(12-15-2018 12:14 AM)TheDuke Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:54 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 02:58 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  The issue is he was actively sitting on the JMU BoV while negotiating/planning a job at JMU.

Shhhh! Don't confuse them with facts, it only pisses them off.

Facts??? I asked you to provide some facts earlier about Bolling and his perfomance in the job he was hired to do and you failed to. You are the only one here making factless assumptions.

Whoa, wait a minute! Now you are putting words in my mouth. I made zero "factless assumptions." ZERO! I said it doesn't look good. That's all I said. And, that, my friend, is a FACT!

Furthermore, I was voicing my agreement with 2004, who said, "The issue is he was actively sitting on the JMU BoV while negotiating/planning a job at JMU."

That is also one of those pesky things you dislike, a FACT!

(12-15-2018 12:28 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 12:14 AM)TheDuke Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:54 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 02:58 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  The issue is he was actively sitting on the JMU BoV while negotiating/planning a job at JMU.

Shhhh! Don't confuse them with facts, it only pisses them off.

Facts??? I asked you to provide some facts earlier about Bolling and his perfomance in the job he was hired to do and you failed to. You are the only one here making factless assumptions.

Whoa, wait a minute! Now you are putting words in my mouth. I made zero "factless assumptions." ZERO! I said it doesn't look good. That's all I said. And, that, my friend, is a FACT!

No, it's not a fact. It's your opinion. It's your opinion that you created based on this one guy's article. And therein lies the issue.

Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to your opinion and all opinions should be welcomed. I'm just asking for some facts! Someone to either point to other cases where what was done here goes against industry practice and has been deemed wrong, OR provide more information to show the job was a sham/quid pro quo corruption was present.

I'm looking for facts where there are none. And again, if someone has any of that information, I will gladly agree and be outraged right along with you. But I have yet to find anything right now that shows what was done is "bad."

(12-15-2018 12:46 AM)TheDuke Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 12:28 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 12:14 AM)TheDuke Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:54 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 02:58 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  The issue is he was actively sitting on the JMU BoV while negotiating/planning a job at JMU.

Shhhh! Don't confuse them with facts, it only pisses them off.

Facts??? I asked you to provide some facts earlier about Bolling and his perfomance in the job he was hired to do and you failed to. You are the only one here making factless assumptions.

Whoa, wait a minute! Now you are putting words in my mouth. I made zero "factless assumptions." ZERO! I said it doesn't look good. That's all I said. And, that, my friend, is a FACT!

No, it's not a fact. It's your opinion. It's your opinion that you created based on this one guy's article. And therein lies the issue.

Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to your opinion and all opinions should be welcomed. I'm just asking for some facts! Someone to either point to other cases where what was done here goes against industry practice and has been deemed wrong, OR provide more information to show the job was a sham/quid pro quo corruption was present.

I'm looking for facts where there are none. And again, if someone has any of that information, I will gladly agree and be outraged right along with you. But I have yet to find anything right now that shows what was done is "bad."

Look, you don't have any more "facts" than anyone else here. All I am saying is how it looks, and to me, it looks bad! That is a FACT! That is all I have been saying from the start.

(12-14-2018 07:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 05:18 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:23 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Longhorn, when you have a moment to digest this, would you give us some thoughts.

It smells. Bad.

So does cooking up some collards, but I like eating them collards. You are very good at dissecting. I'm willing to wait.

The position is a complete fabrication, intended to curry favor with...? (You are free to fill in the blank).

The position is not academic related (despite whatever spin is put on it). So, what is the real purpose of the position? Again, you’re free to fill in the blank, but the official spin released to the public describing Billing’s role is pure blarney.

This was an administrative decision to create another administrative position (always room for one more administrator, right?), and it was a decision made by fiat, without the consent and the advise of anyone outside of the powers that be in Alumni Hall. While the President has wide (almost unlimited) power to run JMU anyway he wants, (to me) the creation of another administrative position out of whole cloth is an abuse of legislated power.

