Two of the top high school basketball prospects in the nation will take the court tonight in Birmingham at UAB's Bartow Arena.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, the event serves as a reminder that UAB can't even handle its signature sport properly anymore. And responsibility for that should fall at the feet of President Carol Garrison.
Tonight's Old Spice Basketball Showcase features LeFlore High School of Mobile, Alabama, vs. South Atlanta High School. LeFlore is led by 6-10, 250-pound DeMarcus Cousins, and South Atlanta counters with 6-9, 220-pound Derrick Favors.
Both are among the top college prospects in the country, and both figure to have promising futures in the National Basketball Association.
But DeMarcus Cousins has unwittingly come to personify the lack of leadership at UAB these days.
Last February, during his junior year in high school, Cousins publicly committed to UAB. He became the most high-profile prospect to ever say he wanted to play for the Blazers.
But there was a catch: Cousins didn't say he wanted to attend UAB and play for the Blazers. He said he was committing to Mike Davis, UAB's head coach.
When it came time to actually sign a national letter of intent (NLI) last November, Cousins said he wanted written assurances that UAB would release him from the letter if Davis were to leave the school. When UAB failed to give Cousins a written "out" on the NLI, Cousins refused to sign with the school. Two other recruits who had pledged to UAB, apparently intent on playing with Cousins, refused to sign.
The players still could sign with UAB in the spring 2009 signing period. Or they could wait till fall 2009 and just show up at the school, without signing an NLI. But UAB would have no assurances until the last moment about the makeup of its roster.
The bottom line? UAB's recruiting class, which once looked like one of the best in the nation, now appears to be imploding. Cousins recently said that he is considering Memphis, Kansas State, Wake Forest, North Carolina State, and Washington as his top five schools. He said he still could wind up at UAB.
Brian Mackin, UAB's athletics director, said he would grant Cousins a release if Davis were to leave. But the school has not put that in writing, and Cousins isn't biting.
So, how did UAB get into this fix? Let's count the ways:
* When Mike Anderson left UAB three years ago to become head coach at Missouri, UAB turned to Davis, an Alabama native who had just left the prestigious head coaching job at Indiana. The move seemed to make sense at the time. But there appears to be one problem: Davis doesn't want to be at UAB very long. A source tells Legal Schnauzer that Davis has made it known that he wants to be the next coach at the University of Alabama, his alma mater. Alabama coach Mark Gottfried has been under fire for the past year or so, but for now, there is no opening on the Tuscaloosa campus. And given that Davis' own team isn't playing well lately, it's hard to see why UA would want him. Our source also says Davis spends very little time on the UAB campus, usually arriving at the office just before practice is to begin in the afternoon. That lack of oversight might help explain why several players either flunked out or left the program recently, leaving UAB with only six scholarship players. Four of those players are seniors, and with the recruiting class in question, one can only wonder what UAB's program will look like next year.
* UAB is a member of the NCAA, the elite tier of sports-playing universities. The school pays a fee each year for NCAA membership and pledges to abide by NCAA rules. A lot of folks think the NCAA has some unfair rules, but schools have to live with them anyway. And one rule is this: A prospective student-athlete signs with the school, not a coach. And the rules state that a coaching change is not grounds for releasing the student-athlete from an NLI. The rules also state that a provision, like the one Cousins wants, cannot be added to the NLI.
* While the NCAA rules might seem unfair and one-sided, favoring the university, it's important to keep this in mind: While the coach often is a key factor in a recruit's decision, it's the school that pays the freight. The school pays for the recruiting process, pays for the scholarship and associated costs, pays for training facilities, food, travel expenses, and more. If Mike Davis were to leave UAB, and DeMarcus Cousins followed him out the door, the university would be left with a lot of expenses and nothing to show for it.
If Carol Garrison had a clue about how to run an athletics program, here is what she would have done: She would have sat down with Davis and said, "Mike, we are members of the NCAA, and we live by NCAA rules. If a recruit says he wants to play for you but does not want to attend UAB, we rescind the scholarship offer. We give scholarships only to student-athletes who want to be at UAB, regardless of who the coach is. And by the way, quit telling people you are angling for a better job and set regular office hours like the rest of us."
If Cousins had still announced that he wanted to play for Davis, UAB could have issued a statement saying, "We appreciate Mr. Cousins' confidence in our coach, but we will only offer him a scholarship if he is willing to abide by NCAA rules and sign with UAB."
Here's what's sad about this: Gene Bartow left UCLA, basketball's most storied program, to come to UAB and start an athletics program from nothing in 1977. Bartow stayed as coach and/or athletics director for 23 years, turning down numerous opportunities at more high-profile schools.
Now, the university has a coach who apparently wants out--and he hasn't even been at UAB three years. Worse, the coach seems to be using his relationship with a top recruit as a bargaining chip to get what he perceives to be a better job.
As long as seniors Robert Vaden, Lawrence Kinnard, Paul Delaney III, and Channing Toney are around, UAB figures to be competitive. But once they leave after this season, who knows what UAB will look like next year? Davis is supposed to be a master recruiter, but his roster for 2009-10 looks awfully thin at the moment.
People who care about UAB should be asking Carol Garrison a lot of hard questions, and one of them is this: Who hired this basketball coach and why doesn't he understand basic NCAA rules?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Online Porn and its Many Ramifications in the Workplace
When we posted recently about the rising incidence of online porn in the workplace, we had no thoughts of doing a followup article.
After all, online porn seemed to be a titillating (sorry for the bad pun) but one-dimensional subject.
A little research indicates we were wrong about that. Porn in the workplace presents a number of issues--technological, legal, psychological--that we had not thought of.
One of the most comprehensive articles on the subject is "Technology Makes Porn Easier to Access at Work," by reporter Stephanie Armour at USA Today.
Armour reports that the proliferation of portable electronic devices--laptop computers, cell phones, Blackberrys, etc.--has made online porn more common in the workplace. And it has made it more difficult for employers to manage the problem.
About 65 percent of American employers use software to block inappropriate Web sites in the workplace. But portable devices, even ones owned by companies, can help get around such blocks. And employers are concerned about facing lawsuits from workers who say they are offended by the presence of porn at work.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought several lawsuits against businesses on behalf of workers who said they felt harassed at work because of online porn. One of the best known cases involved First Mutual, a mortgage company in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Another involved Sierra Aluminum.
On the other side of the legal spectrum is James Pacenza, a former IBM employee. Pacenza sued the company after being fired for visiting an adult chat group while at work. Pacenza, a Vietnam veteran, claimed his firing was discriminatory because he visited the site in order to reduce symptoms from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
You can view some of the legal documents in the Pacenza case here.
USA Today reports that the problem of porn in the workplace is not likely to go away soon:
Researchers and psychologists who study Internet users' behavior say those who view online porn at work are doing so because they get a rush out of taking risks, engage in self-delusional beliefs that they won't get caught and, in some cases, suffer from addictive behaviors.
The rising use of mobile devices such as video phones could exacerbate the problem, they say.
"This dilemma is going to get much worse, given the capacity of handheld, electronic devices to download porn," says Carleton Kendrick, a psychotherapist in Millis, Mass. "That will eliminate an employer's opportunity to check which workers have been going to porn sites on company computers."
After all, online porn seemed to be a titillating (sorry for the bad pun) but one-dimensional subject.
