Presidential Rumors are swirling

[Gatorhater]

Literally unless Carlos slim is donating $1B here, I'm not seeing why we'd choose Fenk over Stravidis. It must be that the BOT wants to hire someone with a medical background so that the Hospital can improve, and start making some money.

The Hospital, right now, is probably the most important thing for the school. If that starts making a lot of money, it puts the school in a really good position.

It already makes a lot of money. It is actually the schools biggest revenue stream. That's coming from the CFO himself.

Lot of medicare changes already on the books for 2017-- after Obama is gone so he can blame someone else for them. Donna GROSSLY overpaid for the hospital acquisition and the ROR will never be good. Any medicare cuts will hurt badly because the debt makes margins thin. Revenue increases have come at the expense of raiding city's hospital for medicare patients by UHealth doctors. You are right about the hospital being important. It is the anchor around the schools neck and is likely to sink The U. I have been doing M&A for almost 40 years. It is very hard to recover from overpaying badly on business like hospitals, pharma maybe but not hospital. Next scandal at THE U will no be a ncaa type but rather a FBI medicare fraud type at UHEALTH. That one will be Donna's fault too.

Does anyone know for sure if Donna is leaving Miami voluntarily or is she being pushed out because of the Med School fiasco? Haven't followed this situation with U Health that closely and am wondering if it's bad enough to bankrupt and shutter the university altogether if something isn't done quickly.

As for Dr Frenk, it's worth noting he is not just close with Carlos Slim. He is also involved with the Bill and Melinda Gate$ Foundation. More big money that might bail out the school if he's the President.

Lets just say if they're heavily reliant on Medicaid (not Medicare) patients then I wouldn't be surprised if she fcked something up big time

Lots of incentives for fraud when you have to make up for the low reimbursement rates.

No question about that, medicaid ratio can bad. Greed, making numbers look better than they are, and covering debt service can also be healthy incentives. The administration has shown they will break a few laws, I mean, eggs to get the money they want. Donna clearly has shown making money from crooks is close to her heart-- heck it is even a good photo op. I hope I am wrong because somehow someway, the football program will get blamed for it.

 

[Gatorhater]

Literally unless Carlos slim is donating $1B here, I'm not seeing why we'd choose Fenk over Stravidis. It must be that the BOT wants to hire someone with a medical background so that the Hospital can improve, and start making some money.

The Hospital, right now, is probably the most important thing for the school. If that starts making a lot of money, it puts the school in a really good position.

It already makes a lot of money. It is actually the schools biggest revenue stream. That's coming from the CFO himself.

Lot of medicare changes already on the books for 2017-- after Obama is gone so he can blame someone else for them. Donna GROSSLY overpaid for the hospital acquisition and the ROR will never be good. Any medicare cuts will hurt badly because the debt makes margins thin. Revenue increases have come at the expense of raiding city's hospital for medicare patients by UHealth doctors. You are right about the hospital being important. It is the anchor around the schools neck and is likely to sink The U. I have been doing M&A for almost 40 years. It is very hard to recover from overpaying badly on business like hospitals, pharma maybe but not hospital. Next scandal at THE U will no be a ncaa type but rather a FBI medicare fraud type at UHEALTH. That one will be Donna's fault too.

Oh woah. I am by no means in favor of it. I was just saying it's not in the red like some people think and actually makes money. But, yes I agree. Where do you do M&A? Love that stuff.

Started in "70's on The Street with banks. Last 10 years for huge IT company that swallows smaller ones. Truth is it is nasty business since the net,net is people losing jobs.

 

[wherrera8]

Literally unless Carlos slim is donating $1B here, I'm not seeing why we'd choose Fenk over Stravidis. It must be that the BOT wants to hire someone with a medical background so that the Hospital can improve, and start making some money.

The Hospital, right now, is probably the most important thing for the school. If that starts making a lot of money, it puts the school in a really good position.

It already makes a lot of money. It is actually the schools biggest revenue stream. That's coming from the CFO himself.

Lot of medicare changes already on the books for 2017-- after Obama is gone so he can blame someone else for them. Donna GROSSLY overpaid for the hospital acquisition and the ROR will never be good. Any medicare cuts will hurt badly because the debt makes margins thin. Revenue increases have come at the expense of raiding city's hospital for medicare patients by UHealth doctors. You are right about the hospital being important. It is the anchor around the schools neck and is likely to sink The U. I have been doing M&A for almost 40 years. It is very hard to recover from overpaying badly on business like hospitals, pharma maybe but not hospital. Next scandal at THE U will no be a ncaa type but rather a FBI medicare fraud type at UHEALTH. That one will be Donna's fault too.

