[Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it is appalling

Wayne Price bear at moscow.com
Mon Aug 16 13:21:35 PDT 2010


Bill,

I agree that the paper has finally found some "testicular fortitude"  
in this matter.  I also wonder what "we", the taxpayers would have  
gotten  if say another 200k was in the Police Department contract?

IF that was even an option put out in the bidding process,  what would  
an equal number of reserve police officers, with "real" police powers  
vs "rent-a-witnesses" have added to the Police contract?
I'm thinking that the city was snookered during the bidding process,  
based on the "we need to put this out for bid and save money"  tune  
that the  university was singing at the time.

Yes, I was in favor of a separate "University Police Department", with  
real training and standards and police powers, and have no problem  
with the city getting the police contract, but I think both the  
citizens of Moscow
and the university community were done a disservice by what actually  
happened. So, for less money (the city contract) we get less real  
police services, and with the additional AlliedBarton contract, we get
"security guards" that have no authority ( the 300-400k contract),  
bringing the total to more than what it would have cost had the city  
been able to "bid" on what the University really wanted.

So, I'll throw this out to the entire Vision 2020 community, what has  
to be done to get some meaningful oversight?  Tom and Shirley, can you  
look into this debacle as our legislatures?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Bill London wrote:

> Saundra--
> I agree with you that the UI has blown it big time, but I would like  
> to point out one bit of good news in this mess.
>
> The Daily News editorial page -- and the entire paper actually --  
> has been mainlining testosterone.  The editorial you quote below is  
> a good example. This editorial has a gutsy, community perspective,  
> clearly stated.   With a new administrative team in place at the DN,  
> the paper is back.  And I am very glad to welcome them.......
>
> BL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Saundra Lund
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:52 AM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens  
> whofund it is appalling
>
> Many thanks to the friend who sent this to me!
>
> I think this editorial hits the nail squarely on the head:  Mues is  
> not only utterly unqualified for his position at the UI, he is also  
> fundamentally unsuited to work for a public institution where public  
> accountability & transparency are crucial.  This is just the most  
> recent in a string of sneaky decisions that track back to him where  
> those outside of the administration are kept in the dark before --  
> after decisions -- are made.  I can just see Mues sitting behind his  
> desk at the UI rubbing his hands together in glee at the coup of  
> keeping the whole AlliedBarton issue secret until it was too late  
> for anyone to have any effective input.
>
> I agree with the editorial that while this kind of crapola is  
> suitable at a private college, it is wholly inappropriate at a  
> public institution where even UI’s top administrators are  
> accountable to those who pay their salaries, and that would be we- 
> the-taxpayers.
>
> Further, there’s something grossly obscene about the UI’s decision  
> to pay a private security contractor nearly $400K during these tough  
> financial times where student fees were just jacked up 9.5%,  
> programs have been cut into the bone, severe understaffing of all  
> but the top level of administration is rampant, and all faculty &  
> staff but those making less than a living wage in Idaho – a paltry  
> $22,360 – were forced to take a very real pay cut in the form of  
> mandatory furloughs.
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The least I can do is speak out for those who cannot speak out for  
> themselves.
> ~ Jane Goodall
>
> -----------------------------------
> OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens who fund it is appalling
> Posted on: Monday, August 16, 2010
> We apparently are too stupid to consider properly how the University  
> of Idaho plans to spend our money.
> The university is trying to upgrade its security services, and it  
> turns out that is going to cost a lot more money, some $300,000  
> more, than it took last year when it was all handled by the Moscow  
> Police Department.
> What is the necessity for that upgrade? What dire risks are facing  
> our local institution of higher learning to require this substantial  
> increase in spending of public tax dollars. It must be pretty  
> important, considering the budget-cutting going on throughout  
> government, including our colleges and universities.
> When Daily News reporter Holly Bowen asked that question Tuesday,  
> before the increase had been approved, she was told the UI was "not  
> making anyone available." There would be no comment on this big  
> increase in state spending until after Thursday's meeting of the  
> Idaho State Board of Education where the proposal was to be  
> considered, approved and funded.
> After that meeting - where the proposal was indeed approved - Lloyd  
> Mues, UI vice president for finance and administration, explained  
> pompously and vacuously, "The absolute best thing we can do in a  
> process like this, as with any of them, is all of that negotiation  
> and all of that communication is pretty private."
> Gee, Mr. Mues, we thought the UI was pretty public, actually. There  
> are many pretty private colleges around here, but not the UI.
> But what about those serious security threats we have to pay  
> $300,000 a year to stop?
> Mues again: "Every now and then, someone will decide they want to  
> drive across the Administration Building lawn in a four-wheel  
> drive." He apparently was perfectly serious.
> So, will a heavily armed vehicular deterrence team be roaming campus?
> No, it turns out this expenditure will pay for one to three unarmed  
> security guards to roam campus on foot around the clock.
> It's no wonder the university didn't want the press or taxpayers  
> asking serious questions about this proposal before it was approved.
> - Lee Rozen, for the editorial board
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100816/46e6a9bf/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list