A little research indicates we were wrong about that. Porn in the workplace presents a number of issues--technological, legal, psychological--that we had not thought of.
One of the most comprehensive articles on the subject is "Technology Makes Porn Easier to Access at Work," by reporter Stephanie Armour at USA Today.
Armour reports that the proliferation of portable electronic devices--laptop computers, cell phones, Blackberrys, etc.--has made online porn more common in the workplace. And it has made it more difficult for employers to manage the problem.
About 65 percent of American employers use software to block inappropriate Web sites in the workplace. But portable devices, even ones owned by companies, can help get around such blocks. And employers are concerned about facing lawsuits from workers who say they are offended by the presence of porn at work.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought several lawsuits against businesses on behalf of workers who said they felt harassed at work because of online porn. One of the best known cases involved First Mutual, a mortgage company in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Another involved Sierra Aluminum.
On the other side of the legal spectrum is James Pacenza, a former IBM employee. Pacenza sued the company after being fired for visiting an adult chat group while at work. Pacenza, a Vietnam veteran, claimed his firing was discriminatory because he visited the site in order to reduce symptoms from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
You can view some of the legal documents in the Pacenza case here.
USA Today reports that the problem of porn in the workplace is not likely to go away soon:
Researchers and psychologists who study Internet users' behavior say those who view online porn at work are doing so because they get a rush out of taking risks, engage in self-delusional beliefs that they won't get caught and, in some cases, suffer from addictive behaviors.
The rising use of mobile devices such as video phones could exacerbate the problem, they say.
"This dilemma is going to get much worse, given the capacity of handheld, electronic devices to download porn," says Carleton Kendrick, a psychotherapist in Millis, Mass. "That will eliminate an employer's opportunity to check which workers have been going to porn sites on company computers."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Universities And Other Scoundrels Reach Late Deals With Bushies
As the Bush Administration comes to a merciful close, corporate fraudsters are scrambling to reach last-minutes settlements before the Obama crowd takes over.
Fraudsters trying to cut sweetheart deals are not limited to business types. Universities also are trying to get in on the action, which seems appropriate because we've already reported on a case here in Birmingham where a university received a light wrist slap for widespread research fraud.
Turns out my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), was ahead of the game when it cut a stunningly favorable deal with the Bush Justice Department in 2005.
Among those waiting until the last minute, according to a report by Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post, is Yale University.
Yale recently agreed to pay $7.6 million to settle claims that its researchers overbilled on federally funded research grant. The Associated Press article mentions similar settlements have been reached at other institutions, including Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, University of Connecticut, and UAB.
That list only scratches the surface of the problem. Other institutions that have had problems with research fraud include Harvard, University of Chicago, Duke, Stanford, University of Washington, University of Mississippi, University of Minnesota, University of Texas, New York University and . . . well, you get the idea; the problem is widespread.
Here is a question I have yet to see asked in the mainstream media: Do the settlements reached in these cases reflect the actual amount of fraud involved? In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?
Based on my research of the UAB case, the answers are a resounding no and no.
As we noted in a recent post, one of two whistleblowers in the UAB case alleged the total fraud at the Birmingham campus over a 10-year period reached at least $300 million and went perhaps as high as $600 million. And this whistleblower, Thomas Gober, had reason to know what he was talking about. He was UAB's research compliance officer, and he is a specialist in forensic accounting. In fact, he has served as a government witness in a number of major business-fraud cases.
How were taxpayers served by UAB's leadership and the lax Bush Justice Department, which was busy prosecuting people like Don Siegelman for crimes they did not commit?
Well, let's take a conservative estimate and say UAB actually committed $300 million of research fraud. In its settlement, the university paid the government $3.39 million.
So if my math is correct, UAB paid roughly 1/100th of the fraud it actually committed. And if Gober's higher estimates were correct, the university got away with an even more grotesque case of "financial murder."
No wonder UAB President Carol Garrison characterized the settlement as a "very positive outcome."
Was it a positive outcome for taxpayers? Does Carol Garrison care about blatant mismanagement of your federal tax dollars? What about other university presidents and corporate titans who are getting sweetheart deals from the Bush administration?
On an issue that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer, do you think it's possible that Carol Garrison felt like she "owed one" to Alice Martin for signing off on this sweetheart deal for UAB? And could Garrison have returned the favor by "firing" a certain UAB employee who was writing uncomfortable truths about Martin and other loyal Bushies on his personal blog?
Here is an even more important question: Why are American taxpayers unaware of how badly they are being cheated by universities and corporations? Why has the mainstream media not reported on this story?
One reason, I suspect, is that whistleblower cases usually are sealed early on. My guess is that many of the cases never are unsealed, and under settlement agreements, participants are sworn to confidentiality.
I only obtained key documents in the UAB case because, at some point, it was unsealed. And even then, I had to do some extra searching because the whistleblower complaints were not available on the public computers at the federal courthouse in Birmingham. I had to ask clerks for hard copies, which were stored in file folders. I suspect it was not an accident that the documents were hard to find.
There is hope for taxpayers. Under the settlement agreement in the UAB case, the government can reopen the case at any time, initiating a civil, administrative, or criminal investigation. This is the proverbial gun that Alice Martin has had cocked at UAB's head for three-plus years now.
Settlement agreements in other cases probably contain similar language. I would suggest that an Obama Justice Department should revisit these corporate and academic fraud cases and make sure the perpetrators are punished in a way that is commensurate with their misdeeds.
Meanwhile, you might not read "the rest of the story" about academic research fraud in the mainstream press. But you will be reading the whole story of the UAB case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Fraudsters trying to cut sweetheart deals are not limited to business types. Universities also are trying to get in on the action, which seems appropriate because we've already reported on a case here in Birmingham where a university received a light wrist slap for widespread research fraud.
Turns out my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), was ahead of the game when it cut a stunningly favorable deal with the Bush Justice Department in 2005.
Among those waiting until the last minute, according to a report by Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post, is Yale University.
Yale recently agreed to pay $7.6 million to settle claims that its researchers overbilled on federally funded research grant. The Associated Press article mentions similar settlements have been reached at other institutions, including Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, University of Connecticut, and UAB.
That list only scratches the surface of the problem. Other institutions that have had problems with research fraud include Harvard, University of Chicago, Duke, Stanford, University of Washington, University of Mississippi, University of Minnesota, University of Texas, New York University and . . . well, you get the idea; the problem is widespread.
Here is a question I have yet to see asked in the mainstream media: Do the settlements reached in these cases reflect the actual amount of fraud involved? In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?
Based on my research of the UAB case, the answers are a resounding no and no.
As we noted in a recent post, one of two whistleblowers in the UAB case alleged the total fraud at the Birmingham campus over a 10-year period reached at least $300 million and went perhaps as high as $600 million. And this whistleblower, Thomas Gober, had reason to know what he was talking about. He was UAB's research compliance officer, and he is a specialist in forensic accounting. In fact, he has served as a government witness in a number of major business-fraud cases.
How were taxpayers served by UAB's leadership and the lax Bush Justice Department, which was busy prosecuting people like Don Siegelman for crimes they did not commit?
Well, let's take a conservative estimate and say UAB actually committed $300 million of research fraud. In its settlement, the university paid the government $3.39 million.
So if my math is correct, UAB paid roughly 1/100th of the fraud it actually committed. And if Gober's higher estimates were correct, the university got away with an even more grotesque case of "financial murder."
