03-06-2013, 02:45 PM
Pages: 1 2
03-06-2013, 03:19 PM
Rough answer to the last question, but I guess it's an attempt to play his subsidiary role. The Trustees are not in the best interests of all three campuses, and some probably aren't even aware of UAH.
03-06-2013, 03:28 PM
(03-06-2013 03:19 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]Rough answer to the last question, but I guess it's an attempt to play his subsidiary role. The Trustees are not in the best interests of all three campuses, and some probably aren't even aware of UAH.
He gave the required answer. If he told the truth there, he would be fired shortly.
03-06-2013, 03:29 PM
What else can he say without getting the Queen Anne treatment? He's got to work within the borders, choose his fights wisely, try to direct and spin things in such a way that he gets what is best for UAB. Hacking off the BoT so that they reflexively throw roadblocks in front of what he wants to accomplish only makes things harder.
if nothing else, he needs time to get established, to gather allies and support, to cement his place before he rocks the boat too much.
if nothing else, he needs time to get established, to gather allies and support, to cement his place before he rocks the boat too much.
03-06-2013, 04:08 PM
If the UA BOT truly cared about all three universities, they would be composed of equal representation from all three universities. The Board is dominated by UA representation, and they have shown no inkling of wanting equal or even reasonable representation. President Watts has to play by the rules set forth by a Board that does not play fair - in anything!
03-06-2013, 04:52 PM
(03-06-2013 03:28 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ](03-06-2013 03:19 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]Rough answer to the last question, but I guess it's an attempt to play his subsidiary role. The Trustees are not in the best interests of all three campuses, and some probably aren't even aware of UAH.
He gave the required answer. If he told the truth there, he would be fired shortly.
I would call it the politically correct answer for the above mentioned reasons. I believe establishing separate BoTs would require state legislation anyways.
03-06-2013, 05:21 PM
(03-06-2013 04:52 PM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ](03-06-2013 03:28 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ](03-06-2013 03:19 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]Rough answer to the last question, but I guess it's an attempt to play his subsidiary role. The Trustees are not in the best interests of all three campuses, and some probably aren't even aware of UAH.
He gave the required answer. If he told the truth there, he would be fired shortly.
I would call it the politically correct answer for the above mentioned reasons. I believe establishing separate BoTs would require state legislation anyways.
Establishing a separate BoT would require an act of God.
03-06-2013, 05:29 PM
Read how the "supermajority" in the state legislature secretly passed the amendment to the "School Accountability Law" last week and you will see how the UA BOT does things. They are both operating in the "Alabama Way" of doing business in their sphere.
03-06-2013, 05:34 PM
At least Robert Bentley seems to be acting a bit more friendly to UAB. He showed up at the Medical Alumni event last month.
And tides are turning-- more and more people (administration) are calling the med-school UABSOM rather than UASOM.
And tides are turning-- more and more people (administration) are calling the med-school UABSOM rather than UASOM.
03-07-2013, 09:00 AM
(03-06-2013 05:29 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Read how the "supermajority" in the state legislature secretly passed the amendment to the "School Accountability Law" last week and you will see how the UA BOT does things. They are both operating in the "Alabama Way" of doing business in their sphere.
Weren't they acting in violation of the "Open Meeting Law?"
03-07-2013, 10:22 AM
(03-07-2013 09:00 AM)The200sx Wrote: [ -> ]Probably but do you think the 9 republician sumpreme court will rule against the super majority.(03-06-2013 05:29 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Read how the "supermajority" in the state legislature secretly passed the amendment to the "School Accountability Law" last week and you will see how the UA BOT does things. They are both operating in the "Alabama Way" of doing business in their sphere.
Weren't they acting in violation of the "Open Meeting Law?"
The interesting ruling will be if they over turn the Temporary restraining order of the local judge. A TRO should never be overturned - they would be pure politics. This is different from final order of the judge which they will easily justify handling for the legislature.
03-07-2013, 10:36 AM
The democrats got their panties in a wad because the republicans played their game.
This judge is in the back pocket of the AEA and the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court will over turn the ruling.
What is really surprising is that Bentley was backed by the AEA when he was running & now it appears Bentley is turning his back on them.
This judge is in the back pocket of the AEA and the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court will over turn the ruling.
What is really surprising is that Bentley was backed by the AEA when he was running & now it appears Bentley is turning his back on them.
03-07-2013, 10:53 AM
Yes, yeehaw for the little R. That makes it all better. Those damned little letters have become the shields of corruption.
The state legislature wrote in some pretty hefty exemptions to the Open Meetings Act for themselves the last time it was overhauled. Unlike the Trustees they actually may not have violated it, but like the Trustees they would not care if they had nor would they suffer any consequences. It is, indeed, another example of the Alabama Way.
