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

Date: Jun 24, 2004

RE: USM PR on Dvorak, etc.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Wise guy said:

"4) Regardless of what you may think of her, the fact remains that Dr. Dvorak has worked tirelessly to develop and market the university's research and technology and has been very successful at it. This inures to the benefit of everyone."

Sorry, I don't think so. She's all about money, and she (or perhaps the Thames adminstration) doesn't appear to value any intellectual "product" that does not generate money.

If we really have $39 million dollars, why have I been paying my own way to professional conferences to give papers for the past two years? Why is the library so dreadfully underfunded--so underfunded, it doesn't even rank with Univ. of AL-Birmingham or East Carolina (or a host of other schools that you wouldn't think would outspend USM)? I have not seen the benefits to "everyone."

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: WiseGuy
RA . . . does not know what assets are in the RF, nor what its income is, so his/her whole premise is flawed and unsubstantiated.

WiseGuy, just how do you know that RA does not know the assets and income of the Research Foundation? Are those assets and income secret? Is that information not publicly available as are other income and assets related to USM?

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: WiseGuy
"3) While it is true that you get some "toads" along with the "princes," the fact remains that you will not have any princes without first accumulating the "tadpoles." "

Actually, this is a good analogy.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: WiseGuy
" Here are a few points of clarification:

1) RA does not claim to have any inside information and his/her comments attest to that. He/she does not know what assets are in the RF, nor what its income is, so his/her whole premise is flawed and unsubstantiated.

2) IP property in the foundation is not valued based upon the amount spent on developing it. IRS regulations require it to be appraised by an independent third party, much like real estate. The appraisal establishes the value of the donation and the deduction.

If you continue by attacking it in the paper, you will only validate the "malcontent" moniker. Think about it."

(a) So then, it follows that WiseGuy does not claim to have any inside information and his/her comments attest to that. . . . so his/her whole premise is flawed and unsubstantiated.

(b) I think the basic criticism is not how the value of IP (or RE) is established, but that it is reported as if it were cash. People see $39 million and they think it means money. If an asset, any asset, has a true fair market value of $39 million, if we are being transparent, that should mean that the asset could be sold on the open market for something roughly in the neighborhood of $39 million within the next 180 days or so.

(c) I may have missed it, but I don't remember anyone running down the RF, just AD. And the "fun with numbers" success stories.

(d) Am I the only one who hates to be told to "Think about it"? As if I cannot or do not process information except on command.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
(d) Am I the only one who hates to be told to "Think about it"? As if I cannot or do not process information except on command."

I don't mind this, except when it really means, "Think about it and then agree with everything I've just said."

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" I don't mind this, except when it really means, "Think about it and then agree with everything I've just said.""

foot soldier--

Touche. You are right. The implication being that if one doesn't agree, one hasn't thought (or cannot think) sufficiently. I guess nobody ever told me to think about that.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: WiseGuy
"
4) Regardless of what you may think of her, the fact remains that Dr. Dvorak has worked tirelessly to develop and market the university's research and technology and has been very successful at it. This inures to the benefit of everyone.
"

Wiseguy, since you asked RA to "prove" everything, I respectfully ask you to provide the "facts" to back up this statement. As I see it, Dvorak came in & essentially surfed on what Don Cotten had done.

Yes, she "marketed" selected research programs at USM to selected targets. This is sort of like working at the car dealership & only having to sell Corvettes to doctors.

So, start enumerating the "tough sells" that Angeline Dvorak has successfully negotiated for USM. Just to define "tough sell" a little better, let's say that anything involving polymers cannot be cited & anything involving a faculty member's former employer cannot be cited.

My bet is that you can't come up with too much of nothing (to coin a phrase

)

Date: Jun 25, 2004

A few observations...

Wiseguy: Wrong on your #1 & #2, no problem with #3 and #4 is you personal opinion. It is not widely shared.

Invictus: You are a wise individual.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

I was doing some background research on the Research Foundation and came across this interesting article:

http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/Members/KMalone.html

Date: Jun 25, 2004

“We have no desire to change the world of academics for people who want to do basic research,” he said.

and then there is that alluring swampland in Florida that I'm selling.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"I was doing some background research on the Research Foundation and came across this interesting article: http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/Members/KMalone.html"

Yupper, dupper... this was on the old FS board ... job #1 of the 3 job snowball.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: R A
"
Invictus: You are a wise individual."

May I quote you on this the next time my wife decides to tell me what an idiot I am?

I think the Research Foundation is a GREAT idea. I think that it has to be run with the proper balance between what is "marketable" & what is "valuable". And its bookkeeping must be impeccable & publicly accountable at all times, totally transparent organization.