No wonder UAB President Carol Garrison characterized the settlement as a "very positive outcome."
Was it a positive outcome for taxpayers? Does Carol Garrison care about blatant mismanagement of your federal tax dollars? What about other university presidents and corporate titans who are getting sweetheart deals from the Bush administration?
On an issue that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer, do you think it's possible that Carol Garrison felt like she "owed one" to Alice Martin for signing off on this sweetheart deal for UAB? And could Garrison have returned the favor by "firing" a certain UAB employee who was writing uncomfortable truths about Martin and other loyal Bushies on his personal blog?
Here is an even more important question: Why are American taxpayers unaware of how badly they are being cheated by universities and corporations? Why has the mainstream media not reported on this story?
One reason, I suspect, is that whistleblower cases usually are sealed early on. My guess is that many of the cases never are unsealed, and under settlement agreements, participants are sworn to confidentiality.
I only obtained key documents in the UAB case because, at some point, it was unsealed. And even then, I had to do some extra searching because the whistleblower complaints were not available on the public computers at the federal courthouse in Birmingham. I had to ask clerks for hard copies, which were stored in file folders. I suspect it was not an accident that the documents were hard to find.
There is hope for taxpayers. Under the settlement agreement in the UAB case, the government can reopen the case at any time, initiating a civil, administrative, or criminal investigation. This is the proverbial gun that Alice Martin has had cocked at UAB's head for three-plus years now.
Settlement agreements in other cases probably contain similar language. I would suggest that an Obama Justice Department should revisit these corporate and academic fraud cases and make sure the perpetrators are punished in a way that is commensurate with their misdeeds.
Meanwhile, you might not read "the rest of the story" about academic research fraud in the mainstream press. But you will be reading the whole story of the UAB case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Hoover Hoopsters Score With National Commercial
Perhaps the niftiest television commercial in current rotation is this 15-second gem from Hampton Inns:
The kids who made the video are from Hoover, a Birmingham suburb. And the shot you see in the commercial actually happened. This has nothing to do with schnauzers or anything legal, but we thought it was pretty cool. Wonder if these guys ever play real basketball. Maybe they should give it a try.
Turns out the Hoover kids made a whole bunch of improbable shots, and caught them on video. You can check them out below. The shot used in the commercial starts at the 48-second mark. Who says America's youth aren't creative?
The kids who made the video are from Hoover, a Birmingham suburb. And the shot you see in the commercial actually happened. This has nothing to do with schnauzers or anything legal, but we thought it was pretty cool. Wonder if these guys ever play real basketball. Maybe they should give it a try.
Turns out the Hoover kids made a whole bunch of improbable shots, and caught them on video. You can check them out below. The shot used in the commercial starts at the 48-second mark. Who says America's youth aren't creative?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Alice Martin: A World-Class Phony On Health-Care Fraud
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, recently made quite a production of a guilty plea in a Medicare fraud case.
The case involved Shelby County businesswoman Marie Weller King, who pled guilty of defrauding Medicare of $724,000. King received a sentence of 18 months in federal prison, and her husband William King will be sentenced in January for his role in the scheme.
The case came about after a whistleblower in an outside auditing firm examined the Kings' books and found something amiss.
In her usual unctious way, Martin said: "King's sentence reflects that persons who create false documents, knowing that those documents will be used in a health-care fraud scheme, will be pursued and prosecuted for their crimes."
Is Martin telling the truth? Not on your life.
The Kings obviously do not have political connections. Because our research team at Legal Schnauzer has uncovered at least two cases where folks with political connections received pretty much a free pass on health-care fraud.
And who gave the free passes? Why, none other than Alice Martin.
One of the cases involved someone very close to Alabama Governor Bob Riley. And we are talking verrrrry close. Do you think this association had anything to do with Alice Martin's decision not to pursue a whistleblower's allegations of health-care fraud?
Hmmm.
The second case involves my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and we already have made references to that case. But many more details are to come.
The crux of the UAB case? The university was penalized roughly $3 million for a fraud scheme that one whistleblower estimated totaled more than $300 million. And the whistleblower should know what he was talking about. He is a forensic accountant and served as UAB's research compliance director.
End result? UAB was punished for only a fraction of the fraud it allegedly committed.
And guess what? Someone verrry high up in the chain of command in the University of Alabama System, of which UAB is a part, just happens to have an association with Bill Canary and the Business Council of Alabama. And Canary, of course, is largely responsible for Alice Martin's placement in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Do you think that connection had anything to do with UAB's slap on the wrist? (And come to think of it, do you think this connection had anything to do with my termination at UAB?)
Let's take a close look at the Justice Department's press release about the Kings' guilty plea. In the last paragraph, it says the public is encouraged to contact law enforcement if they have information about health-care fraud.
Oh, really?
Well, we've uncovered three whistleblowers who came forward in two separate cases. In one case, Alice Martin's office did almost nothing. In the other, it has done absolutely nothing.
And we will tell you all about it here at Legal Schnauzer.
The real message from Alice Martin? Don't bother coming forward if the fraudsters have the right political connections.
The case involved Shelby County businesswoman Marie Weller King, who pled guilty of defrauding Medicare of $724,000. King received a sentence of 18 months in federal prison, and her husband William King will be sentenced in January for his role in the scheme.
The case came about after a whistleblower in an outside auditing firm examined the Kings' books and found something amiss.
In her usual unctious way, Martin said: "King's sentence reflects that persons who create false documents, knowing that those documents will be used in a health-care fraud scheme, will be pursued and prosecuted for their crimes."
Is Martin telling the truth? Not on your life.
The Kings obviously do not have political connections. Because our research team at Legal Schnauzer has uncovered at least two cases where folks with political connections received pretty much a free pass on health-care fraud.
And who gave the free passes? Why, none other than Alice Martin.
One of the cases involved someone very close to Alabama Governor Bob Riley. And we are talking verrrrry close. Do you think this association had anything to do with Alice Martin's decision not to pursue a whistleblower's allegations of health-care fraud?
Hmmm.
The second case involves my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and we already have made references to that case. But many more details are to come.
The crux of the UAB case? The university was penalized roughly $3 million for a fraud scheme that one whistleblower estimated totaled more than $300 million. And the whistleblower should know what he was talking about. He is a forensic accountant and served as UAB's research compliance director.
End result? UAB was punished for only a fraction of the fraud it allegedly committed.
And guess what? Someone verrry high up in the chain of command in the University of Alabama System, of which UAB is a part, just happens to have an association with Bill Canary and the Business Council of Alabama. And Canary, of course, is largely responsible for Alice Martin's placement in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Do you think that connection had anything to do with UAB's slap on the wrist? (And come to think of it, do you think this connection had anything to do with my termination at UAB?)
Let's take a close look at the Justice Department's press release about the Kings' guilty plea. In the last paragraph, it says the public is encouraged to contact law enforcement if they have information about health-care fraud.
Oh, really?
Well, we've uncovered three whistleblowers who came forward in two separate cases. In one case, Alice Martin's office did almost nothing. In the other, it has done absolutely nothing.
And we will tell you all about it here at Legal Schnauzer.
The real message from Alice Martin? Don't bother coming forward if the fraudsters have the right political connections.
Who Really is Ruining Capitalism?
I believe it was the great writer and critic H.L. Mencken who said he would gladly embrace Christianity if it weren't for all of the Christians.
