USM PR on Dvorak, etc. - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 23, 2004

USM PR on Dvorak, etc.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

So much to say...so little time. Will come back soon and say more...but one quick note: the USM website has already been changed to reflect Dr. Cecil Burge as the new VP. Check it out here: http://www.usm.edu/admin/research.htm

Also, another point: now all of the upper administrators are all old (over 40) white guys.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

i wondered when someone would pick up on the absence of women and minorities in the central administration.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i wondered when someone would pick up on the absence of women and minorities in the central administration."

HELLLOOOO, didn't anyone read the thread about a lawsuit waiting to happen over the woman dept chair candidate in CBED who didn't get the job because TH/KM and the finally vocal JG "didn't think she'd fit in" - what do you think those code words stand for???? I understand we're not talking about central administration here but when a well-qualified administrative candidate, chosen by a committee, the chair, and the dean gets nixed by an all-white male central administration...on the grounds that "she won't fit in"...I'd be shaking in my EEOC boots...

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: glory
"The following people will be asked to serve on the search committee: Dr. Ed Jackson, incoming Chair of the University Research Council and Chair of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology; Dr. Mitch Berman, Associate Professor and Assistant Dean of the College of Education and Psychology; Dr. Agnes Hinton, Co-Director of the Center for Sustainable Health; Dr. David Butler, Assistant Professor of Economic Development; Dr. Rex Gandy, Dean of the College of Science and Technology; Dr. Vernon Asper, Professor in the Department of Marine Science; Mr. Doug Hancock, Account Manager of Sponsored Program Administration and Michelle Shows, Assistant Director of Sponsored Program Administration. "

Dr. Ed Jackson stepped down as Chair in 2003.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: glory
"The following people will be asked to serve on the search committee: Dr. Ed Jackson, incoming Chair of the University Research Council and Chair of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology; Dr. Mitch Berman, Associate Professor and Assistant Dean of the College of Education and Psychology; Dr. Agnes Hinton, Co-Director of the Center for Sustainable Health; Dr. David Butler, Assistant Professor of Economic Development; Dr. Rex Gandy, Dean of the College of Science and Technology; Dr. Vernon Asper, Professor in the Department of Marine Science; Mr. Doug Hancock, Account Manager of Sponsored Program Administration and Michelle Shows, Assistant Director of Sponsored Program Administration. "

Dr. Ed Jackson stepped down as Chair in 2003.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Outraged
"HELLLOOOO, didn't anyone read the thread about a lawsuit waiting to happen over the woman dept chair candidate in CBED who didn't get the job because TH/KM and the finally vocal JG "didn't think she'd fit in" - what do you think those code words stand for???? I understand we're not talking about central administration here but when a well-qualified administrative candidate, chosen by a committee, the chair, and the dean gets nixed by an all-white male central administration...on the grounds that "she won't fit in"...I'd be shaking in my EEOC boots..."

Does USM even have a formal affirmative action office?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Man, Mitch Berman is all over the place now. His hands are on everything from A to Z. What's the deal? Has he gotten any mid-year raises the last 2 years?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

The following people will be asked to serve on the search committee: Dr. Ed Jackson, incoming Chair of the University Research Council and Chair of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology; Dr. Mitch Berman, Associate Professor and Assistant Dean of the College of Education and Psychology; Dr. Agnes Hinton, Co-Director of the Center for Sustainable Health; Dr. David Butler, Assistant Professor of Economic Development; Dr. Rex Gandy, Dean of the College of Science and Technology; Dr. Vernon Asper, Professor in the Department of Marine Science; Mr. Doug Hancock, Account Manager of Sponsored Program Administration and Michelle Shows, Assistant Director of Sponsored Program Administration.

LOOK! NO ONE from the arts or the humanities. The closest it gets to COAL is a social scientist.

Remember the cartoon in the Student Printz two years ago that showed liberal arts in 2015 as a tent (and polymer science as a skyscraper)? It is going to happen sooner than 2015.

COAL folks, you need to start lobbying Ed Jackson NOW on this. Otherwise philosophy profs. are going to have to become millionaires through grants like Shelboo. Things could remain very bad for COAL with the wrong person, and I suspect that is what will happen.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

"Since Dr. Dvorak came on board in August 2002, the net assets of the Research Foundation have grown from $10,000 to $39 Million," said university president, Shelby Thames. "She's done this, while leading a research office that has seen significant increases for the past two consecutive years and coming under some personal fire. I find that amazing and impressive beyond belief."

I could not agree more with ST about the underlined. If the Research Foundation has "net assets" of $39 milllion, that makes it head and shoulders above the USM Foundation. And in just two short years. We need to know more about this wonderful state of events.

Pirate

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pirate
""Since Dr. Dvorak came on board in August 2002, the net assets of the Research Foundation have grown from $10,000 to $39 Million," said university president, Shelby Thames. "She's done this, while leading a research office that has seen significant increases for the past two consecutive years and coming under some personal fire. I find that amazing and impressive beyond belief." I could not agree more with ST about the underlined. If the Research Foundation has "net assets" of $39 milllion, that makes it head and shoulders above the USM Foundation. And in just two short years. We need to know more about this wonderful state of events. Pirate"

Have we just solved the mystery of what happened to the Capital Campaign??