We've talked here a lot about how we could never separate from the shithole of Tuscaloosa without losing the med center, but I don't think that's the real issue. It would open the question of the ownership and oversight of the huge tracts of land still held by the System dating back to the 19th Century, which now provide massive graft to the cabal via coal mining rights. That last new trustee wasn't picked solely for his UAT ties - he's another shipping magnate involved in the coal trade. Putting, say, half-a-dozen UAB graduates on the Board means at least a couple of them will be active, unlike the sloth of our current "work behind the scenes" pair (yes Andi, I know you read this board and I just called you a lazy, sleepy mammal failing to uphold her sworn oath). That opens the chance that one of them will ask inconvenient coal-related questions. That cannot be allowed to happen. This is a century-old gravy train that will be protected at all costs.
The state legislature wrote in some pretty hefty exemptions to the Open Meetings Act for themselves the last time it was overhauled. Unlike the Trustees they actually may not have violated it, but like the Trustees they would not care if they had nor would they suffer any consequences. It is, indeed, another example of the Alabama Way.
We've talked here a lot about how we could never separate from the shithole of Tuscaloosa without losing the med center, but I don't think that's the real issue. It would open the question of the ownership and oversight of the huge tracts of land still held by the System dating back to the 19th Century, which now provide massive graft to the cabal via coal mining rights. That last new trustee wasn't picked solely for his UAT ties - he's another shipping magnate involved in the coal trade. Putting, say, half-a-dozen UAB graduates on the Board means at least a couple of them will be active, unlike the sloth of our current "work behind the scenes" pair (yes Andi, I know you read this board and I just called you a lazy, sleepy mammal failing to uphold her sworn oath). That opens the chance that one of them will ask inconvenient coal-related questions. That cannot be allowed to happen. This is a century-old gravy train that will be protected at all costs.
03-07-2013, 11:34 AM
'the_blazerman' wrote' wroteThis judge is in the back pocket of the AEA and the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court will over turn the ruling.
I agree nether the local judge nor the supreme court will rule on the merits. So I fully expect the republican supreme court will rule for the Rep. But the interesting thing will be whether they overturn the TRO before a real hearing which would break all the normal rules.
'the_blazerman' wrote
"What is really surprising is that Bentley was backed by the AEA when he was running & now it appears Bentley is turning his back on them."
Actually Bently like most republicans today is simply trying to avoid a tea party primary opponent by going to the right. No real primary opponent and he will not need the AEA $$$$
I agree nether the local judge nor the supreme court will rule on the merits. So I fully expect the republican supreme court will rule for the Rep. But the interesting thing will be whether they overturn the TRO before a real hearing which would break all the normal rules.
'the_blazerman' wrote
"What is really surprising is that Bentley was backed by the AEA when he was running & now it appears Bentley is turning his back on them."
Actually Bently like most republicans today is simply trying to avoid a tea party primary opponent by going to the right. No real primary opponent and he will not need the AEA $$$$
03-07-2013, 01:58 PM
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
03-07-2013, 02:08 PM
It will be interesting watching Alabama state government going forward. Since there is no longer any state level elected official who is a Democrat, whatever policies are put in place will be Republican policy. There won't be any way to blame any failures that follow on the Democrats screwing things up.
Not that I'm defending the idiot Dems in Birmingham City or Jefferson County government... any more than I defend the idiot Republicans in the same positions. Both are shining examples of lousy governance.
Not that I'm defending the idiot Dems in Birmingham City or Jefferson County government... any more than I defend the idiot Republicans in the same positions. Both are shining examples of lousy governance.
03-07-2013, 02:28 PM
Yeah, I'm a pretty libertarian guy, but I get a little antsy on the subject of states' rights, given that Alabama could tear up a BB with a rubber mallet.
03-07-2013, 02:33 PM
(03-07-2013 01:58 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
This has been my point in the past when I pointed out that "Conservative Democrats" of the 1960s are now "Conservative Republicans" in 2013. There is absolutely nothing changed but the party label. As the School Flexibility / Accountability Bill maneuvering proves AGAIN, the state legislature is still operating in the same self-serving ways as in the 1960s and 70s. Today, George Wallace would be running as a Republican and talking about "aborigines" as the new "term du jour" in Alabama. How many of the state's Republican leadership were shown at the Gordon Pettus Bridge commemoration in Selma this week? Probably the same number as system BOT members who will be present for UAB games in the C-USA Championship Tournament next week. How many fingers will be needed for both counts?
03-07-2013, 02:40 PM
Yeah, Republicans are the only problem.
03-07-2013, 03:19 PM
(03-07-2013 02:08 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]It will be interesting watching Alabama state government going forward. Since there is no longer any state level elected official who is a Democrat, whatever policies are put in place will be Republican policy. There won't be any way to blame any failures that follow on the Democrats screwing things up.
Not that I'm defending the idiot Dems in Birmingham City or Jefferson County government... any more than I defend the idiot Republicans in the same positions. Both are shining examples of lousy governance.
The best chance of unseating the republicans was when Democrats failed to give the nomination to Artur Davis... He would have been a great leader Alabama IMO (Yes I know he has switched to republican but I believe this was due to being ran off by rank and file democrats).
Pages: 1 2