In a similar spirit, Auburn University history professor Wayne Flynt makes a compelling argument that no one harms modern capitalism like capitalists.
Flynt, in an op-ed piece titled "The Capitalists Threaten Capitalism," argues that the history that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s almost repeated itself in the eight-year reign of George W. Bush.
Flynt focuses on Duncan U. Fletcher, a U.S. senator from Florida who led the effort to reshape the country's banking system not long after Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933.
One of Fletcher's first acts was to hire Ferdinand Pecora as chief counsel of the Banking Committee and instruct him to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of private banks and investment houses.
Pecora's two-year probe produced findings that laid bare the corruption that was rampant in the U.S. banking system. Fletcher was so appalled that he hauled some of the nation's barons of finance, including J.P. Morgan and John J. Raskob, before his committee. Writes Flynt:
Their testimony infuriated ordinary citizens. J.P. Morgan, reputedly the richest man in America, paid no income taxes from 1930 until 1933. To avoid taxes, financiers sold stock to near relatives at low prices, declared a loss on their income taxes, then repurchased it at the sale price. Banks and investment houses cultivated unsavory relations with cooperative politicians. Only personal friends of Morgan, most of them officials of the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were allowed to invest in his investment banks.
Notice the reference to the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the sleaze that caused massive financial woe. Does that sound familiar? It does to Flynt:
Fast-forward to 2008, when the prevailing business structure included derivatives, subprime mortgages, bundling, Ponzi schemes and golden parachutes for failing CEOs. As Americans are gradually learning more and more about such practices, their reactions are not much different from public response to the Pecora investigation, though the names are different: Jeff Skilling of Enron; Richard Scrushy and a succession of CFOs at HealthSouth; Bernard Madoff, former chair of NASDAQ and accused swindler of perhaps $50 billion; Christopher Cox, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who admits the SEC ignored complaints about Madoff for a decade and did not provide vigorous oversight or aggressive enforcement of regulations; various CEOs who dismissed workers while drawing huge salaries and bonuses even as their corporations lost money.
Such chicanery, Flynt says, helps explain the November 2008 election results. And it presents a lesson that Americans should heed:
Of course, few put any faith in the now-failed policies of socialism that became fashionable in the 1930s. But the past few years have furnished us a useful education in the excesses of capitalism as well: its greed, avarice, hubris, overstretching, manipulation of credit, insider-trading, wire-pulling, politician-buying and influence-peddling. As a famous balladeer sang during the 1930s, some people rob you with a gun, and some with a fountain pen (make that a computer these days).
In a similar spirit, Auburn University history professor Wayne Flynt makes a compelling argument that no one harms modern capitalism like capitalists.
Flynt, in an op-ed piece titled "The Capitalists Threaten Capitalism," argues that the history that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s almost repeated itself in the eight-year reign of George W. Bush.
Flynt focuses on Duncan U. Fletcher, a U.S. senator from Florida who led the effort to reshape the country's banking system not long after Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933.
One of Fletcher's first acts was to hire Ferdinand Pecora as chief counsel of the Banking Committee and instruct him to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of private banks and investment houses.
Pecora's two-year probe produced findings that laid bare the corruption that was rampant in the U.S. banking system. Fletcher was so appalled that he hauled some of the nation's barons of finance, including J.P. Morgan and John J. Raskob, before his committee. Writes Flynt:
Their testimony infuriated ordinary citizens. J.P. Morgan, reputedly the richest man in America, paid no income taxes from 1930 until 1933. To avoid taxes, financiers sold stock to near relatives at low prices, declared a loss on their income taxes, then repurchased it at the sale price. Banks and investment houses cultivated unsavory relations with cooperative politicians. Only personal friends of Morgan, most of them officials of the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were allowed to invest in his investment banks.
Notice the reference to the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the sleaze that caused massive financial woe. Does that sound familiar? It does to Flynt:
Fast-forward to 2008, when the prevailing business structure included derivatives, subprime mortgages, bundling, Ponzi schemes and golden parachutes for failing CEOs. As Americans are gradually learning more and more about such practices, their reactions are not much different from public response to the Pecora investigation, though the names are different: Jeff Skilling of Enron; Richard Scrushy and a succession of CFOs at HealthSouth; Bernard Madoff, former chair of NASDAQ and accused swindler of perhaps $50 billion; Christopher Cox, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who admits the SEC ignored complaints about Madoff for a decade and did not provide vigorous oversight or aggressive enforcement of regulations; various CEOs who dismissed workers while drawing huge salaries and bonuses even as their corporations lost money.
Such chicanery, Flynt says, helps explain the November 2008 election results. And it presents a lesson that Americans should heed:
Of course, few put any faith in the now-failed policies of socialism that became fashionable in the 1930s. But the past few years have furnished us a useful education in the excesses of capitalism as well: its greed, avarice, hubris, overstretching, manipulation of credit, insider-trading, wire-pulling, politician-buying and influence-peddling. As a famous balladeer sang during the 1930s, some people rob you with a gun, and some with a fountain pen (make that a computer these days).
Wayne Flynt is a true Alabama treasure. You might not equate Alabama with world-class social science, but Flynt belongs in any discussion about the nation's foremost historians. He is perhaps best known for his book Poor But Proud: Alabama's Poor Whites, which received the Lillian Smith Award.
Flynt's most recent op-ed piece leaves us with this question: Will Americans finally understand who truly threatens their way of life? The rise of one of the most insipid characters in American political history might not be a good sign. But Flynt remains ever hopeful:
Perhaps Joe the Plumber was worrying about the wrong problem during the campaign. When pondering the future of capitalism, Joe probably has less to fear from the alleged radicalism, socialism and liberalism of Barack Obama than he does from the avaricious predators who directed America's economy for the past few decades.Monday, January 12, 2009
The Abramoff Trail: Is Siegelman Prosecutor Trying to Cover the Tracks?
Alabama federal prosecutor Leura Canary evidently would not recognize a conflict of interest if it smacked her in the head with a 2 X 4. Her stubbornness is again on display in a case that is reminiscent of the Don Siegelman prosecution.
It all apparently stems from Canary's desire to protect Alabama Governor Bob Riley from an ugly trail that leads to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Folks who have followed the Siegelman case know that Canary's myriad conflicts and her curious "recusal" became key issues on appeal.
The same issues are being raised against Canary in another Montgomery case, this one involving insurance executive John W. Goff.
The Montgomery Independent reports that Goff's attorneys are seeking to have his federal indictment dismissed because of bad-faith prosecution.
One motion seeks to have the case against Goff dismissed. Another seeks to have the case removed from all prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama.
Goff's case is set for trial in February. Thomas Gallion, one of Goff's attorneys, recently removed himself from the case, a signal that he plans to testify as a witness on Goff's behalf. Here is an article about the latest in the Goff case:
Gallion To Testify for Goff (PDF)
Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, supposedly recused herself from the Siegelman case. But, in an apparent violation of normal Justice Department procedure, it was assigned to one of her subordinates, Louis Franklin.
Tamarah Grimes, a whistleblower from inside the Justice Department, has provided documents indicating that Canary remained involved with the Siegelman case, even after she had claimed to have recused herself.
The Goff prosecution only began after he had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had conspired to ruin one of his insurance businesses. Riley is a close associate of Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and Leura Canary's husband.
