| Blog and Media Roundup - Wednesday, March 30, 2011; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 30 2011, 05:22 AM (233 Views) | |
| abb | Mar 30 2011, 05:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/12548400/article-Duke-University-on-solid-ground--says-Richard-Brodhead?instance=main_article Duke University on solid ground, says Richard Brodhead The Herald Sun 03.29.11 - 10:23 pm By Neil Offen noffen@heraldsun.com; 419-6646 DURHAM -- Duke University, after more than two years of belt-tightening and budget cuts, has "returned to a sense of security, even prosperity," university President Richard Brodhead said. That new prosperity will mean that for the first time since 2008 employees will receive merit-based pay raises this year. "It's time to return to a more normal approach to recognizing the good work of Duke employees," Brodhead wrote in an e-mail to university workers this week. The president said that the details of the merit increase program, which will be tied to performance reviews, will be communicated to individual employees later this spring and will be effective July 1. Tallman Trask III, the university's executive vice president, said the range of salary increases "will vary by employee but should be around 3 percent." No employees have received raises recently with the exception of a select group of employees: Those who made $50,000 or less in fiscal year 2010 and $80,000 or less in fiscal year 2011 were granted one-time payments of $1,000 in each year if they received satisfactory performance reviews. The ability to increase salaries is a result of a combination of factors, including the belt-tightening and what Brodhead called "reviving financial markets." A little more than two years ago, the university announced that because of the economic downtown -- which reduced Duke's endowment, reduced gifts to the school and increased the need for financial aid -- it had to trim $125 million from its budget over a three-year period. Because of the stock market's subsequent improvement and the end of the recession, that figure was later reduced to $100 million. The needed cuts generally have been accomplished, officials said. "We are at a new equilibrium," Trask explained. "With a few things still working their way through the system, as of next summer we will have cut $75 million off the budget. The return of the market has taken care of the rest of the $100 million." Brodhead praised the cooperation from the whole Duke community, which resulted in the "sizeable reductions and identified efficiencies that will save money for many years to come," he said. The reductions came primarily in the university workforce; Duke now has about 400 fewer employees than it did three years ago, thanks to a series of buyouts and early retirements. And "those jobs just aren't going to come back anytime soon," Trask said. "About half of them are out of central administration, and we're just going to have to make do with less." While the process has been difficult, Trask said he was reasonably happy with how it had happened. "I think we're the only place that lost 385 employees and nobody sued us or filed a grievance," he said. "It wasn't particularly easy and it wasn't particularly fun, but I'm glad we've made it through." |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 30 2011, 05:34 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/29/the-movement-to-disbar-mary-n-kellett/ The Movement to Disbar Mary N. Kellett by Paul Elam on March 29, 2011 by Paul Elam [Special note: I urge and implore all bloggers, anywhere on the internet, to reprint this article in its entirety with a link back to this page. Please help me get this event in front of as many eyes as possible. Thank you – PE] There are often times that we shake our heads at injustices in the world. Sometimes it seems to be all we can do. And with so many problems in modern life, and their often systemic, intractable nature, it can be difficult to choose what battles to fight and when. Because of this we have increasingly become a nation of head shakers, concerned about an array of injustices but often not knowing where to turn or what to do to solve them. With that in mind we have an opportunity, right here and now, to face down and fight against a terrible injustice, an absolute evil, going on in the state of Maine. Vladek Filler is about to face trial for a second time on the charge of raping his wife, Ligia. He was brought to trial the first time by Bar Harbor prosecutor Mary N. Kellett, who has sought to imprison Mr. Filler despite the fact that she knows that there is no physical evidence that he ever committed a crime, and despite the fact that his accuser Ligia Filler, has proven to be a violent criminal, a liar who has been caught in false allegations against her husband, and a physical and emotional abuser of her husband and children with a history of severe psychiatric problems. Ligia Filler has been referred to as “certifiable” by sheriff’s department personnel who she repeatedly threatened to kill. Mary Kellett’s professional conduct in this case breeches virtually all canons of legal ethics where it concerns prosecutors, from intentionally misleading jurors to avoiding pretrial discovery to actually asking a law enforcement officer to refuse to comply with a valid subpoena in order to help her conceal