I think Bolling’s position is simply that of a full-time, political lobbyist in Richmond, which I believe is against VA law (that prohibits governmental agencies from hiring lobbyists paid with government money to lobby its own elected government on behalf of another governmental agency). I admit I can’t cite a specific VA law here, and I may be projecting my knowledge of my last uni which was specifically limited by law from doing what I’ve described. If there isn’t such a VA law, there should be. It’s unethical.

In the meantime, law or no law, you can credit Alger and CK with a slight-of-hand “trick” to hire a Richmond lobbyist with deep political ties to VA government to help gain greater political leverage in Richmond, and it can simultaneously be seen as an abuse of administrative power. The smelly part is the way the position was created, and it’s foul aroma is in how the position is being presented to the public.

Side note: CK has been JMU’s most effective and powerful voice in Richmond lobbying on behalf of JMU. That role is legit and legal. The results of his efforts and the effectiveness of his financial acumen and stewardship can be seen all-across campus. As I’ve shared in another post, CK’s tenure should go down in JMU’s history as second only to Ron Carrier in importance. CK has been slowed down of late, however, by some physical signs of age (knee replacements), and CK is next up on the retirement stage. This Bolling deal may be a way of helping CK, while also helping push the capital campaign over the top.

(12-15-2018 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 07:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 05:18 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:23 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Longhorn, when you have a moment to digest this, would you give us some thoughts.

It smells. Bad.

So does cooking up some collards, but I like eating them collards. You are very good at dissecting. I'm willing to wait.

The position is a complete fabrication, intended to curry favor with...? (You are free to fill in the blank).

The position is not academic related (despite whatever spin is put on it). So, what is the real purpose of the position? Again, you’re free to fill in the blank, but the official spin released to the public describing Billing’s role is pure blarney.

This was an administrative decision to create another administrative position (always room for one more administrator, right?), and it was a decision made by fiat, without the consent and the advise of anyone outside of the powers that be in Alumni Hall. While the President has wide (almost unlimited) power to run JMU anyway he wants, (to me) the creation of another administrative position out of whole cloth is an abuse of legislated power.

I think Bolling’s position is simply that of a full-time, political lobbyist in Richmond, which I believe is against VA law (that prohibits governmental agencies from hiring lobbyists paid with government money to lobby its own elected government on behalf of another governmental agency). I admit I can’t cite a specific VA law here, and I may be projecting my knowledge of my last uni which was specifically limited by law from doing what I’ve described. If there isn’t such a VA law, there should be. It’s unethical.

In the meantime, law or no law, you can credit Alger and CK with a slight-of-hand “trick” to hire a Richmond lobbyist with deep political ties to VA government to help gain greater political leverage in Richmond, and it can simultaneously be seen as an abuse of administrative power. The smelly part is the way the position was created, and it’s foul aroma is in how the position is being presented to the public.

Side note: CK has been JMU’s most effective and powerful voice in Richmond lobbying on behalf of JMU. That role is legit and legal. The results of his efforts and the effectiveness of his financial acumen and stewardship can be seen all-across campus. As I’ve shared in another post, CK’s tenure should go down in JMU’s history as second only to Ron Carrier in importance. CK has been slowed down of late, however, by some physical signs of age (knee replacements), and CK is next up on the retirement stage. This Bolling deal may be a way of helping CK, while also helping push the capital campaign over the top.

Thanks

(12-15-2018 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 07:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 05:18 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:23 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Longhorn, when you have a moment to digest this, would you give us some thoughts.

It smells. Bad.

So does cooking up some collards, but I like eating them collards. You are very good at dissecting. I'm willing to wait.

The position is a complete fabrication, intended to curry favor with...? (You are free to fill in the blank).

The position is not academic related (despite whatever spin is put on it). So, what is the real purpose of the position? Again, you’re free to fill in the blank, but the official spin released to the public describing Billing’s role is pure blarney.

This was an administrative decision to create another administrative position (always room for one more administrator, right?), and it was a decision made by fiat, without the consent and the advise of anyone outside of the powers that be in Alumni Hall. While the President has wide (almost unlimited) power to run JMU anyway he wants, (to me) the creation of another administrative position out of whole cloth is an abuse of legislated power.

