Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

[Krash Kolohe]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

TalkStink.com: 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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

Lee Cataluna's column (temporary link here) sums it up pretty well. This isn't about Dobelle's performance, it's about the regents' appalling mishandling of this mess.

[LikaNui]

Re: Evan Dobelle settlement

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.

[Jazzaloha]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

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

[LikaNui]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair "firing" ?

>> 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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; !

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.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; ?

David Shapiro 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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; ?

The Meaning of the Dobelle Incident

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; ?

Here's a link to the Bob Rees column 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"? 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.

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]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; ?

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.

[BKHale2007]

Re: Evan Dobelle: Fair &quot;firing&quot; ?

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?