exculpatory evidence. All of this, and many other similar cases, have been conducted under the supervision of Bar Harbor, Maine, District Attorney Carletta Bassano, leading to the almost unavoidable conclusion that the problem is not just one rogue prosecutor, but one in which District Attorney Bassano is an enabling accomplice. Additionally, all of these events have transpired without so much as raising an eyebrow in local news media. Given the complicity of her supervisor and the lack of attention by local media, Kellet appears emboldened to continue this reign of terror on the life of Vladek Filler, his children, and other innocents who reside in the community Kellett is supposed to protect. After having Filler’s first conviction overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct by the Maine Supreme Court, she is coming after him again, putting him through another trial on the same slipshod evidence. Kellett is not pursuing justice; she is making a mockery of it in ways that border on criminality. She is out of control and no one with authority over her is doing anything about it. And given the hubris demonstrated by her actions, it is clear she feels free to proceed with impunity. We cannot, must not, allow this to happen. This is a battle worth choosing to fight, and A Voice for Men is not the only place that is happening. Glenn Sacks at Father’s and Families, the nation’s leader in father’s rights advocacy is speaking out about this story. You can also read about it at The False Rape Society. This article will also be running at the-spearhead.com, with thanks to our good friend Mr. W.F. Price. The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments(S.A.V.E.) has taken the even more significant action, sending a Complaint for the Disbarment of Prosecutor Mary Kellett to the Maine Board of Overseers for the Bar. They have also authored a letter to Paul LePage, the Governor of Maine, referencing the disbarment complaint and making an appeal for an intervention on Mary Kellett on behalf of Vladek Filler and the people of Maine. And you can do your part. Write Governor LePage here and respectfully insist on an investigation to the practices of Mary N. Kellett. The message can be as simple as. “For the sake of justice, please assure that Mary Kellett is relieved of her prosecutorial duties and disbarred from the practice of law.” Write the Board of overseers for the Bar here, and insist that they respond to the allegations against Kellett with an investigation. Lastly, try to get the media involved. Bill Trotter does crime reporting for the Bangor Daily News. You can write email him at btrotter@bangordailynews.com or phone him at 207-460-6318 and ask him to consider investigating this story. Don’t wait for others to do this, please, or think that just one person calling and writing is enough. That would be a fatal mistake. When you have done one or all the suggestions listed here, please come back to this thread and simply put the word “done” in the comments, wherever you are reading this. What is happening in Maine is only a microcosm of what is happening across the western world. So regardless of where you live, your insistent message to one or all of these people can help force them to consider looking in to Kellett’s activities. And make no mistake about it, Kellett’s actions, if unchecked, are a forecast of own future. We know this is a witch hunt, but because most are ignoring it, it will spread. If we take this silently, we have lost in the most tragic and disgraceful of ways. This is a fight worth fighting, people. If you are reading this, you could be another Vladek Filler, or someone who cares about him. Your children could be hurt the same way his children have And your freedom, even if seemingly secure today, cannot be assured for tomorrow. As long as the likes of Mary Kellett are allowed to practice predatory prosecutions against innocent human beings no one is safe. And If she is allowed to build a career on doing this, there will be nothing to stop the same from happening where you live. It is your future, and your move. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Mar 30 2011, 06:55 AM Post #3 |
|
"Supreme Court did not grant an outright acquittal citing it to be the exclusive domain of a jury and reaffirmed that....... Maine Law allows accusations alone, even absent any physical evidence or witnesses...... to be sufficient proof of a crime for which a conviction can be gained. The Law Court mentioned fraudulent trial testimony extracted by prosecutor Mary Kellett and a photograph of a bruise on Ligia Filler’s arm produced half a week after she abducted their toddler; a bruise the Police report specifically noted did not exist when Ligia Filler was first questioned days after the alleged incident. Much of this “evidence” was shown to be false in later proceedings; however the Supreme Court declined to take judicial notice of any subsequent facts which emerged outside the criminal trial record.http://www.fillerfund.com/latest.htm Edited by Joan Foster, Mar 30 2011, 06:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 30 2011, 07:00 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/case-kunshan A case for Kunshan as i see it By Scott Briggs March 30, 2011 Less than a week ago, the Duke University administration revealed the most recent estimates