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

[lfalen]

The UI is being illegal in not taking minutes and making them available to the public. The UI regularly refuses to supply information under the FOI law. They till you to take it to the District Court, knowing that most people do not have the money to do that. This is why I have tried(with no success) to get enforcement moved to the attorney General.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:53:51 -0700
To: "'Art Deco'" deco at moscow.com,  "'Vision 2020'" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it is appalling

> Hi Wayne,
> 
>  
> 
> I agree that Mues isn't the only culprit, but I'm more familiar with his
> mindset than I am with that of others since I've actually spoken to Mues in
> person.  I provided him with information straight from the UI about the
> steep decrease in UI payments for retiree health costs.  His response was
> that the info we'd received "had" to be wrong and that he'd check into it
> and provide us with the "correct" information.  Almost a year later, I'm
> still waiting.  The only conclusion I can draw from that is the data
> received directly from the UI was, in fact, accurate, and the UI's claim
> about retiree health care costs being responsible for the shockingly
> escalating employee premiums (particularly for employees with families) for
> reduced coverage was a load of crapola.
> 
>  
> 
> During the same meeting, Mues also informed me that he was responsible for
> telling the BAG (Benefits Advisory Group) not to take meeting minutes - he
> stated minutes had been kept prior to his tenure.  This was during the same
> time the UI was trying to extort $100 from me (at $25/hour) to "locate" what
> were non-existent records and another $50 (1000 pages at $0.05 per page) to
> copy those same non-existent records.
> 
>  
> 
> I will add, however, that Rose Huskey & I attempted to bring our concerns to
> Dr. Nellis' attention shortly after he arrived.  Clearly, he was
> uninterested in Mues' history of thwarting transparency and accountability
> then, and he is apparently uninterested now.
> 
>  
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know why over the past few years the UI has
> accumulated quite the record of contracting with non-local right wing whack
> jobs that always wind up soaking the UI, UI employees, and the taxpayers for
> far more than expected rather than with local entities (i.e., MPD) and
> companies (i.e., Regence BSI) where there might be some genuine
> accountability and interest in providing quality service for a fair cost.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Saundra Lund
> 
> Moscow, ID
> 
>  
> 
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> 
> ~ Edmund Burke
> 
>  
> 
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through life plus
> 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> author.*****
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Art Deco
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 10:18 AM
> To: Vision 2020
> Cc: lrozen at dnews.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens
> whofund it is appalling
> 
>  
> 
> I agree that the whole process that evolved here was/is inappropriate for a
> public institution for which transparency, fiscal responsibility, and
> accountability is more than just a reasonable expectation.  
> 
>  
> 
> The process was wrong and it has led to an decision that is clearly wrong
> for a number of reasons.
> 
>  
> 
> However, Mues is not the only culprit.
> 
>  
> 
> Based on materials and other information made available to me, I agree that
> Mues is severely under qualified for the position which he now occupies.
> Not only that but it appears that his original hire was prompted more by
> some external pressures than by his qualifications, meager as they are;  it
> seems that elevating him to and establishing him in his present position was
> former UI President White's way of giving a final finger to the UI on his
> way out.
> 
>  
> 
> However, the total fault doesn't not rest alone with Mues.
> 
>  
> 
> Where is present UI's president's oversight?  Did he not understand the
> financial, community relations/economy, and efficacy of the results of this
> decision?  How could this proposal even get to the SBOE in the first place?
> 
>  
> 
> And to the SBOE:  If you do not want to take the time and effort to
> scrutinize decisions very carefully, the get the hell off the board and let
> some more conscientious take your place.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID  83843
> 
>  
> 
> waf at moscow.com
> 208 882-7975
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Saundra Lund <mailto:v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm>  
> 
> 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
> =======================================================
> 
> 
>