The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

It's my understanding that Urquhart started out as an undergraduate in Tuscaloosa where she met her husband. When he got accepted to med school at UAB, she transferred to UAB to be with him and finish her last year of school. Assuming this is accurate, you can connect the dots.

(02-09-2015 09:26 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 08:37 AM)Agent Orange Sauce Wrote:  After all, she should see the value of football at a university more than anyone. HER HUSBAND PLAYED FOOTBALL IN COLLEGE.

Her son played on the last UAB football team. Yet she has remained silent, giving approval to Bryant, Brooks, St. John et al.

Getting a Trustee - any Trustee - to break ranks and tell the truth would be huge. Their silence certainly looks like RICO to me, and I wonder how many of them are willing to do time for Junior.

Barbara Humphrey checks three (3) minority boxes on the BOT. Nothing more.

(02-09-2015 09:57 AM)zaxuab Wrote:  It's my understanding that Urquhart started out as an undergraduate in Tuscaloosa where she met her husband. When he got accepted to med school at UAB, she transferred to UAB to be with him and finish her last year of school. Assuming this is accurate, you can connect the dots.

The Urquhart's are an old Tuscaloosa family with long and deep ties to UA. There is a Mobile branch, but they were originally (1800's) a prominent Tuscaloosa/Greene County planter family.

(02-09-2015 09:50 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 09:28 AM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  Since the real power of the board rests in only a few hands, they don't have to corrupt entire BOT to get exactly what they want.

True, but as a wise woman once told me, "Sometimes 'duh' is the most powerful quote you can get."

Get them on the record saying they have no role on the Board and no idea what they're voting on, and you have SACS's intense interest and possibly further than that.

I'm afraid no self respecting Trustee would admit to that even if they believed it to be true, and they don't. That is the insidious nature of those who actually control the board. Board members understand that there are natural leaders on board, but that is true in any situation. They just don't know what is going on behind the scenes and I am not at all sure they want to know.

Let's take for instance the situation where Watts seems to have disbanded the clean air initiative which he founded and worked hard to develop in order to get the job of President of UAB. The Birmingham Business Alliance was probably dead set against that organization because a lot of their important member companies had a lots to lose. Finis St. John is big in the BBA and was probably sympathetic to their concerns, and he is a big Watts fan.

Noone knows what happened behind the scenes, but we can speculate. Perhaps Finis has a private talk with Watts. He might have said, hey buddy, I want to recommend you to the board for the UAB job, but friends of mine have a lot of trouble with that clean air thing you have going. Things would be a lot simpler for me if that organization just went away.

If St. John actually did that, and we have no evidence that he did, he is not going to broadcast to the rest of the board that he did something unethical. I even doubt that when Watts name was put into nomination that the other board members even knew anything about the clean air initiative or that Watt's disbanded it. All they probably knew at the time was that the leaders on the BOT were highly recommending Watts, so they voted for him.

Now this is all theoretical, but I suspect that many of shadier dealings of the board with regard to UAB were handled in just that manner, with known leaders on the board pulling strings behind the scenes without the other board members knowing about it.

Want proof, look at an incident which we know happened. Finis St. John called Brian Mackin and told him not to used a booster's donated money to put turf on the practice field. As it is since been pointed out, Finis is not on the Facility Committee and therefore had absolutely no right to put out that order, but Mackin immediately backed off without question. Why? There is only one explanation. If he didn't do exactly as St. John commanded, Finis would make sure Mackin regretted it.

Now, do you think that St. Johns told the other board members what he told Mackin. Heck no! He's not stupid. However, Mackin knew if he did not do exactly as he commanded, St John would use his leadership position on the board to do something far worse under the guise of doing "what is best for the the UA system and UAB as a whole".

I suspect that most members of the board are able to tell themselves that they are doing what is best for all concerned.

(02-09-2015 10:33 AM)PTBlazer Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 09:57 AM)zaxuab Wrote:  It's my understanding that Urquhart started out as an undergraduate in Tuscaloosa where she met her husband. When he got accepted to med school at UAB, she transferred to UAB to be with him and finish her last year of school. Assuming this is accurate, you can connect the dots.

The Urquhart's are an old Tuscaloosa family with long and deep ties to UA. There is a Mobile branch, but they were originally (1800's) a prominent Tuscaloosa/Greene County planter family.

And I am sure she is in Bryant's and St. John's back pocket.

Or front.

(02-09-2015 11:21 AM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  I suspect that most members of the board are able to tell themselves that they are doing what is best for all concerned.

That's probably true. But Barbara Humphrey is both the weakest link, and to my mind at least, by far the most reprehensible. Those were her SON's teammates she betrayed. That was the man who made her scholarship possible whose legacy she betrayed.

Finis et al are just acting according to their foul nature. They know nothing of loyalty or morality and act accordingly.

Barbara Humphrey was nourished by Gene Bartow, and her son by Bill Clark. And she helped stab them both in the back. There is a special Hell for people like her: Round Four of Dante's Ninth Circle, the circle of treachery.

& I would consider the same of Mackin. We don't have a program, what more would Mackin need to see in order to speak up & out over the events that occurred?

(02-09-2015 12:10 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  & I would consider the same of Mackin. We don't have a program, what more would Mackin need to see in order to speak up & out over the events that occurred?

I guess it's just that I've been acquainted with Mackin ("know" would be too strong a word) for decades and I didn't expect any better of him. I'm less angry than sad in his case.