Bill Canary also is the man identified by Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Leura Canary and fellow Bush prosecutor Alice Martin) would "take care" of Siegelman. Bill Canary, according to Simpson, said he had worked out the plans to get Siegelman with someone named Karl, an apparent reference to Bush advisor Karl Rove.
Goff's attorneys argue in their motions that the criminal indictment is an effort to re-litigate a civil case that was settled in arbitration in 2004. At that time, 59 of 60 charges against Goff in an administrative complaint were dismissed. Goff pled guilty to one charge and paid a $10,000 fine.
Only after Goff filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others did the criminal prosecution begin.
Goff's lawsuit includes allegations that the governor and his son, Rob Riley, wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money into Bob Riley's 2002 campaign against Siegelman, using Riley's connections to Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, has reported that Bob Riley was desperate to stop the Goff lawsuit from entering the discovery stage and sought Leura Canary's help in making it "go away." The indictment against Goff came not long after that.
The Goff dismissal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff dismissal motion (PDF)
The Goff recusal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff recusal motion (PDF)
It all apparently stems from Canary's desire to protect Alabama Governor Bob Riley from an ugly trail that leads to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Folks who have followed the Siegelman case know that Canary's myriad conflicts and her curious "recusal" became key issues on appeal.
The same issues are being raised against Canary in another Montgomery case, this one involving insurance executive John W. Goff.
The Montgomery Independent reports that Goff's attorneys are seeking to have his federal indictment dismissed because of bad-faith prosecution.
One motion seeks to have the case against Goff dismissed. Another seeks to have the case removed from all prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama.
Goff's case is set for trial in February. Thomas Gallion, one of Goff's attorneys, recently removed himself from the case, a signal that he plans to testify as a witness on Goff's behalf. Here is an article about the latest in the Goff case:
Gallion To Testify for Goff (PDF)
Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, supposedly recused herself from the Siegelman case. But, in an apparent violation of normal Justice Department procedure, it was assigned to one of her subordinates, Louis Franklin.
Tamarah Grimes, a whistleblower from inside the Justice Department, has provided documents indicating that Canary remained involved with the Siegelman case, even after she had claimed to have recused herself.
The Goff prosecution only began after he had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had conspired to ruin one of his insurance businesses. Riley is a close associate of Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and Leura Canary's husband.
Bill Canary also is the man identified by Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Leura Canary and fellow Bush prosecutor Alice Martin) would "take care" of Siegelman. Bill Canary, according to Simpson, said he had worked out the plans to get Siegelman with someone named Karl, an apparent reference to Bush advisor Karl Rove.
Goff's attorneys argue in their motions that the criminal indictment is an effort to re-litigate a civil case that was settled in arbitration in 2004. At that time, 59 of 60 charges against Goff in an administrative complaint were dismissed. Goff pled guilty to one charge and paid a $10,000 fine.
Only after Goff filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others did the criminal prosecution begin.
Goff's lawsuit includes allegations that the governor and his son, Rob Riley, wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money into Bob Riley's 2002 campaign against Siegelman, using Riley's connections to Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, has reported that Bob Riley was desperate to stop the Goff lawsuit from entering the discovery stage and sought Leura Canary's help in making it "go away." The indictment against Goff came not long after that.
The Goff dismissal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff dismissal motion (PDF)
The Goff recusal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff recusal motion (PDF)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Birmingham and a Revolution Frozen in Time
Los Angeles Times reporter Peter H. King recently visited Birmingham and wrote a poignant piece about the state of our city as the United States is poised to inaugurate its first black president.
The headline writer captured the mood of the city perfectly: "In Birmingham, Ala., revolution is frozen in time."
The article is part of a series about the national mindset as we approach the presidential inauguration. King has visited a number of cities, including New Orleans; Midland, Texas; Cairo, Illinois; and Birmingham.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest but has lived in Birmingham for 30-plus years, I find King's article both touching and insightful. And, in a way, it is troubling because progress truly is frozen in Birmingham as we enter 2009.
King focuses on Kelly Ingram Park, the epicenter of our nation's struggle with race in 1963. King rightly notes that it is like no other municipal green in America:
It is a place where children go to stare down sculptures of snarling police dogs, a place where older visitors who know the park's history go to remember and, more recently, to reflect on the distance traveled between what happened here 45 years ago and what will happen in Washington in less than three weeks.
"It all connects," Henry Biggs, a 55-year-old native of Birmingham was saying the other day as he stood at the edge of the park. "This point to that point, it all connects."
Named for a World War I hero, this 4-acre park was at the center of clashes in the spring of 1963 between police and protesters determined to roll back the city's Jim Crow laws -- a struggle that brought infamy to this Southern steel town and ignited the civil rights movement.
King hints at both Birmingham's progress and its promise. But those of us who live here, and pay attention to public events, know there are powerful forces still aligned against change.
Our African-American mayor and several associates have been indicted on federal charges involving an alleged pay-for-play scheme.
While the charges against Mayor Larry Langford are troubling, perhaps even more alarming are the actions of the federal prosecutor who brought the case. Republican appointee Alice Martin has a history of targeting people who have dark skin or are Democrats--or both. Some of her cases have been so weak and blatantly political that she is being investigated by multiple government agencies.
But still, the local daily newspaper cheers her on, even though a prominent expert on legal affairs has called her perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
Even at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), once the city's most shining example of forward thinking, ugly forces appear to target those who don't fit the white/male/monied/Republican profile that still holds sway over much of the state.
A writer for a national magazine labels UAB's recent behavior "Orwellian" and marvels at the university's willingness to tolerate bigoted and racist speech while apparently taking steps to silence progressive voices.
As one of those progressive voices targeted at UAB, I hope King will make a return visit to our city in the coming months. The forces for change and the forces for stasis will be clashing in the Age of Obama. It's a story with national implications.
The headline writer captured the mood of the city perfectly: "In Birmingham, Ala., revolution is frozen in time."
The article is part of a series about the national mindset as we approach the presidential inauguration. King has visited a number of cities, including New Orleans; Midland, Texas; Cairo, Illinois; and Birmingham.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest but has lived in Birmingham for 30-plus years, I find King's article both touching and insightful. And, in a way, it is troubling because progress truly is frozen in Birmingham as we enter 2009.
King focuses on Kelly Ingram Park, the epicenter of our nation's struggle with race in 1963. King rightly notes that it is like no other municipal green in America:
It is a place where children go to stare down sculptures of snarling police dogs, a place where older visitors who know the park's history go to remember and, more recently, to reflect on the distance traveled between what happened here 45 years ago and what will happen in Washington in less than three weeks.
"It all connects," Henry Biggs, a 55-year-old native of Birmingham was saying the other day as he stood at the edge of the park. "This point to that point, it all connects."
Named for a World War I hero, this 4-acre park was at the center of clashes in the spring of 1963 between police and protesters determined to roll back the city's Jim Crow laws -- a struggle that brought infamy to this Southern steel town and ignited the civil rights movement.
King hints at both Birmingham's progress and its promise. But those of us who live here, and pay attention to public events, know there are powerful forces still aligned against change.
Our African-American mayor and several associates have been indicted on federal charges involving an alleged pay-for-play scheme.
While the charges against Mayor Larry Langford are troubling, perhaps even more alarming are the actions of the federal prosecutor who brought the case. Republican appointee Alice Martin has a history of targeting people who have dark skin or are Democrats--or both. Some of her cases have been so weak and blatantly political that she is being investigated by multiple government agencies.
