administrators, and faculty <<

"Could have". Whatever. That's a hypothetical situation.

>> These individuals would use whatever connections they had--including connections to legislators or BOR--to retaliate against these changes. <<

Is there any evidence of that??

>> I'm not saying that these oversights and "misconduct" by Dobelle are acceptable, but I am saying that I'm not convinced they rise to the level of a "smoking gun" either. <<

Well, let's look at just one "smoking gun" -- the matter of Dobelle waiting almost two years to repay roughly $75,000 used for personal use, and he only paid it once he learned about the audit. He claims it was a clerical error.
Heh.
:rolleyes:

BKHale2007

August 25th, 2004, 06:32 AM

Today's Ilind.net

I'm told an unredacted set of some BOR minutes concerning former president Dobelle that were posted for some time at a Ka Leo site Monday contained a bunch of stuff that's of interest. Apparently it's kind of a mystery where this set of minutes originated and how they got posted. If anybody happened to download copies while they were available, I would love to see them.

http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/08/23/41298cdb160db?in_archive=1
The files are currently unavailible for download due to technical difficulties. The files will be up as soon as possible.

That's "unavailable." And I hope these will be the unredacted ones.

pzarquon

August 25th, 2004, 08:06 AM

That's "unavailable." And I hope these will be the unredacted ones.At the moment, the entire Ka Leo site (http://www.kaleo.org) has gone missing. Fascinating.

palmtree

August 26th, 2004, 03:33 PM

http://www.kaleo.org/pages/2004/08/23/news/minutes6.3.04.pdf

http://www.kaleo.org/pages/2004/08/23/news/minutes6.15.04.pdf

pzarquon

August 26th, 2004, 04:17 PM

Ah, thanks for that. Good bedtime reading. Ian Lind already commented on the "the Board doesn't want to be your daddy" exchange between Dobelle and Regent Lagareta. But there's lots more... including an interesting bit about Sloane, and all sorts of stuff about iffy spending (like a not-quite academic conference at UMASS).

Lord knows what can be quoted/reproduced here, though, without making some lawyers somewhere excited. Hmm.

Well, at the very least, read 'em while you can get 'em... and if you haven't the time to read 'em, by golly, at least click-and-save 'em!

BKHale2007

August 26th, 2004, 05:18 PM

This is more proof Hawaii needs its own version of The Memory Hole (http://www.thememoryhole.org).

BKHale2007

August 27th, 2004, 07:36 AM

http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/27/news/index4.html

In his first year as University of Hawaii president, Evan Dobelle stirred criticisms from regents about his leadership style.

According to minutes of a June 2002 closed-door meeting, former regent Ah Quon McElrath said, "Many faculty are now waking up to the reality that President Dobelle has done more in the way of public relations to enhance his image rather deliver on his promises."

And today's Ilind.net has commentary on the minutes.

LikaNui

August 27th, 2004, 09:49 AM

According to the minutes:
"When he failed to return the Board’s calls, another attempt was again made to reach Dr. Dobelle in his room at which time the Regents learned that he had since placed a block on his phone."

I believe someone was asking about a "smoking gun"?
:p

Miulang

August 27th, 2004, 11:05 AM

As an outsider looking in, I think both the Board of Regents and Dr. Dobelle were guilty of misdeeds.

First of all, why did the board decide not to fire him after all? Why did they settle with him? Could it be that he knows something about some of the regents that might look a little questionable in the light of day? (In some places, they call this kind of settlement "hush money")

Second of all, he must have known something was about the happen, because he was looking for another job ("on company time and expense"). I think most of us would do the same if we knew we were on the verge of getting canned.

Third of all, why did he allow the State and UH to go through 2 selection processes for a new UH logo and then come up with no new logo after all? The last round cost you, the taxpayers of Hawaii, over $150,000! And who started the initial search? Dobelle. He thought UH needed a new image, starting with its logo. Poho dis kine search. Why didn't the Board insist that the contest be open to locals (maybe especially the students at UH) so that any prizes would be kept in the state? Or even if that wouldn't work, why did a company from up here end up getting selected?