(02-09-2015 11:21 AM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  [quote='58-56' pid='11749505' dateline='1423493407']
[quote='CajunBlazer' pid='11749453' dateline='1423492126']
Since the real power of the board rests in only a few hands, they don't have to corrupt entire BOT to get exactly what they want.

Want proof, look at an incident which we know happened. Finis St. John called Brian Mackin and told him not to used a booster's donated money to put turf on the practice field. As it is since been pointed out, Finis is not on the Facility Committee and therefore had absolutely no right to put out that order, but Mackin immediately backed off without question. Why? There is only one explanation. If he didn't do exactly as St. John commanded, Finis would make sure Mackin regretted it.

Now, do you think that St. Johns told the other board members what he told Mackin. Heck no! He's not stupid. However, Mackin knew if he did not do exactly as he commanded, St John would use his leadership position on the board to do something far worse under the guise of doing "what is best for the the UA system and UAB as a whole".
_______________________________________________________________________________

This reminds me of the time Al Lingo ran against Mel Bailey for Sheriff of Jeffco. Al Lingo had been the Public Safety Director under Gov. George Wallace when the State Troopers under his command took up position at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on what would become known as "Bloody Sunday". At a campaign speech, he stated that he had pleaded to be allowed to back off his Troopers and allow the march to proceed. He stated that he was ordered by "his superior" to hold the line and to attack the marchers.

The next day (I presume after a late night phone call), he denied that the order had come from the Governor (his ONLY Constitutional "superior") but from some faceless appointed staff member - who had no Constitutional authority over him - but nonetheless he did as he was ordered. The fact that St John was not on that particular committee does not mean he lacked the necessary authority to do what he did. Alabama political power does not always follow schematic lines.

I once had leaders in my chain, that I suspected used the power (of the name) invested at the top of leaderships to dominate the discussion and decisions of the staff.
There were more than a few who were suspicious of the discussions and decisions being made in the name of the top leaders, seeing that we rarely interacted with them..
As most know power come from the top to the bottom, so several of us decided to start a writing/emailing group campaign to leadership on mundane issues to solicit responses.
Once we received the desired response and had conditioned leadership to respond, our emails became more specific and pointed.. we began to ask for clarifications...
Things became very interesting, we discovered the names of the powers that be were in fact being used without the knowledge of the leadership.
What we received were various reasons for decisions made and contradictions became so obvious that the rumor mill became unreliable.
My point, the best way to find out what the trustees think is to get them on record saying it, and the best way I know is to ask them...So lets fill up their emails asking them to let us know, if they are in solidarity with those fighting us or with us...we may be surprised someone may email us back...and getting something on record is better than nothing.

So it sounds like Barbara Humphrey sold her soul to the devil and Urquhart never really had ties to UAB. In essence, UAB is just like UAH. Neither has any representation on the Board.

Speaking of UAH, are they onboard for wanting independence?

Just a thought I've had for a few weeks: I has been stated that former UAB President Garrison is a part of the SACS group. Could it be we have an ally there? While she may not be able to speak about specifics regarding the BOT-UAB relationship I doubt any NDA foresaw this circumstance. I mean, whatever NDA she signed could not preclude her from doing her job. She knows how the BOT works and what questions need to be asked and what angles to persue. In addition, if a Samford professor is also a member of the SACS group its hard to imagine someone from the Birmingham community that doesn't know at least a little bit about BOT maneuverings regarding UAB...

(02-09-2015 01:20 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 11:21 AM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  [quote='58-56' pid='11749505' dateline='1423493407']
[quote='CajunBlazer' pid='11749453' dateline='1423492126']
Since the real power of the board rests in only a few hands, they don't have to corrupt entire BOT to get exactly what they want.

Want proof, look at an incident which we know happened. Finis St. John called Brian Mackin and told him not to used a booster's donated money to put turf on the practice field. As it is since been pointed out, Finis is not on the Facility Committee and therefore had absolutely no right to put out that order, but Mackin immediately backed off without question. Why? There is only one explanation. If he didn't do exactly as St. John commanded, Finis would make sure Mackin regretted it.

Now, do you think that St. Johns told the other board members what he told Mackin. Heck no! He's not stupid. However, Mackin knew if he did not do exactly as he commanded, St John would use his leadership position on the board to do something far worse under the guise of doing "what is best for the the UA system and UAB as a whole".
_______________________________________________________________________________

This reminds me of the time Al Lingo ran against Mel Bailey for Sheriff of Jeffco. Al Lingo had been the Public Safety Director under Gov. George Wallace when the State Troopers under his command took up position at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on what would become known as "Bloody Sunday". At a campaign speech, he stated that he had pleaded to be allowed to back off his Troopers and allow the march to proceed. He stated that he was ordered by "his superior" to hold the line and to attack the marchers.

The next day (I presume after a late night phone call), he denied that the order had come from the Governor (his ONLY Constitutional "superior") but from some faceless appointed staff member - who had no Constitutional authority over him - but nonetheless he did as he was ordered. The fact that St John was not on that particular committee does not mean he lacked the necessary authority to do what he did. Alabama political power does not always follow schematic lines.

Your story reminds me of another story about there being a message board where people started threads to discuss specific topics. There was this one poster who consistently made posts about topics that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The comments section show a great & diverse misunderstanding of the complete situation. The lack of understanding plays directly in to the Watts/BOT misdirection of a simple unaffordable line item in a budget. I don't post in comment of an article, but someone academically inclined need to equalize it fully across all of the issues.