But still, the local daily newspaper cheers her on, even though a prominent expert on legal affairs has called her perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
Even at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), once the city's most shining example of forward thinking, ugly forces appear to target those who don't fit the white/male/monied/Republican profile that still holds sway over much of the state.
A writer for a national magazine labels UAB's recent behavior "Orwellian" and marvels at the university's willingness to tolerate bigoted and racist speech while apparently taking steps to silence progressive voices.
As one of those progressive voices targeted at UAB, I hope King will make a return visit to our city in the coming months. The forces for change and the forces for stasis will be clashing in the Age of Obama. It's a story with national implications.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Florida's Head Gator Should Have Been At UAB
The University of Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14 last night to win the national championship of college football. It was the Gators' second title in three years, and Coach Urban Meyer is the toast of the college-football world.
But the man who really deserves credit for Florida's success on the gridiron is university president Bernard Machen. And Bernard Machen should have been the president at my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
As we noted in a recent post, UAB has been experiencing a crisis of leadership that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993. With the exception of Paul Hardin, a retired University of North Carolina chancellor who served as interim president at UAB in 1997, the Birmingham campus has seen a series of wretched presidents, topped off by the current lapdog, Carol Garrison.
UAB has suffered through 15-plus years of lousy leadership because of a string of stupendously bad decisions by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And the worst of those decisions was the failure to hire Bernard Machen.
First, some background about the University of Alabama System: The three-campus system is run by a board and chancellor's office that are based in Tuscaloosa. The "mother campus" (Roll Tide Roll!) is in Tuscaloosa, with a campus in Birmingham (once known mainly for its hospital and medical center) and a campus in Huntsville (once known mainly for its science and technology programs).
UAB and UAH have evolved into comprehensive urban universities, and UAB even has Division-I athletics and a football team (Go Blazers!). But it's a poorly kept secret that most of the board members know little, and care less, about the Birmingham and Huntsville campuses. With two or three exceptions at any one time, the board members have thoroughly crimson blood.
That might help explain why the board has done such a horrific job of hiring presidents for UAB, even though the university and its biomedical-research enterprise are the keys to Alabama's economic future. In fact, UAB brings in more research funding than the University of Alabama and Auburn University combined.
But the UA Board of Trustees evidently cannot be bothered to hire an actual leader for the state's largest employer, in the state's largest city.
UAB's decline started with the failure to hire Bernard Machen. And yours truly had a front-row seat for the sideshow. Follow me through this travelogue of incompetence in higher education.
McCallum resigned as UAB president in 1993, apparently fed up with grief he was receiving from the board for approving the formation of a football program in Birmingham.
J. Claude Bennett, a Birmingham native who was widely respected for his leadership of UAB's Department of Medicine (the largest academic department in the state), seemed to be a logical choice as president. But Bennett proved to be a flop in that position. He appointed a number of administrators who could charitably be called "hatchetmen," promoting widespread unrest on the campus. Someone finally pointed out that Bennett was using state employees to work at his personal residence--Oops--and so he was quietly shown the door.
Hardin, a lawyer by training, did a splendid job as interim president in 1997, and my understanding is that many influential folks begged him to stay on. But he was getting up in years and did not want to be a full-time college administrator anymore.
So UAB conducted a national search that came down to two candidates--W. Ann Reynolds, chancellor of City University of New York (CUNY) and Bernard Machen, provost at the University of Michigan.
The choice seemed clearcut. Reynolds had an impressive resume, but she also had a history of causing uproars on several campuses. Word was that she had gone through something like 18 secretaries in a short time at CUNY. I later heard from a trusted source in human resources at UAB that those stories were true, give or take a secretary or two.
Meanwhile, Machen appeared to be a perfect fit. He is a dentist by training, and UAB has one of the top dental schools in the country. UAB has a tradition of strong dentist/leaders. Both McCallum and Joseph Volker, UAB's first president, rose to the top spot through the School of Dentistry.
Machen reportedly had family in the South, and that made the UAB job particularly attractive to him. In the Publications Office, where I worked, word was that it was a done deal--Machen would be UAB's new president. We were so sure of it that we did not even attend Reynolds' public interview session with the board. I was right there on the front row for the Machen session, sure I was hearing from our next president.
But in a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the UA board hired Reynolds. How could this decision get screwed up so badly? Here's what a trusted source told me:
Michigan was going through a tumultuous stretch at the time, and Machen had been pretty much holding the campus together, handling two or three jobs over several months. The UAB interviews were in the spring, and when board members asked Machen when he could start, he made the mistake of being honest. Machen reportedly said the heavy workload at Michigan had left him tired, and he would like to take some time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. Plus, he had a number of loose ends to tie up at Ann Arbor. Machen suggested that he start at UAB in the fall, around the time the school year started.
When asked the same question, Reynolds said she could start right away. In fact, she couldn't wait to get to UAB. Of course that was because, according to reports at the time, she was about to be ousted at CUNY.
According to my source, board members said something like, "This guy from Michigan sounds worn out. We need this energetic gal from New York."
And so Ann Reynolds was hired as president of UAB. Perhaps the only worse personnel decision of the past 25 years was the "election" of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
What was the fallout of the Reynolds hire? After running through umpteen secretaries at UAB, alienating large chunks of the campus community, and allowing research fraud to become rampant, she was finally shown the door. As a parting gift, she sued the UA System for gender and age discrimination.
And Machen? He went on to serve with distinction as president of the University of Utah for six years. While in Salt Lake City, Machen hired a football coach named Urban Meyer who turned the Utes into a national power. In fact, in a bit of delicious irony, Utah recently kicked Alabama's butt in the 2009 Sugar Bowl.
Machen became Florida's president in 2004 and promptly hired Meyer to lead the Gators. Two national championships later, things look pretty rosy in Gainesville.
Let's make one important point: I'm a sports guy, and I've written professionally about sports for 30-plus year. I maintain a keen interest in UAB's sports program, even though the university screwed me out of my job.
But even I know that Bernard Machen's status as a university president is not based on football championships. It's based on academics and leadership, and Machen has a sterling reputation in both areas. Student applications and research grants have risen steadily at Florida, and Machen oversaw similar growth at Utah. The only bad thing I can find about him is that he endorsed John McCain for president. Ugh!
As for UAB, it's left with a sock puppet named Carol Garrison for president. The university is awash in research fraud and HR problems, and numerous top-flight faculty members have hit the exits in recent years. University computers are being used to send bigoted and racist e-mail messages, and UAB apparently has done little about it.
But the UA board evidently has the kind of president it wants. When UAB was hiring a football coach, it wanted to hire highly regarded LSU assistant Jimbo Fisher (now head-coach-in-waiting at Florida State). Instead, the board wanted UA graduate Neil Callaway to get the job, and Garrison caved in. (By the way, I follow UAB football and happen to think the Blazers lucked out with Callaway. A former assistant at the University of Georgia, Alabama, and Auburn, I think he is doing a good job at UAB, and I like him personally.)
I suspect a similar process took place with my termination. Evidence strongly suggests that Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin did not like the contents of my blog--which UAB's own investigation showed I was writing with my own time and resources. Someone connected to Riley/Martin probably complained to someone on the board--Riley is ex oficio president of the board--and pressured Garrison to fire me without anything remotely close to just cause.
Hopefully, someone at the UAB Medical Center can perform a spine transplant on Carol Garrison someday.