Just musing...and thinking about 3 days from now when I'll be back on Maui...all 86 muggy degrees of it.

Miulang

LikaNui

August 27th, 2004, 12:38 PM

pzarquon

August 27th, 2004, 10:18 PM

This is more proof Hawaii needs its own version of The Memory Hole (http://www.thememoryhole.org).Indeed. The PDFs were yanked, and Ian Lind passes along a stern order (http://www.ilind.net/) from Walter Kirimitsu that all copies be destroyed, and the assertion that anyone who passes them around "may be individually and personally liable for libel or defamation and resulting monetary damages."

Ian notes that Dobelle publicly waived his rights to privacy, but that Kirimitsu might be asserting the privacy rights of the other members of the board. From what I've read, I agree with Ian: the BOR shouldn't be worried. Even though the minutes are a one-sided, BOR perspective, they generally bolster the BOR's case and hurt Dobelle:
The regents' discussion, both in substance and tone, is devastating for Dobelle. The idea of "damaged goods" doesn't go far enough in summing up the impact. "Toast" comes to mind.

BKHale2007

August 28th, 2004, 06:13 AM

Read today's Ilind.net. It seems as if his blog and occasionally HawaiiReporter.com are the only websites regularly following the Dobelle debacle. HawaiiReporter.com, incidentally, has a reprint of a Joel Fischer essay from 2002 on Dobelle.

Miulang

August 28th, 2004, 06:41 AM

>> First of all, why did the board decide not to fire him after all? Why did they settle with him? <<

Scroll back through earlier messages in this thread and you'll find a discussion on this. Bottom line is... well, the bottom line. It's far cheaper to settle than to drag things out in court and pay half a zillion dollars to the attorneys. And Dobelle still loses (and not just money), even with the settlement, while UH ends up actually saving money!

If the intent is to "punish" Dobelle, then nah, Dobelle doesn't really lose much either way. With the settlement, he can at least say on his CV that he wasn't fired from UH but can honestly say that he left the UH because of conflicts with the BOR. As long as you're tenured, academia is as incestuous as any good ol boys club.

A good analogy is what happens when college football coaches get offed when the NCAA (or whatever governing board) finds malfeasence. Do the coaches ever find another job? Yup, maybe not as prestigeous as the ones they were let go from, but they can still find jobs...either as coaches in the NFL (where they fail miserably) or other colleges. The only exception I know of currently is the former football coach at the University of WA who was accused of basically the same kinds of things Dobelle is being accused of. This coach was also under intense scrutiny for recruiting violations at the college he coached at before he was hired by the UW, and yet the Huskies hired him! Right now, he's a volunteer coach at one of the local high schools. Heck, he doesn't have to find a "real" job: he got a settlement, too, so he won't need to do anything for at least the next couple of years. And the AD, instead of being fired for the coach's misdeeds and others related to the wahine softball's team being given illegal drugs, "retired".

Dobelle is looking out for Dobelle, and the BOR obviously thinks full disclosure of its proceedings will result in embarrassment for some of its members.

Miulang

LikaNui

August 28th, 2004, 11:26 AM

Miulang wrote: >> If the intent is to "punish" Dobelle, then nah, Dobelle doesn't really lose much either way. <<

Here is what I wrote a while back, on page 3 of this thread:

Dobelle was forced to resign from his prestigious, highly visible and highly paid job after only 3 years of a 7-year contract. (The alternative was for the firing to stand; there was absolutely no discussion of him keeping the president's job.)
Dobelle was forced to accept less than half of the severance package ($1.05 million instead of $2.26 million).
Dobelle was forced to accept a 75% pay cut.
Dobelle was forced to give up $1.51 million of salary. (For the 4 years remaining on his contract he would've earned $1.76 million; instead, he'll get $250,000 total for 2 years as a researcher.)
Dobelle was forced to lose $496,000 in extra incentive pay.
Dobelle (or his estate) was forced to have to repay $400,000 to the university for his life insurance policy.
Dobelle was forced to lose tenure. (His 2-year research position is non-tenured.)
Dobelle was forced to give up the right to the title "President Emeritus".
Dobelle was forced to waive his right to privacy for all information regarding the dispute (except for confidential attorney documents). (Remember, it was Dobelle and not the regents who demanded that the last three meetings be closed to the public.)
So, considering all that, how can one possibly claim it as a Dobelle "victory"? And if that's a victory, what the heck would comprise a loss?!?
As for Dobelle's future, what other university will hire him now, given his track record here and before here? He's taken a major career hit. This cannot be considered a "victory" either.