Oh woah. I am by no means in favor of it. I was just saying it's not in the red like some people think and actually makes money. But, yes I agree. Where do you do M&A? Love that stuff.

Started in "70's on The Street with banks. Last 10 years for huge IT company that swallows smaller ones. Truth is it is nasty business since the net,net is people losing jobs.

I'm studying Accounting and Finance so I like that stuff. I'm sure you have some ugly stories though.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

It already makes a lot of money. It is actually the schools biggest revenue stream. That's coming from the CFO himself.

Lot of medicare changes already on the books for 2017-- after Obama is gone so he can blame someone else for them. Donna GROSSLY overpaid for the hospital acquisition and the ROR will never be good. Any medicare cuts will hurt badly because the debt makes margins thin. Revenue increases have come at the expense of raiding city's hospital for medicare patients by UHealth doctors. You are right about the hospital being important. It is the anchor around the schools neck and is likely to sink The U. I have been doing M&A for almost 40 years. It is very hard to recover from overpaying badly on business like hospitals, pharma maybe but not hospital. Next scandal at THE U will no be a ncaa type but rather a FBI medicare fraud type at UHEALTH. That one will be Donna's fault too.

Does anyone know for sure if Donna is leaving Miami voluntarily or is she being pushed out because of the Med School fiasco? Haven't followed this situation with U Health that closely and am wondering if it's bad enough to bankrupt and shutter the university altogether if something isn't done quickly.

As for Dr Frenk, it's worth noting he is not just close with Carlos Slim. He is also involved with the Bill and Melinda Gate$ Foundation. More big money that might bail out the school if he's the President.

Lets just say if they're heavily reliant on Medicaid (not Medicare) patients then I wouldn't be surprised if she fcked something up big time

Lots of incentives for fraud when you have to make up for the low reimbursement rates.

No question about that, medicaid ratio can bad. Greed, making numbers look better than they are, and covering debt service can also be healthy incentives. The administration has shown they will break a few laws, I mean, eggs to get the money they want. Donna clearly has shown making money from crooks is close to her heart-- heck it is even a good photo op. I hope I am wrong because somehow someway, the football program will get blamed for it.

So the insinuation is that Donna knew Shapiro was a crook and took the money anyway. And further, that she is likely responsible for fraudulent activities at the med school.

:11263308176_542fcfb

Amazing what people will convince themselves of when the football team doesn't win enough.

 

[De Pinga]

Lot of medicare changes already on the books for 2017-- after Obama is gone so he can blame someone else for them. Donna GROSSLY overpaid for the hospital acquisition and the ROR will never be good. Any medicare cuts will hurt badly because the debt makes margins thin. Revenue increases have come at the expense of raiding city's hospital for medicare patients by UHealth doctors. You are right about the hospital being important. It is the anchor around the schools neck and is likely to sink The U. I have been doing M&A for almost 40 years. It is very hard to recover from overpaying badly on business like hospitals, pharma maybe but not hospital. Next scandal at THE U will no be a ncaa type but rather a FBI medicare fraud type at UHEALTH. That one will be Donna's fault too.

Does anyone know for sure if Donna is leaving Miami voluntarily or is she being pushed out because of the Med School fiasco? Haven't followed this situation with U Health that closely and am wondering if it's bad enough to bankrupt and shutter the university altogether if something isn't done quickly.

As for Dr Frenk, it's worth noting he is not just close with Carlos Slim. He is also involved with the Bill and Melinda Gate$ Foundation. More big money that might bail out the school if he's the President.

Lets just say if they're heavily reliant on Medicaid (not Medicare) patients then I wouldn't be surprised if she fcked something up big time

Lots of incentives for fraud when you have to make up for the low reimbursement rates.

No question about that, medicaid ratio can bad. Greed, making numbers look better than they are, and covering debt service can also be healthy incentives. The administration has shown they will break a few laws, I mean, eggs to get the money they want. Donna clearly has shown making money from crooks is close to her heart-- heck it is even a good photo op. I hope I am wrong because somehow someway, the football program will get blamed for it.

So the insinuation is that Donna knew Shapiro was a crook and took the money anyway. And further, that she is likely responsible for fraudulent activities at the med school.

:11263308176_542fcfb

Amazing what people will convince themselves of when the football team doesn't win enough.

There was an anonymous survey done of all university employees and if I'm not mistaken, she was deemed be very incompetent with those that she hires. So yes

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Does anyone know for sure if Donna is leaving Miami voluntarily or is she being pushed out because of the Med School fiasco? Haven't followed this situation with U Health that closely and am wondering if it's bad enough to bankrupt and shutter the university altogether if something isn't done quickly.

As for Dr Frenk, it's worth noting he is not just close with Carlos Slim. He is also involved with the Bill and Melinda Gate$ Foundation. More big money that might bail out the school if he's the President.