As for UAB athletics, one can only wonder how much farther along Blazer sports would be if Bernard Machen had been hired as president. Heck, Urban Meyer might have been UAB's football coach.
And here's a thought: If Machen had been hired at UAB, I think he might still be here. Florida certainly is an impressive institution, but in terms of research funding, UAB does not take a backseat to many schools. Only the University of North Carolina and Duke University receive more federal research dollars in the South than UAB.
Also, Florida had an advantage in recruiting Machen away from Utah. He has roots in the South, and that probably was a factor in him leaving Utah.
But if Machen had been hired at UAB, he already would have been in the South. Would UAB have been able to fight off Florida in a bidding war for Machen's services? I think it would have been possible.
It's hard to calculate how much better off UAB would be--not to mention Birmingham and Alabama--if Bernard Machen had been hired when the UA board had the chance.
Alabama's loss is Florida's gain.
But the man who really deserves credit for Florida's success on the gridiron is university president Bernard Machen. And Bernard Machen should have been the president at my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
As we noted in a recent post, UAB has been experiencing a crisis of leadership that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993. With the exception of Paul Hardin, a retired University of North Carolina chancellor who served as interim president at UAB in 1997, the Birmingham campus has seen a series of wretched presidents, topped off by the current lapdog, Carol Garrison.
UAB has suffered through 15-plus years of lousy leadership because of a string of stupendously bad decisions by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And the worst of those decisions was the failure to hire Bernard Machen.
First, some background about the University of Alabama System: The three-campus system is run by a board and chancellor's office that are based in Tuscaloosa. The "mother campus" (Roll Tide Roll!) is in Tuscaloosa, with a campus in Birmingham (once known mainly for its hospital and medical center) and a campus in Huntsville (once known mainly for its science and technology programs).
UAB and UAH have evolved into comprehensive urban universities, and UAB even has Division-I athletics and a football team (Go Blazers!). But it's a poorly kept secret that most of the board members know little, and care less, about the Birmingham and Huntsville campuses. With two or three exceptions at any one time, the board members have thoroughly crimson blood.
That might help explain why the board has done such a horrific job of hiring presidents for UAB, even though the university and its biomedical-research enterprise are the keys to Alabama's economic future. In fact, UAB brings in more research funding than the University of Alabama and Auburn University combined.
But the UA Board of Trustees evidently cannot be bothered to hire an actual leader for the state's largest employer, in the state's largest city.
UAB's decline started with the failure to hire Bernard Machen. And yours truly had a front-row seat for the sideshow. Follow me through this travelogue of incompetence in higher education.
McCallum resigned as UAB president in 1993, apparently fed up with grief he was receiving from the board for approving the formation of a football program in Birmingham.
J. Claude Bennett, a Birmingham native who was widely respected for his leadership of UAB's Department of Medicine (the largest academic department in the state), seemed to be a logical choice as president. But Bennett proved to be a flop in that position. He appointed a number of administrators who could charitably be called "hatchetmen," promoting widespread unrest on the campus. Someone finally pointed out that Bennett was using state employees to work at his personal residence--Oops--and so he was quietly shown the door.
Hardin, a lawyer by training, did a splendid job as interim president in 1997, and my understanding is that many influential folks begged him to stay on. But he was getting up in years and did not want to be a full-time college administrator anymore.
So UAB conducted a national search that came down to two candidates--W. Ann Reynolds, chancellor of City University of New York (CUNY) and Bernard Machen, provost at the University of Michigan.
The choice seemed clearcut. Reynolds had an impressive resume, but she also had a history of causing uproars on several campuses. Word was that she had gone through something like 18 secretaries in a short time at CUNY. I later heard from a trusted source in human resources at UAB that those stories were true, give or take a secretary or two.
Meanwhile, Machen appeared to be a perfect fit. He is a dentist by training, and UAB has one of the top dental schools in the country. UAB has a tradition of strong dentist/leaders. Both McCallum and Joseph Volker, UAB's first president, rose to the top spot through the School of Dentistry.
Machen reportedly had family in the South, and that made the UAB job particularly attractive to him. In the Publications Office, where I worked, word was that it was a done deal--Machen would be UAB's new president. We were so sure of it that we did not even attend Reynolds' public interview session with the board. I was right there on the front row for the Machen session, sure I was hearing from our next president.
But in a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the UA board hired Reynolds. How could this decision get screwed up so badly? Here's what a trusted source told me:
Michigan was going through a tumultuous stretch at the time, and Machen had been pretty much holding the campus together, handling two or three jobs over several months. The UAB interviews were in the spring, and when board members asked Machen when he could start, he made the mistake of being honest. Machen reportedly said the heavy workload at Michigan had left him tired, and he would like to take some time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. Plus, he had a number of loose ends to tie up at Ann Arbor. Machen suggested that he start at UAB in the fall, around the time the school year started.
When asked the same question, Reynolds said she could start right away. In fact, she couldn't wait to get to UAB. Of course that was because, according to reports at the time, she was about to be ousted at CUNY.
According to my source, board members said something like, "This guy from Michigan sounds worn out. We need this energetic gal from New York."
And so Ann Reynolds was hired as president of UAB. Perhaps the only worse personnel decision of the past 25 years was the "election" of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
What was the fallout of the Reynolds hire? After running through umpteen secretaries at UAB, alienating large chunks of the campus community, and allowing research fraud to become rampant, she was finally shown the door. As a parting gift, she sued the UA System for gender and age discrimination.
And Machen? He went on to serve with distinction as president of the University of Utah for six years. While in Salt Lake City, Machen hired a football coach named Urban Meyer who turned the Utes into a national power. In fact, in a bit of delicious irony, Utah recently kicked Alabama's butt in the 2009 Sugar Bowl.
Machen became Florida's president in 2004 and promptly hired Meyer to lead the Gators. Two national championships later, things look pretty rosy in Gainesville.
Let's make one important point: I'm a sports guy, and I've written professionally about sports for 30-plus year. I maintain a keen interest in UAB's sports program, even though the university screwed me out of my job.
But even I know that Bernard Machen's status as a university president is not based on football championships. It's based on academics and leadership, and Machen has a sterling reputation in both areas. Student applications and research grants have risen steadily at Florida, and Machen oversaw similar growth at Utah. The only bad thing I can find about him is that he endorsed John McCain for president. Ugh!
As for UAB, it's left with a sock puppet named Carol Garrison for president. The university is awash in research fraud and HR problems, and numerous top-flight faculty members have hit the exits in recent years. University computers are being used to send bigoted and racist e-mail messages, and UAB apparently has done little about it.
But the UA board evidently has the kind of president it wants. When UAB was hiring a football coach, it wanted to hire highly regarded LSU assistant Jimbo Fisher (now head-coach-in-waiting at Florida State). Instead, the board wanted UA graduate Neil Callaway to get the job, and Garrison caved in. (By the way, I follow UAB football and happen to think the Blazers lucked out with Callaway. A former assistant at the University of Georgia, Alabama, and Auburn, I think he is doing a good job at UAB, and I like him personally.)
I suspect a similar process took place with my termination. Evidence strongly suggests that Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin did not like the contents of my blog--which UAB's own investigation showed I was writing with my own time and resources. Someone connected to Riley/Martin probably complained to someone on the board--Riley is ex oficio president of the board--and pressured Garrison to fire me without anything remotely close to just cause.