So, do you still think "Dobelle doesn't really lose much"?
:eek:

>> Dobelle is looking out for Dobelle, and the BOR obviously thinks full disclosure of its proceedings will result in embarrassment for some of its members. <<

Yes, there is "embarassment" for certain members of the BOR -- once the truth came out and the facts were published, we discovered that it was the Cayetano-appointed regents who wanted Dobelle fired over a year ago and that it was the Lingle appointees who talked them into giving Dobelle a chance! That took the wind straight out of the sails of those who claimed the firing was political.
:D

Miulang

August 28th, 2004, 11:34 AM

BKHale2007

September 6th, 2004, 07:50 AM

Today's Ilind.net has an extensive excerpt from Bob Jones's Midweek column on the Dobelle debacle.

Happy Labor Day.

LikaNui

September 6th, 2004, 10:10 AM

And today's Advertiser raises even more questions about Dobelle's practices of hiring his friends:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Sep/06/ln/ln01a.html

:eek:

BKHale2007

September 24th, 2004, 06:41 AM

In today's Ilind.net, Ian notes that:

Former president Evan Dobelle made just two political contributions during this election cycle, $200 to Dan Inouye in July 2003 and $250 to Florida Senator Bob Graham's presidential campaign in October 2003.

His wife, Edith "Kit" Dobelle, reportedly contributed $1,000 to Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire in October 2003. What's interesting here is that her employer is listed as "Cassidy & Associates", the Washington-based lobbying firm that has represented UH in Congress for years. It's an affiliation which, if correct, was not included on Dobelle's prior financial disclosure statements.

LikaNui

September 24th, 2004, 08:27 AM

I saw the same thing on Ian's website and was about to post it here, but BK, you beat me by just under two hours. :p
However, I will add Ian's opening paragraph:
"I've been sitting here in the dark querying the FEC's campaign contribution database via www.politicalmoneyline.com . You never can tell what interesting tidbits you'll find."
Now, the question is whether or not the local news media will pick this story up and look into it. Anyone wanna make a bet on that?

LikaNui

September 25th, 2004, 07:49 AM

In the news last night, Dobelle asked for a second extension to give him more time to move out of the President's mansion and into a rented Manoa house.
What, he can't afford to pay a moving company?
:p

pzarquon

September 25th, 2004, 08:53 AM

And lets not forget the legal bill to settle this whole mess has topped $1 million (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=2765). The Regents say they saved big, versus what was in Dobelle's contract, but one of Dobelle's attorney says the potential cost of $4-$5 million is overstated (http://starbulletin.com/2004/09/25/news/story9.html).Rick Fried, Dobelle's lead attorney, said yesterday that the university should include Dobelle's life insurance death benefit of $1.6 million and other costs in its calculations and would have done better if it had simply paid off his contract.

LikaNui

September 25th, 2004, 10:56 AM

The Regents say they saved big, versus what was in Dobelle's contract

Actually, they did save big. I wrote a very long post earlier in this thread that itemized the savings: Dobelle has to repay the insurance coverage, the Board saved on his exorbitant salary, they also saved on getting rid of Dobelle's cronies who were hired at exorbitant salaries and who are not being replaced, etc etc. Bottom line is the Regents are paying less than half of what they would've paid had he stayed.

BKHale2007

September 27th, 2004, 07:45 AM

Nothing to do with Dobelle's firing but his wife Kit is quoted on presidents being isolated from the public.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12796028&BRD=1656&PAG=461&dept_id=13278&rfi=6

BKHale2007

October 2nd, 2004, 09:37 AM

UH sees nothing wrong with public-relations contract.