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pirate
""Since Dr. Dvorak came on board in August 2002, the net assets of the Research Foundation have grown from $10,000 to $39 Million," said university president, Shelby Thames. "She's done this, while leading a research office that has seen significant increases for the past two consecutive years and coming under some personal fire. I find that amazing and impressive beyond belief." I could not agree more with ST about the underlined. If the Research Foundation has "net assets" of $39 milllion, that makes it head and shoulders above the USM Foundation. And in just two short years. We need to know more about this wonderful state of events. Pirate"

Maybe that's where some of the Capital Campaign money ended up.

Someone closer to the source than me...please, follow the money and report back. Guru, got anybody on this one?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i wondered when someone would pick up on the absence of women and minorities in the central administration."

This was noted, commented on and cried over on the FS board. I said then that true national searches would yield a more diverse administration, but recent events elsewhere described (qualified woman nixed by SFT) cause me to doubt my earlier assertion. Dr. Harris' experience is instructive.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

The Research Foundation was the result of a lot of hard work by Dr. Don Cotten and Dr. Cecil Burge under a previous administration and is based upon the immense success of the true World Class universities that do not have to proclaim themselves World Class. So SFT is taking credit for other's very gifted lead and hard work.

The Research Foundation values its assets in a legal, but unique manner. Most of the value is from patents that have been donated to the university. For example, if Company A donates a patent that cost them $3 million to develop (throught the patent process, which can be costly), it is a $3 million asset. And the company takes a $3 million tax deduction. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much!

However, the actual value to the Research Foundation from a cash flow standpoint is $0, zip, nada. We now just own the intellectual property. First, someone has to want to license the patent from the university. Then they would pay a small amount for the license and either a percentage of the profits from the results of the patent or a fee per widget manufactured using the patent. OR, we could just sell the patent. That is a negotiation issue.

In the years before SFT and his sycophants came aboard, the Research Foundation had well over $10 million in assets, based upon the development costs through the individual patents. In the last year before SFT took over, I think an additional $5+ million was added to the books.

There is a fee to transfer the patent from the company to the university, usually in the several thousand dollar range (government paperwork and lawyer costs). This is usually paid for by the university.

These numbers ($39 million) are 'funny money' numbers and do not represent actual cash and negotiable securities. They have, for the most part, no actual value. At least until we can find a 'buyer' for the patent.

It is a numbers game. The more patents that the university 'collects' the greater the likelyhood that a potentially big winner will come into the fold. But in the meantime, you collect a lot of toads.

But the companies who are developing new ideas often come up with products that do not fit their needs, but they have the invention patented. After a while, if there is no internal justification, and there is no 'buyer' for the patent, they like to donate it to a university to get the tax deduction. After all, they then get some of their capital back to invest in new research. After a 'relationship' is built between the company and the university, if the experience is positive, the word spreads.

Some universities are receiving tens of millions each year in royalties from these patent donations. But like I said, you have to acquire a lot of toads before one becomes a prince.

The idea (Research Foundation) is a real step forward for the university's long term financial health. The numbers being kicked about, while they may be valid (AD taking it from $10,000 to #39,000,000 is a pure fabrication), they are not real dollars.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Research Associate is correct. And, if you read Bok's book, universities make virtually nothing off of patent license revenues. Most univs that make anything off of them make around $1 million per year. Just enough for a few mid-year raises.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Research Associate (and Tomcat)--Is there any way to get the real facts out to the public?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ditto boy
"Research Associate (and Tomcat)--Is there any way to get the real facts out to the public?"

Given the lethargy shown by the HA reporters towards actually doing background research for a story, the answer is NO. A well written letter to the editor would probably get bounced. I just assumed that the prior information that I posted was common knowledge, but apparently it is not well understood by most people.

The main point is the Research Foundation (RF), while having large numbers to flash across the newspaper, is but a shell of its asset value. Its cash flow value is usually tiny, and will not be able to support AD at her inflated salary. It (RF) is necessary for the future well being of the university, but is only one of a multitude of opportunities that a well structured research university uses to support and advance its mission.

There are numerous additional areas for fiscal and research growth that could be initiated, but are still unknown in the dome. After all, they are creative and innovative. And who ever heard of a creative dictatorship?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ditto boy
"Research Associate (and Tomcat)--Is there any way to get the real facts out to the public?"

I agree, but I'm tired of letters to the editors stating that faculty are always insulting the public and that we're projecting negative comments. How about a couple of letters that show the positive side of the faculty. We need more supporters from the community. We can't continue to send negative letters to the HA and expect the community to see our side of things.
Could these letters perhaps be more "positive" pointing out (tactfully) that there were misquotes and misinformation presented in the press release and these are the "true" facts, rather than a blast of negative comments that turn the community against the faculty.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: texas eagle
"Man, Mitch Berman is all over the place now. His hands are on everything from A to Z. What's the deal? Has he gotten any mid-year raises the last 2 years? "

Yes, Mitch has had some raises. He is actually a pretty decent researcher turned Poster Child for the Thames regime. Sad, sad . . .