Lets just say if they're heavily reliant on Medicaid (not Medicare) patients then I wouldn't be surprised if she fcked something up big time

Lots of incentives for fraud when you have to make up for the low reimbursement rates.

No question about that, medicaid ratio can bad. Greed, making numbers look better than they are, and covering debt service can also be healthy incentives. The administration has shown they will break a few laws, I mean, eggs to get the money they want. Donna clearly has shown making money from crooks is close to her heart-- heck it is even a good photo op. I hope I am wrong because somehow someway, the football program will get blamed for it.

So the insinuation is that Donna knew Shapiro was a crook and took the money anyway. And further, that she is likely responsible for fraudulent activities at the med school.

:11263308176_542fcfb

Amazing what people will convince themselves of when the football team doesn't win enough.

There was an anonymous survey done of all university employees and if I'm not mistaken, she was deemed be very incompetent with those that she hires. So yes

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

 

[SFbayCane]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof. Seems like folks here "have heard" of its existence, but no one's actually seen it. Kinda suspicious, wouldn't you say?

 

[Tad Footeball]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

Bottom line...UM's legal staff vetted his books and found nothing wrong. That is due diligence right there.

Taking donations from the guy has nothing to do with whether or not he would get the football team in trouble with the NCAA. Now, you can potentially say that she (or rather, the athletic department) should have put some qualifiers on his donations--eg, limited his contact with the football staff and team. But she/they simply gave him the same access any booster would get, so it's stupid to act as though she should have turned the guy down flat just because he was a jock-sniffer who liked to party with players.

 

[Tad Footeball]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

Bottom line...UM's legal staff vetted his books and found nothing wrong. That is due diligence right there.

Taking donations from the guy has nothing to do with whether or not he would get the football team in trouble with the NCAA. Now, you can potentially say that she should have put some qualifiers on his donations--eg, limited his contact with the football staff and team--but you can't act as though she should have turned the guy down flat just because he was a jock-sniffer who liked to party with players.

I'm actually very comfortable in turning down anyone's donation if they want to party with players. Everything else shady about the midget should have been icing on the get lost cake.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

Bottom line...UM's legal staff vetted his books and found nothing wrong. That is due diligence right there.

Taking donations from the guy has nothing to do with whether or not he would get the football team in trouble with the NCAA. Now, you can potentially say that she should have put some qualifiers on his donations--eg, limited his contact with the football staff and team--but you can't act as though she should have turned the guy down flat just because he was a jock-sniffer who liked to party with players.

I'm actually very comfortable in turning down anyone's donation if they want to party with players. Everything else shady about the midget should have been icing on the get lost cake.

You're obviously not a university president nor are you in the business of soliciting and securing donations...so what you're "comfortable with," particularly with the gift of hindsight, is of little importance. And your obvious hatred of Shalala overshadows any rational thought.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

Didn't Shalala's buddy Barry Alvarez lose millions investing in Shapiros Ponzi scheme?

Shalala didn't skip her due diligence. She actually knew and trusted the guy.

 

[Tad Footeball]

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

Bottom line...UM's legal staff vetted his books and found nothing wrong. That is due diligence right there.

Taking donations from the guy has nothing to do with whether or not he would get the football team in trouble with the NCAA. Now, you can potentially say that she should have put some qualifiers on his donations--eg, limited his contact with the football staff and team--but you can't act as though she should have turned the guy down flat just because he was a jock-sniffer who liked to party with players.

I'm actually very comfortable in turning down anyone's donation if they want to party with players. Everything else shady about the midget should have been icing on the get lost cake.

You're obviously not a university president nor are you in the business of soliciting and securing donations...so what you're "comfortable with," particularly with the gift of hindsight, is of little importance. And your obvious hatred of Shalala overshadows any rational thought.

You're obviously "Ready for Hillary!".

If you're comfortable with the vetting process that Shalala presided over then you're obviously devoid of any rational thought disirregardless of political allegiances.

 

[SFbayCane]

CaneInHeelCountry,
For the record, I could not care any less about donna's involvement with nevin shapiro, aside from the ability to tie her to nevin in an effort to discredit her as a human being and force her removal from the presidency of UM. Her actual level of knowledge or involvement is meaningless to me.

What I do care about is that our football program was on top of the college football world when donna came to town. Due in large part to her actions, the football program has suffered greatly during her reign of evil over UM. More to the point, she was not willing to take the steps necessary to fix the program. This goes back to her inability to hire anyone with upward mobility. She surrounded herself with nothing but "yes men." Over time, we've seen the result of it. After she is gone the stories WILL surface. Then everyone will know the full story of what it was like to have her as president of UM.