However, if the transparency-of-accounting aspect is not done with complete integrity & honesty, the Research Foundation looks a lot like a terrific slush fund that could be used for all sorts of purposes, like paying salaries for employees of other agencies or creating off-the-org-chart positions.

As an alumnus of USM & a taxpayer of this Great State, I have real concerns that the vixen is guarding the henhouse.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"I was doing some background research on the Research Foundation and came across this interesting article:
http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/Members/KMalone.html"

OK. Nerdy looking guy. Chemist. Invictus could probably have a decent conversation with him.

Maybe this Kenbot person can come up with seed money for several of the high tech small businesses Invictus wants to start. Perhaps he provide office space at USM to do the start-up. There are plenty of empty offices, I'm sure

What sticks in my craw is that this cat has a doctorate from USM. If I'm correct, there is no department on campus that could hire him to be a tenure-track professor. At least that's what I've been told about my USM doctorate.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"I was doing some background research on the Research Foundation and came across this interesting article: http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/Members/KMalone.html"

This statement from the above article: "Working in collaboration with Southern Miss’s unique Department of Economic Development, which is a part of the College of International and Continuing Education, Malone said he will utilize an infrastructure already in place to help professors across all academic disciplines turn their intellectual properties into dollars for themselves and the university."

Did I read this correctly? Help professors turn their intellectual properties into dollars for themselves and the university? For themselves? Excuse me, folks, but I am a taxpayer. Can I, too, set up shop on state property and generate dollars for me? I was not aware that state resources could be used for private gain. Something is terribly wrong here. USM has a reasonable consulting policy for its faculty members - one day per week. I believe that the published USM consulting guidelines (there is an approval form) specify that state property will not be used in such consulting. Am I off base here? I'll bet the taxpayers of Mississippi don't think I am off base on this matter.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"

What sticks in my craw is that this cat has a doctorate from USM. If I'm correct, there is no department on campus that could hire him to be a tenure-track professor. At least that's what I've been told about my USM doctorate.

"

I believe he is the chair of the Department of Economic Development. However, there is some question as to his faculty status.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" If I'm correct, there is no department on campus that could hire him to be a tenure-track professor. "

But he is the department chair (snowball job #2) of economic development and an "assistant professor" of economic development in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 course catalogs.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" If I'm correct, there is no department on campus that could hire him to be a tenure-track professor. "

In the spirit of the Hollandsworth/Malone connection from the former board, what is the connection between the FACSEN official position about AD's role in tenure/promotion decisions and KM's role as an academic administrator?

Date: Jun 25, 2004

There is lots of interesting information about the Research Foundation at www.guidestar.org.

According to the records, the Research Foundation had assets of $31 million on 1/1/02 and $39 million on 12/31/02. When did AD become involved with the Research Foundation? The Research Foundation shows contributions of $23 million on its 2001 990 form and there is no mention of AD so, at most, the Research Foundation appears to have grown from $23 million to $39million since her involvement.

According the the Research Foundation's federal 990 form (2002), the form lists six patents owned by the RF. Four are from an company identified as Natl Starch which is presumably National Starch and Chemical Corp. located in Bridgewater, NJ. This outfit donated patents in 2000 (stated at a cost of $4.2 million-presumably the appraised value of the asset), patents in 2001 (cost $22million) and patents in 2002 (cost $2.5 million and $8.2 million) (it is not clear why there are two different entries.) The other patents were acquired in 1999 from Solutia (presumably Solutia, Inc. of St. Louis. MO) (cost $2.5 million) and in 2000 from DuPont (cost $3.5 million).

Despite WiseGuy's comments, it doesn't appear the the Research Foundation has generated any licensing revenues from the assets. At least, it doesn't seem to be reported on the 990, but I am not an accountant so I may be missing something. It appears that in 2002, the Research Foundation obtained $440,000 in cash donations and $11 million in non-cash donations.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

In rereading Dr. Thames original statement about the growth in assets since August 2002 from $10,000 to $39 million, it appears that he either lied or the Research Foundation submitted false tax records. Which one do you think is most likely?

Date: Jun 25, 2004

Further investigation of the US Patent and Trademark Office records shows that only 2 patents have been assigned to the USM Research Foundation since August, 2002 (according to SFT, when AD became responsible for the RF). They were patents owned by BP America and appear to have been assigned on May 12, 2004.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"In rereading Dr. Thames original statement about the growth in assets since August 2002 from $10,000 to $39 million, it appears that he either lied or the Research Foundation submitted false tax records. Which one do you think is most likely? "

Nice research DC. I hope Janet Braswell or Kevin Walters will pass your question on at the next spoon feeding.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

DC Eagle:

Thank you for finding the actual numbers. I have not been able to reconstruct my notes from the time. Therefore my earlier numbers I chose to err on the conservative side. I did not want to pull a Shady Thames and overstate the actual numbers. As to your question...