for the school’s planned campus in Kunshan, China. What we were once told would cost $5.5 million in construction costs and a total of $11 million over five years has been magnified to a now whopping $37 million to complete phase one construction and a total of roughly $70.5 million over six years. To put that in perspective, $37 million represents just under two percent of the University’s operating costs for the fiscal year 2008. That may not seem like very much, but certainly it isn’t a figure to be overlooked. Thus, it seems appropriate that the new China campus has spawned numerous Chronicle articles reporting on and discussing the issue. Not surprisingly, many have been quick to criticize the University for what appears to be a lack of transparency about Duke’s stake in the Kunshan campus. Concerns have also been raised about the checkered past of Wuhan University, Duke’s “silent partner” in the venture. I’m not about to deny the surmounting evidence regarding the problems with the Kunshan campus. Clearly, these are questions that the University needs to answer. However, I do think it is time that someone steps in to argue on behalf of the school and its project. When you were little, I’m sure your parents warned you about the dangers of giving into peer pressure. As important as that advice is on an individual level, it doesn’t translate perfectly when applied to universities. While blindly following others is never a winning strategy, there is something to be said for the pressure that peer institutions put on Duke. In striving to be the best, Duke is pushed even harder to action by the progress of other schools throughout the country and the world. Despite the vast differences between our school and those that we like to consider our peers, there are important facets that we hold in common. Chief among these attributes are large endowments, rigorous academics, active alumni networks and strong commitments to research. As the age of globalization progresses, a drive towards internationalization is becoming increasingly important and more often grouped with this list. New York University pioneered the movement when it opened a campus in Abu Dhabi. Yale has strong ties with numerous Chinese universities. Doha is home to international campuses for Cornell and Carnegie Mellon with Northwestern soon to jump onboard. While there are always risks associated with investments, the opportunity for payoff is great. And the biggest payoff of a successful campus overseas would more than likely not be a financial one for Duke. Rather, a strong international presence increases the global visibility of a school, greatly elevating its status and prestige. Prestige translates to desirability, which in turn leads to higher yield rates and increases in applications for admission. More applicants means a lower acceptance rate, which, you guessed it, means a higher ranking. While the university may claim that it does not act deliberately to improve its calculated ranking, I’m not buying that the admissions office is trying to quell high school students’ interest in Duke. It’s a tough line to walk. Highly competitive schools have no choice but to care about what their peers are doing. At the same time, merely copying someone else’s formula won’t ever allow you to surpass them. During her time here, President Keohane was successfully able to carve out a niche for Duke in the upper echelons of education by taking an innovative and proactive approach. In fact, many of the Study Abroad programs we have at Duke today are a result of her efforts. It’s no coincidence that by 1998, five years into her presidency, Duke was ranked third in U.S. News, tied with Yale. This should serve as a reminder that in moving towards a more global Duke University, we need to look at what the best in the world are doing and make it our own. While up to this point Duke may have made some mistakes with Wuhan and Kunshan, the importance of a strong presence in the international community is not something to be discounted. Scott Briggs is a Trinity freshman. His column runs every other Wednesday. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 30 2011, 07:01 AM Post #5 |
|
3:09 AM March 30, 2011 Fact Checker * reply ✔The Brodhead Administration acknowledges that only one other university has tried to do what we hope to do in Kunshan: create a new full research university, not devoted to enhancing the mother campus, but to the education of students from the host country. The other school is NYU, which has a 2,000 campus open in Abu Dhabi and is about to enter Shanghai. We should stop and ask: why do all the other leading universities shy from such a grandiose project? What does the Brodhead Administration know, that the people at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and all the other peer universities fear? ✔ The columnist is right: administrators have stumbled and deliberately misled us. They have been anything but candid. ✔ Right again, the financial liability for Duke is skyrocketing, although I think the following FC Special Report offers a better summary of both the start-up capital costs and continuing operating losses. ______________________ There's more available at the FC website, including the following Special Report previously not available in this forum. http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/ ✔✔✔✔✔ Last Thursday's meeting of the Academic Council marked a turning point: from the faculty's listening to Brodhead's plans for China and sharing some of his excitement, to many professors posing and reposing serious sustained questions. Hopefully it was a moment of awakening not only for Brodhead but for the administrators leading us into this sinkhole, including Fuqua Dean Blair Sheppard. Within the business school in particular, even tougher, more incisive questions are arising. Be mindful, please, that the Trustee "green light," to quote the Chronicle for Kunshan plans applies only to negotiations. The faculty, the Academic Council and the Trustees must all approve any agreement. Beyond a moment of awakening, it should have been a moment of great embarrassment for Dick Brodhead. Last November he sent his global vice president Greg Jones to the Academic Council to suggest the mother campus would have to subsidize Kunshan by $1 million a year. The president himself stood before the Council in January and upped the figure to $1.5 to $2 million annually. Now -- in a separate document distributed silently before Brodhead spoke, because he did not have the fortitude to face the faculty and say it himself -- the administration concedes those numbers were misleading, as reported by Fact Checker. They only included money coming from Duke's general fund, not larger appropriations from other Duke pockets. Yes, all of it at the expense of Duke in Durham. ✔✔Let's look at the Chronicle article this morning: The lead paragraph states that the operating loss is "expected to cost Duke (is) $37 million" over the next six years. That assumes our share of losses is contained to the lowest end of the range the administration now concedes, $5.4 million a year. ✔✔✔✔✔ If you take the upper range, $15.6 million a year for six years, you are at $93.6 million -- a number the Chronicle should have used with equal emphasis. (These numbers have deteriorated since the February 25-26 Trustee meeting, when the upper edge was put at $12 million annually) What did FC tell Loyal Readers weeks ago, based upon secret numbers current at that date: that Duke's share of operating losses will be at least $100 million and more probably $150 million, and maybe higher in the first decade. ✔✔This line in the Trustee briefing documents deserves special emphasis: "We must stress that virtually all of the key drivers of the financial picture are unproven estimates." That sentence applies particularly to income -- for we know nothing about how many students may show up or how much we can charge them. (Charge we will, other documents show Duke proceeding on the believe that Chinese are intoxicated by high prices, confident they lead to higher quality.) That's right, our income estimates are uninformed guesses. We might as well go down to Shooters on a losing night for our basketball team, ply someone with a few more drinks, and then ask him or her to throw a dart at numbers we've posted on the wall. That's how accurate Duke's estimates are. ✔ Be mindful, fellow Dukies, that so far we have only talked about annual operating subsidies. The capital start up costs, including construction and furnishings, have similarly spiraled. Deputy Fact Checkers are at work, talking to faculty contacts. We are examining not only the 23 page excerpt of the "Planning Guide" given to the faculty, but the full 47 pages given us exclusively by a mole. Please check our blog, as our ability to post on the Chronicle website depends on the newspaper's running a China story. http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/ ✔✔Final point: Brodhead told the faculty member who wondered if the Duke campus would be isolated in an industrial park, that a student could easily take a 16 minute train ride into downtown Shanghai. This is as misleading as this man has ever been. First, the student has to get to the train station. The bus ride to the train station is 70 minutes. There are no cabs available. The Marriott hotel far outside the city that our basketball team is going to stay at (this is for a summertime tour of China and Dubai) warns its guests arriving by train that they are on their own because there are only 700 cabs in all of Kunshan. Now the 16 minute trains that Brodhead speaks of (Sheppard puts the timetable at nine minutes in a briefing for Fuqua faculty) are new high speed long distance trains linking Shanghai with the vast inner reaches of the country, and also Shanghai with Beijing. Most of those trains zip by Kunshan, with only four a day stopping, and they are designed primarily for freight -- for computers to be shipped to America -- not for passengers. The ride on regular trains is at least 53 minutes. And Dick Brodhead, apparently when you were chauffeured around Shanghai, you did not notice this next point. On the Shanghai end, the high speed rail station is a 35 minute subway ride to the historical, tourist and business center of the city. Oh yes, we hope this is a daytime excursion. The train service from Shanghai to Kunshan stops at 7:35 PM at night. People arriving at Shanghai's international airport are warned to plan on spending the night there. That's what a student wishing to escape the wasteland of Kunshan faces. Thank you for reading FC. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:31 AM Jul 11