I think Bolling’s position is simply that of a full-time, political lobbyist in Richmond, which I believe is against VA law (that prohibits governmental agencies from hiring lobbyists paid with government money to lobby its own elected government on behalf of another governmental agency). I admit I can’t cite a specific VA law here, and I may be projecting my knowledge of my last uni which was specifically limited by law from doing what I’ve described. If there isn’t such a VA law, there should be. It’s unethical.

In the meantime, law or no law, you can credit Alger and CK with a slight-of-hand “trick” to hire a Richmond lobbyist with deep political ties to VA government to help gain greater political leverage in Richmond, and it can simultaneously be seen as an abuse of administrative power. The smelly part is the way the position was created, and it’s foul aroma is in how the position is being presented to the public.

Side note: CK has been JMU’s most effective and powerful voice in Richmond lobbying on behalf of JMU. That role is legit and legal. The results of his efforts and the effectiveness of his financial acumen and stewardship can be seen all-across campus. As I’ve shared in another post, CK’s tenure should go down in JMU’s history as second only to Ron Carrier in importance. CK has been slowed down of late, however, by some physical signs of age (knee replacements), and CK is next up on the retirement stage. This Bolling deal may be a way of helping CK, while also helping push the capital campaign over the top.

Perfectly said.

Article discussing proposed law that would end Bolling’s “job”

http://www.wmra.org/post/obenshain-takes...e#stream/0

(12-21-2018 08:32 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Article discussing proposed law that would end Bolling’s “job”

http://www.wmra.org/post/obenshain-takes...e#stream/0

Thanks for the post. The only thing I'm surprised at, Obenshain said he would drop the proposed bill if Bolling resigned or JMU let Bolling go. This bill is a good one and should go to vote even if Bolling no longer works for JMU.

(12-21-2018 08:55 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:32 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Article discussing proposed law that would end Bolling’s “job”

http://www.wmra.org/post/obenshain-takes...e#stream/0

Thanks for the post. The only thing I'm surprised at, Obenshain said he would drop the proposed bill if Bolling resigned or JMU let Bolling go. This bill is a good one and should go to vote even if Bolling no longer works for JMU.

I agree.

(12-15-2018 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 07:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 05:18 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:23 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Longhorn, when you have a moment to digest this, would you give us some thoughts.

It smells. Bad.

So does cooking up some collards, but I like eating them collards. You are very good at dissecting. I'm willing to wait.

The position is a complete fabrication, intended to curry favor with...? (You are free to fill in the blank).

The position is not academic related (despite whatever spin is put on it). So, what is the real purpose of the position? Again, you’re free to fill in the blank, but the official spin released to the public describing Billing’s role is pure blarney.

This was an administrative decision to create another administrative position (always room for one more administrator, right?), and it was a decision made by fiat, without the consent and the advise of anyone outside of the powers that be in Alumni Hall. While the President has wide (almost unlimited) power to run JMU anyway he wants, (to me) the creation of another administrative position out of whole cloth is an abuse of legislated power.

I think Bolling’s position is simply that of a full-time, political lobbyist in Richmond, which I believe is against VA law (that prohibits governmental agencies from hiring lobbyists paid with government money to lobby its own elected government on behalf of another governmental agency). I admit I can’t cite a specific VA law here, and I may be projecting my knowledge of my last uni which was specifically limited by law from doing what I’ve described. If there isn’t such a VA law, there should be. It’s unethical.

In the meantime, law or no law, you can credit Alger and CK with a slight-of-hand “trick” to hire a Richmond lobbyist with deep political ties to VA government to help gain greater political leverage in Richmond, and it can simultaneously be seen as an abuse of administrative power. The smelly part is the way the position was created, and it’s foul aroma is in how the position is being presented to the public.

Side note: CK has been JMU’s most effective and powerful voice in Richmond lobbying on behalf of JMU. That role is legit and legal. The results of his efforts and the effectiveness of his financial acumen and stewardship can be seen all-across campus. As I’ve shared in another post, CK’s tenure should go down in JMU’s history as second only to Ron Carrier in importance. CK has been slowed down of late, however, by some physical signs of age (knee replacements), and CK is next up on the retirement stage. This Bolling deal may be a way of helping CK, while also helping push the capital campaign over the top.