"and patents in 2002 (cost $2.5 million and $8.2 million) (it is not clear why there are two different entries.) "

They were two gifts of patents that occurred at two different times that year, so they were recognized and recorded as unique gifts.

But as I said much earlier, these patents are not a cash stream. These properties only have value if they can be licensed or sold to another entity.

Date: Jun 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"I was doing some background research on the Research Foundation and came across this interesting article: http://www.pinebeltpacers.org/Members/KMalone.html"

The BIG LIE appears here too:

"The university also has the only full-fledged economic development degree program in the nation and plans are well under way for construction of a $10 million National Center of Excellence on the Hattiesburg campus."

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Just Plain Jane
" Did I read this correctly? Help professors turn their intellectual properties into dollars for themselves and the university? For themselves? Excuse me, folks, but I am a taxpayer. Can I, too, set up shop on state property and generate dollars for me? I was not aware that state resources could be used for private gain. Something is terribly wrong here. USM has a reasonable consulting policy for its faculty members - one day per week. I believe that the published USM consulting guidelines (there is an approval form) specify that state property will not be used in such consulting. Am I off base here? I'll bet the taxpayers of Mississippi don't think I am off base on this matter. "

How do you think SFT made all of his $$? Kenbot is his protege, after all. Like I've said before, follow the money.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

And also remember that the Kenbot is not qualified for ANY position in economic development according to SACS. He is not a tenure track faculty member, and I don't think he is really a faculty member at all. I the the grad council is considering this problems

Date: Jun 27, 2004

I've been away for awhile, so I may be missing something here. The statement by DCEagle lookes pretty damn damning. A lie or tax fraud? Is anyone with the requisite skills following up/checking up on this?

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ditto Boy
"I've been away for awhile, so I may be missing something here. The statement by DCEagle lookes pretty damn damning. A lie or tax fraud? Is anyone with the requisite skills following up/checking up on this?"

Whoa big fella...whoa! As I have said before and DC Eagle gave the actual nubmers above, the current value for the RF is accurate. No tax fraud there.

BUT...the $10,000 to $39,000,000 during AD's 'tenure' (sorry, I could not resist) is pure Grade-A BS! A Fun-with-Numbers PR statement to impress the unwashed masses, and hopefully silence the critics.

The RF number about the time AD came into the picture was in the $25,000,000 range. DC Eagle nailed it (see above), but I do not remember the actual total when AD took over.

And as stated earlier, this number could jump by $100,000,000 with one gift. And the cash flow to the university would still be zero.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

I retrieved the documents DCEagle is quoting several months ago. Eagle is correct. The RA has been nothing more than a depreciation shell for certiain research grants. It is a way to get money moved around in much the same way MTA/MDA operated. Until AD started using it as a flow thru, it was basically dormat.

If you look at RF reports from other schools, such as Ole Miss, you can see what a real RF looks like. On paper and in real life.

There is a process by which the RF is used to collect money for the university, however, usm is not conducting business properly. Shock and Awe.

Also, I wish someone would take a look at this MIDAS payoff to certain individuals, especially Ken Malone. Weird. The people who write grants with DT also made a s***load of money off MIDAS.

A note for those who propose that SFT will reform:

YOU KNEW IT WAS A SNAKE WHEN YOU PICKED IT UP.

Spend your time hoping the children in Africa won't be hungry. You have a better chance of having your dreams come true.

Why would someone even consider changing when they do not perceive they have done anything wrong.

He his doing this for our own good, because we are too lazy to do our jobs. We are making him have to punish us for our own good. It hurts him worse than us. We just can't see the long term benefit of how good all this is going to turn out. He knows what he is doing, quit trying to think and just obey. blahblahblah.

Or, go to therapy.

Better yet, read up on sociopathic behavior and the abusive cycle of wife beaters before you get too hopeful.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"Yes, Mitch has had some raises. He is actually a pretty decent researcher turned Poster Child for the Thames regime. Sad, sad . . ."

Emma:

I promised you a cup of coffee at the Hub. Make that a double latte for the researcher kudos!

Sorry if I am percieved as a lackey. I've learned that admin work involves doing all you can do to improve the lives of your faculty, busting one's butt to get them the resources they need to be successful, and then being called a dirtball. Oh well. I'd like a copy of that poster to go next to the one of Bille Holiday in my office.

Mitch