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/01/news/story6.html

BKHale2007

October 3rd, 2004, 08:25 AM

Article on Dobelle moving out of College Hill.

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/03/news/story3.html

LikaNui

October 3rd, 2004, 01:41 PM

Article on Dobelle moving out of College Hill.

Or, "Article on Dobelle NOT moving out of College Hill."
:D

Miulang

October 14th, 2004, 11:32 AM

LikaNui

October 15th, 2004, 09:12 AM

I see that Dobelle has finally moved out of the President's house, and reporters were invited to tour the house and the grounds. Looks like the UH may have to resort to eBay to try to recoup some of the lavish costs Dobelle rang up during his reign:

Here: http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/14/news/index5.html

Miulang

YIKES! Part of it reads:
"The over-budget renovation of College Hill in 2001 and Dobelle's unfulfilled promise to raise $1 million to reimburse the state for the cost of project were factors in Dobelle's dismissal from the university this summer.
"The renovation of the century-old main house and an adjoining guest cottage was supposed to cost taxpayers about $328,000, but the bills shot up to about $1.2 million because of additional work, including about $147,000 to rebuild a historic greenhouse that is now too hot to grow plants in and $180,000 for landscape lighting that was later removed from the driveway."
:mad:

Miulang

October 16th, 2004, 07:46 AM

ka-ching! and the money meter just keeps on ticking...add almost $90,000 to the bill for a PR firm hired by the UH to handle the publicity surrounding this sorry incident. :eek:

Miulang

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/16/news/story7.html

LikaNui

October 16th, 2004, 11:12 AM

ka-ching! and the money meter just keeps on ticking...add almost $90,000 to the bill for a PR firm hired by the UH to handle the publicity surrounding this sorry incident. :eek:

In the world of big business that's chump change. And make no mistake about it, UH is big business.

Miulang

October 16th, 2004, 11:17 AM

In the world of big business that's chump change. And make no mistake about it, UH is big business.
Of course it's big business, Lika. But did you notice the comment in the newsstory about the rates that the PR firm charged was higher than what local PR firms would have charged the UH?

Miulang

kimo55

October 16th, 2004, 02:23 PM

In the world of big business that's chump change. And make no mistake about it, UH is big business.

I will never see how the term 'chump change' can be applied to a sum anywhere near 90k.

No. 90 thousand dollars is and never will be a small amount of money that only a stupid person would accept. Which is what you are calling it.

invoking that colloquialism sounds like some lawyer's defense. as if it' is ok to steal or waste a 'relatively' small amount.

Nope. doesn't wash. not in my book.

LikaNui

October 18th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Of course it's big business, Lika. But did you notice the comment in the newsstory about the rates that the PR firm charged was higher than what local PR firms would have charged the UH?

First, the PR firm in question is a local firm!
And I know of one-man PR firms that charge $100 to $200 per hour (as noted in that same article), so hiring a top local professional at $275 is really not out of line.

LikaNui

October 18th, 2004, 12:03 PM

I will never see how the term 'chump change' can be applied to a sum anywhere near 90k.
No. 90 thousand dollars is and never will be a small amount of money that only a stupid person would accept. Which is what you are calling it.
invoking that colloquialism sounds like some lawyer's defense. as if it' is ok to steal or waste a 'relatively' small amount.
Nope. doesn't wash. not in my book.

Well, it's okay for different people to read different "books".
:)
But look at some of the major corporations who do things that cause them to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, per day in fines, but that doesn't matter to them because the profits are so huge.
And I remember being around a couple of gentlemen the day after that big stock market crash in, um, 1987, or 1989. One of the guys had lost $17 million of personal net worth, and the other had gained over $30 million. And they were laughing about it like it was, well, chump change.
:eek:
To corporations and people like that, $90,000 is chump change.
It's all relative.