 

[NVA CANE]

Anyone with the inside scoop on who is most likely to get the job.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

CaneInHeelCountry,
For the record, I could not care any less about donna's involvement with nevin shapiro, aside from the ability to tie her to nevin in an effort to discredit her as a human being and force her removal from the presidency of UM. Her actual level of knowledge or involvement is meaningless to me.

What I do care about is that our football program was on top of the college football world when donna came to town. Due in large part to her actions, the football program has suffered greatly during her reign of evil over UM. More to the point, she was not willing to take the steps necessary to fix the program. This goes back to her inability to hire anyone with upward mobility. She surrounded herself with nothing but "yes men." Over time, we've seen the result of it. After she is gone the stories WILL surface. Then everyone will know the full story of what it was like to have her as president of UM.

That's all well and good...and it has nothing to do with my posts in this thread. I get that people are rightfully angry at her for not taking steps to fire Golden and right the ship. I get that people hate her because UM football has sucked since she's been prez. I don't get why that translates into people baselessly (and apparently in all seriousness, not jokingly) accusing her of criminal dealings with Shapiro and fraud at the med school.

FTR, I don't agree that her hires have all been "yes men." We've had one AD split to Nebraska and another head to Texas Tech, so obviously they either A) weren't very good yes men and/or B) were highly sought after and given more money elsewhere. The third and current AD is a guy with history at UM who many expected to become AD eventually anyway. I can't speak for the hires that she's made in other areas of university admin, but I think it's a real reach based on athletic hires to make the claims you've made.

 

[MIA42178]

Patience

 

[ImpTheDimp]

No inside info-just a hunch. My gut says Stavridis. Not because of football but because of his national/international profile and his background as law school dean. I think that he has been the presumptive front runner and the University needed to get another name out there that would add some prestige to the search and give people/media something to talk about; and a Dean at Harvard does that. Stavridis allows the University to help elevate the law school's profile with someone who has international connections that will also help with the medical school. I have seen him speak and he is a well known, well respected entity who also happens to be from SoFl. With that said, I could understand why Frenk would be in the running too.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

First off, incompetence in hiring does not equate to criminality and fraudulent behavior.

Second, I'm going to call BS on some anonymous university-wide survey in which Shalala was deemed "very incompetent." I don't doubt that some people have beef with her, but I definitely doubt that the survey results in general were overly negative.

What if it wasnt incompetence but rather a political desire to surround herself with people who would never question her? And in doing so, she hired people who were not capable of managing the departments they were hired to run. Does that amount to fraudulent behavior? Criminal behavior?


As for what your doubt, go ahead and post that. Ive seen you "question" that survey in multiple threads on multiple boards. My guess is that you know more than you're saying or perhaps you're simply incapable of believing the truth. Feel free to clarify, if you'd like.

This board is full of "what if's" and short on actual facts.

A lot of folks here hate Shalala because of the poor performance of the football team. Some hate her because she's a liberal. Combine those two things and it's easy to see why many folks here love to accuse her of everything under the sun.

From where I'm sitting, it seems to be clear that Shalala did not know that Shapiro was a crook when she took his cash. I say "it seems clear" because UM's legal staff had checked his books and found nothing wrong--the same books that FBI itself had been keeping tabs on for years without successfully uncovering his crimes. So I find it difficult to believe that Shalala knew more than the FBI and UM's legal staff, that she could somehow intuit that Shapiro was a crook and therefore should not have taken his money.

Given that starting point--that is, the unfounded and unreasonable allegation that she knowingly took ill-gotten money--it seems like anyone who would parrot that line would have it out for Shalala and would be just as likely to spout other unfounded allegations of dirty deeds about her out of spite. Like, for instance, that she is responsible for fraud at the Med School.

FWIW, you haven't seen me "question" that survey in multiple threads because this is the first I've heard of its supposed existence. It strikes me as just another BS story without proof.

You keep making the FBI comparison but it's apples and oranges. There's a difference between being able to charge someone with a crime and doing due diligence as the head of an entity that's public perception is invaluable and realizing that a person is unsavory at best. Freaking Randy Shannon saw this. Donna and anyone that she presides over were just lazy. They wouldn't have taken the same legal money from a strip club owner or such so the bar and her responsibility to vet isn't as simple as determining actual criminality of the donor. It's insane to think she knew Shapiro was engaged in a Ponzi scheme but anyone taking real interest in who the guy was would have realized there was wayyyy more risk than reward in taking his money and allowing him access.

Exactly. You've got your head football coach publicly telling his players to STAY AWAY from the guy and your university president is accepting tens of thousands of dollars from him and granting him access to the very players their coach is trying to keep away from. SMGDH. And here you've got Capt. Save-a-troll riding in on his white horse to defend the indefensible. Because she's a leftist academic.