Thanks Longhorn. Now knowing that information, I retract my previous 'give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt' attitude. If all this is is a lobbyist position, then yeah, that needs to stop right now. And the fact that he did it by presidential decree is bad. Knowing the level of position, how it was created, and the actual intention of the position seals it for me - and I would imagine anyone else.

The only new news here is that we have proof what a bad negotiater Alger is....it's not a nothing burger - this happens all the time...doesn't make it right, its just rare to see pay to play self-documented so nicely for the press to jump on

“How and Why I went to work for JMU”
Op-Ed by Bill Bolling in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch.
Sorry that I cannot provide the link

He describes his position like someone we could use on the basketball team. A guy that plays good defense, rebounds, sets screens, is a good passer, hits the open jumper, scraps for loose balls, makes his free throws late in the game and is on the all conference academic team.

https://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-o...6dd54.html

(12-26-2018 08:49 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  https://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-o...6dd54.html

Bolling can spin it anyway he wants. He's a lobbyist. The teaching of a class in poli-sci (hired by the administration no less) is an adjunct-type job. JMU doesn't pay adjuncts $140k a year w/benefits.

(12-21-2018 08:55 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:32 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Article discussing proposed law that would end Bolling’s “job”

http://www.wmra.org/post/obenshain-takes...e#stream/0

Thanks for the post. The only thing I'm surprised at, Obenshain said he would drop the proposed bill if Bolling resigned or JMU let Bolling go. This bill is a good one and should go to vote even if Bolling no longer works for JMU.

I agree that the law itself is necessary, but this is really just Obenshain getting back at Bolling. This has nothing to do with Obenshain feeling it is unethical but rather Bolling failed to endorse him when he ran for AG. So while I applaud the proposal, it doesn't come from a place of innocence.

(12-26-2018 10:20 AM)JMUDuke2002 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:55 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:32 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Article discussing proposed law that would end Bolling’s “job”

http://www.wmra.org/post/obenshain-takes...e#stream/0

Thanks for the post. The only thing I'm surprised at, Obenshain said he would drop the proposed bill if Bolling resigned or JMU let Bolling go. This bill is a good one and should go to vote even if Bolling no longer works for JMU.

I agree that the law itself is necessary, but this is really just Obenshain getting back at Bolling. This has nothing to do with Obenshain feeling it is unethical but rather Bolling failed to endorse him when he ran for AG. So while I applaud the proposal, it doesn't come from a place of innocence.

No doubt. Memories in politics run deep and long.

Bolling (and his $140k gift salary) is out at JMU. His last day was June 30th. The bill initiated by Obenshain (but signed into law by a Democratic Governor) took effect July 1. Lots of CYA compliments floated to the media by Bolling and Alger about Bolling’s time at JMU and his forced departure. No comments from Bolling and Alger about the inappropriateness about the initial hire with Bolling serving on the JMU BOV and hitting up Alger for a cushy job.

(07-04-2019 04:39 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Bolling (and his $140k gift salary) is out at JMU. His last day was June 30th. ....

It’s interesting to see the ripple effect of a mostly forgotten decision made years ago. If the VA Republican Party had chosen a primary instead of a convention, Bolling would have won the party’s Gov nomination and gone on to beat Mcauliffe in the general election, in my opinion, and we obviously wouldn’t be having this discussion. Politics aside, a Bolling administration would have been good for JMU since he was close to the JMU administration. He seemed to have adopted JMU as his Va school while he was Lt Gov.

I question his potential effectiveness as a Richmond lobbyist though. He burned plenty of republican bridges after not getting the Gov nomination.

I guess that means he may be around JMU "volunteering" for a year or two, until the two year ban has passed, then hop back on and collect that VRS rate for a couple of years?

This kind of political junk happens and it stinks. It really stinks when an over paid diversity attorney that cares more about the plight of all humanity than joe average is supportive.