Miulang

October 18th, 2004, 12:29 PM

Well, it's okay for different people to read different "books".
:)
But look at some of the major corporations who do things that cause them to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, per day in fines, but that doesn't matter to them because the profits are so huge.
And I remember being around a couple of gentlemen the day after that big stock market crash in, um, 1987, or 1989. One of the guys had lost $17 million of personal net worth, and the other had gained over $30 million. And they were laughing about it like it was, well, chump change.
:eek:
To corporations and people like that, $90,000 is chump change.
It's all relative.
True, but you would think that an institution of higher learning would get back to the business of teaching and stay out of the business of well, big business. Just like with certain college athletic departments...geez...their annual budgets probably exceed the GNP of some developing countries! :eek:

There used to be a time when academia was deemed to be a higher calling than "regular" business. Lord knows the profs, for all the money they had to spend getting their PhDs, certainly aren't commanding the kinds of salaries they could in private industry. Now it's all about the economics of education and not the quality of the education. So sad. :(

Miulang

LikaNui

October 18th, 2004, 01:40 PM

>> True, but you would think that an institution of higher learning would get back to the business of teaching and stay out of the business of well, big business. <<

True, Miulang, but what is UH's total annual operating budget? How much fundraising and legal/political battling does it take to run UH? Unfortunately, idealism loses to the fact that higher education simply has to be 'big business'.
:(

kimo55

October 18th, 2004, 04:31 PM

To corporations and people like that, $90,000 is chump change. It's all relative.
Lissen, Chump!

UH is NOT "big business"
they are wasting OUR money. Which does NOT make it relative .
nor does it make it chump change.

there is NEVER an excuse for waste in the educational system. I remember being around a couple of gentlemen the day after that big stock market One of the guys had lost $17 million of personal net worth, and the other had gained over $30 million. And they were laughing about it like it was, well, chump change.
This is in no way corollary to our university, its economic situation or it's fiduciary responsibility.

It boggles the mind how you can even begin to equate the two;
The University of Hawaii and its responsibility to the local populace and its role in the educational mileau.

and an in-duh-vidual you happened to meet who has more money than sense.
Well, it's okay for different people to read different "books".
duuuuh.

that sentence has absolutely no meaning.

LikaNui

October 19th, 2004, 08:33 AM

Lissen, Chump!
UH is NOT "big business"

And I think it is, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, Kimo, and move on from here.
(By the way, calling someone a chump doesn't do much to help your cause or to prove your point. Something to think about, perhaps.)

kimo55

October 19th, 2004, 08:58 AM

calling someone a chump doesn't do much to help your cause or to prove your point. Something to think about, perhaps

the word seemed to have no meaning, as employed by you... sooo....

LikaNui

October 19th, 2004, 12:16 PM

the word seemed to have no meaning, as employed by you... sooo....

:rolleyes:

Miulang

October 23rd, 2004, 02:19 PM

Well, it was as I said earlier, academia protects its own...so Dobelle is saying "Aloha" and moving to Boston to be the President of the New England Board of Higher Education next month. So much for the State of Hawai'i "punishing" him for malfeasence, eh? Just say good riddance to bad rubbish??? And the State of Hawai'i and the UH is left holding the bag, having to pay him and their PR company off... :rolleyes:

Miulang

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/23/news/index1.html

BKHale2007

December 1st, 2004, 03:41 PM

Dobelle update in the Nov. 26 entry of Ilind.net.

pzarquon

May 11th, 2005, 08:19 AM

Dobelle behind on $125,000 homework (http://starbulletin.com/2005/05/11/news/story5.html)
Craig Gima, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Nearly nine months into his $125,000-a-year faculty research job, former University of Hawaii President Evan Dobelle has submitted a page and a half outline of what he plans to do... Dobelle's lawyer, Rick Fried, said Dobelle is "diligent and hard working," and will complete the project and turn it in to the university. "Evan is working on it. We've talked about it and I'm certain materials will be coming in on a fairly regular basis," Fried said.

But Board of Regents Chairwoman Patricia Lee said the regents are not satisfied with what has been turned in so far. "It was our understanding that this is a real research project, not a sham," Lee said.Funny. It was my understanding that it was a sham, and not a real research project.

I wonder how the New England Board of Higher Education feels about their new boss facing an "I" for incomplete? :D