Hopefully, someone at the UAB Medical Center can perform a spine transplant on Carol Garrison someday.
As for UAB athletics, one can only wonder how much farther along Blazer sports would be if Bernard Machen had been hired as president. Heck, Urban Meyer might have been UAB's football coach.
And here's a thought: If Machen had been hired at UAB, I think he might still be here. Florida certainly is an impressive institution, but in terms of research funding, UAB does not take a backseat to many schools. Only the University of North Carolina and Duke University receive more federal research dollars in the South than UAB.
Also, Florida had an advantage in recruiting Machen away from Utah. He has roots in the South, and that probably was a factor in him leaving Utah.
But if Machen had been hired at UAB, he already would have been in the South. Would UAB have been able to fight off Florida in a bidding war for Machen's services? I think it would have been possible.
It's hard to calculate how much better off UAB would be--not to mention Birmingham and Alabama--if Bernard Machen had been hired when the UA board had the chance.
Alabama's loss is Florida's gain.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Hazards of Having Corrupt Federal Prosecutors
About once a week since Barack Obama was elected president, The Birmingham News has run some sort of piece about the importance of continuing prosecutions initiated by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
The most recent entreaty came from columnist John Archibald, who virtually got on his knees and begged Obama (or someone close to him) to make sure that Martin's handiwork proceeds into 2009 and beyond.
Archibald and his colleagues, in their pieces about Alabama justice in the Age of Obama, have conveniently neglected a key point: There is a downside to having ethically challenged federal prosecutors, such as Martin and fellow Bush appointee Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
Both Martin and Canary have been accused of abusing their power for political purposes, and news reports indicate that both are under investigation by multiple federal agencies. These investigations probably have been whitewashes under the Bush Justice Department. But a number of sources indicate they could get serious when Obama appointees take over.
Archibald & Co. probably do not want to consider this question, but we will raise it here at Legal Schnauzer: What if the charges against Martin and Canary are true? In fact, what if investigations reveal that the truth about Martin and Canary is even worse than some of their critics allege? What if Martin and Canary wind up facing professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if Martin and Canary are found to have participated in criminal conspiracies?
The Birmingham News seems desperate to see Martin's prosecutions proceed against certain high-profile Democrats. These defendants include Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and codefendants William Blount and Al LaPierre; Langford associate John Katapodis; Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz; Alabama Senator E.B. McClain; and more. The News appears to have a particularly strong bloodlust for Langford.
As for Canary, she is leading an effort to prosecute Montgomery insurance executive John Goff in a case that seems driven by the concerns/fears/desires of folks associated with Governor Bob Riley. The Goff prosecution started only after Goff had filed a lawsuit claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of his businesses.
What are some possible downsides of these cases moving forward? For simplicity's sake, let's consider the Langford case in Birmingham and the Goff case in Montgomery.
Langford, a black Democrat, was arrested in early December on corruption-related charges. It's hard to say how strong the government's case is against Langford. But given Martin's history of bringing questionable cases against Democrats and minorities, a reasonable person might wonder if political motivations are present. Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin one of the most corrupt and crooked public officials in the country.
Goff, a former Riley supporter, has been charged with fraud and embezzlement based on a set of facts that appeared to have already been settled in an administrative-law case. The indictment of Goff seems to be payback for a lawsuit he brought against Gov. Riley.
Let's assume the government has moderately strong cases against Langford and Goff. And let's assume that both are found guilty in federal trials. What happens if subsequent investigations show that the prosecutors who initiated both cases were corrupt, that they targeted subjects for political reasons, that they violated professional standards and perhaps criminal laws?
Does that not give Langford and Goff overwhelming grounds for appeal? Couldn't that mean that any convictions would be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct? Could taxpayer dollars spent on the two trials be wasted because the prosecutors were found to have acted corruptly?
Regular readers know that I am not an attorney. And I don't pretend to be an expert on federal criminal procedure. But when Obama appointees are in place in the Justice Department, it seems they will need to ask themselves this question: Should we move forward with cases in Alabama, and elsewhere, that might have already been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct?
Put another way: Should we run the risk of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get convictions on cases that are likely to be overturned on appeal?
John Archibald and The Birmingham News crowd don't want to acknowledge it, but these are the kinds of hard questions the corrupt Bush Justice Department is leaving behind.
The most recent entreaty came from columnist John Archibald, who virtually got on his knees and begged Obama (or someone close to him) to make sure that Martin's handiwork proceeds into 2009 and beyond.
Archibald and his colleagues, in their pieces about Alabama justice in the Age of Obama, have conveniently neglected a key point: There is a downside to having ethically challenged federal prosecutors, such as Martin and fellow Bush appointee Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
Both Martin and Canary have been accused of abusing their power for political purposes, and news reports indicate that both are under investigation by multiple federal agencies. These investigations probably have been whitewashes under the Bush Justice Department. But a number of sources indicate they could get serious when Obama appointees take over.
Archibald & Co. probably do not want to consider this question, but we will raise it here at Legal Schnauzer: What if the charges against Martin and Canary are true? In fact, what if investigations reveal that the truth about Martin and Canary is even worse than some of their critics allege? What if Martin and Canary wind up facing professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if Martin and Canary are found to have participated in criminal conspiracies?
The Birmingham News seems desperate to see Martin's prosecutions proceed against certain high-profile Democrats. These defendants include Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and codefendants William Blount and Al LaPierre; Langford associate John Katapodis; Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz; Alabama Senator E.B. McClain; and more. The News appears to have a particularly strong bloodlust for Langford.
As for Canary, she is leading an effort to prosecute Montgomery insurance executive John Goff in a case that seems driven by the concerns/fears/desires of folks associated with Governor Bob Riley. The Goff prosecution started only after Goff had filed a lawsuit claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of his businesses.
What are some possible downsides of these cases moving forward? For simplicity's sake, let's consider the Langford case in Birmingham and the Goff case in Montgomery.
Langford, a black Democrat, was arrested in early December on corruption-related charges. It's hard to say how strong the government's case is against Langford. But given Martin's history of bringing questionable cases against Democrats and minorities, a reasonable person might wonder if political motivations are present. Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin one of the most corrupt and crooked public officials in the country.
Goff, a former Riley supporter, has been charged with fraud and embezzlement based on a set of facts that appeared to have already been settled in an administrative-law case. The indictment of Goff seems to be payback for a lawsuit he brought against Gov. Riley.
Let's assume the government has moderately strong cases against Langford and Goff. And let's assume that both are found guilty in federal trials. What happens if subsequent investigations show that the prosecutors who initiated both cases were corrupt, that they targeted subjects for political reasons, that they violated professional standards and perhaps criminal laws?
Does that not give Langford and Goff overwhelming grounds for appeal? Couldn't that mean that any convictions would be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct? Could taxpayer dollars spent on the two trials be wasted because the prosecutors were found to have acted corruptly?
Regular readers know that I am not an attorney. And I don't pretend to be an expert on federal criminal procedure. But when Obama appointees are in place in the Justice Department, it seems they will need to ask themselves this question: Should we move forward with cases in Alabama, and elsewhere, that might have already been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct?
Put another way: Should we run the risk of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get convictions on cases that are likely to be overturned on appeal?
John Archibald and The Birmingham News crowd don't want to acknowledge it, but these are the kinds of hard questions the corrupt Bush Justice Department is leaving behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)