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
" I agree, but I'm tired of letters to the editors stating that faculty are always insulting the public and that we're projecting negative comments. How about a couple of letters that show the positive side of the faculty. We need more supporters from the community. We can't continue to send negative letters to the HA and expect the community to see our side of things. Could these letters perhaps be more "positive" pointing out (tactfully) that there were misquotes and misinformation presented in the press release and these are the "true" facts, rather than a blast of negative comments that turn the community against the faculty. "

Kick.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

responding to the remark that the HA seems unwilling to do anything significant here in the investigative reporting mode--

this seems true, but it's my impression that this disinclination comes more from the editorial board than from the reporters (with some exceptions).

You do know that Rachel Quinlivan is an intern with the HA for part of this summer? She's not her own boss, of course, but I imagine info posted here will reach her.

Kevin Walters, too, is very interested in our situation. He may be ready to pursue some stories and maybe some of them will get the editors' approval.

Let's keep plugging. And thanks, Research Associate, for the good info. That $39 million looked totally bogus to me but you're the one with the inside scoop.

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Anne:

Just to clarify, the $39 million is probably a valid number, but it is NOT $39,000,000. It is the ownership of intellectual property that cost $39,000,000 to develop and patent. The number could easily be $139,000,000 and the economic result (i.e., cash flow to the university) would be unchanged.

If a drug company spent $150 million to develop a new drug and had it patented but could not get FDA approval, it would be effectively useless to the corporation. If that patent was then donated to the USM RF, the RF would increase its value by $150 million for the life of the patent.

Nice tax deduction for the company and good PR for USM. Worthless? Not necessarily. There are a lot of recent mega drugs that were originally designed for another purpose and never did well. Later tests showed the drug was ideal for treating something else and 'Voila!', and overnight success that sat on the shelf for 6 years.

You have to kiss a lot of toads before you find a handsome prince. And the collection of intellectual property donations is a positive step for the entire university. But it is an example of taking the long view. Quick hits in this arena are a rare exception.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

So, by this standard of accounting, USM would look good right now if it has sponsored the production of Kevin Costner's Waterworld. Right?

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Just thought of something...does this mean that Cecil Burge is now Angie D.'s boss?? Wonder when we'll see that organizational chart.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: R A
" Worthless? Not necessarily. There are a lot of recent mega drugs that were originally designed for another purpose and never did well. Later tests showed the drug was ideal for treating something else and 'Voila!', and overnight success that sat on the shelf for 6 years. You have to kiss a lot of toads before you find a handsome prince. "

Do handsome princes ever become toads? That is, does the patent holder take potential liability as well as the potential for benefit?

I am remembering a drug called Thalidomide that was developed in the 50's as a sleeping pill and to combat morning sickness. It was in use for almost a decade before somebody realized it stunted the development of fetal limbs. A lot of babies were born without arms, legs or both. Talk about "Voila!" though -- Thalidomide is now used to treat leprosy.

Let's say the Research Foundation is given a patent on the next wonder drug. We enjoy the income for a few years, and then folks start growing cauliflower instead of hair. Does the RF owe somebody?

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Do handsome princes ever become toads? That is, does the patent holder take potential liability as well as the potential for benefit? ... Does the RF owe somebody?"

If the patents are transferred to the university, then both rights and responsibility transfer to the university. Remember, however, that the patents are not products. There is no marketable product until it is developed and commercialized. This can be done through technology transfer at the university level (to a 3rd organization) or through a commercialization arm (like Noetic).

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Ram:

An interesting question. The problem you describe would be worked through the 'chain of title'. The company manufacturing the product would be accountable. Then the licensee, if they are not the same entity. Normally, they would have to be wiped out before it would move up the ladder, taking several insurance companies with them. As a non-profit public institution, I am not sure what the liability would be for the RF. But I guarantee, anyone suing is looking for deep pockets. So after destroying the manufactured / licensee, their would be setting their sights on the company that actually developed the product initially.

A good example of destroying a company is the Johns Mansfield (Sp?) asbestos suits in the 80's. The company was destroyed and tens of thousands of people lost their jobs.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: R A
"Ram: An interesting question. The problem you describe would be worked through the 'chain of title'. The company manufacturing the product would be accountable. Then the licensee, if they are not the same entity. "

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the patent portfolio is more likely to consist of technologies, applications, and formulas rather than products. These are far from commercialization and there will be development and testing stages before manufacturing and well before marketing. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the patents in the portfolio are internally generated as opposed to donated from external corporations and to know the approach to their valuation.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Just thought of something...does this mean that Cecil Burge is now Angie D.'s boss?? Wonder when we'll see that organizational chart."

What are the odds that Mrs. Dr. Dr. Dvorak will still be reporting directly to Shelby F. Thames?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: tomcat
"So, by this standard of accounting, USM would look good right now if it has sponsored the production of Kevin Costner's Waterworld. Right?"

I think Ishtar was part of that deal too!