While perhaps of great interest to the administrators, faculty and staff at your school, subsidizing those expenditures will not increase the quality of your education or the value of the degree you receive. And of course because the finalists would want as much information about the competition as possible before having their own names announced, they would be particularly vulnerable to such information at that point in the search process. What kind of private research is Harreld discussing? You need to be in teams of two or three and everyone needs a smartphone. James 5th April 1: The obvious outlier in that group, however, was Harreld, and by a wide margin. Take a ride on the Ginger Line The Ginger Line is a nomadic restaurant experience that pops up from time to time in secret locations along the London Overground.
CHEAP THINGS (< £20)
You have an incompetent president in Herrald, and a bunch of liars at the BOR. You have a short termer, Robillard getting out before the crash he generated by building his pet projects.
And you have huge tuition increases for a struggling over-institutionalized university. I am thinking this cast of characters will leave town with huge amounts of Iowa cash in their bank accounts, with angry parents and students, a fialed 5 year plan costing millions? Not that state wreckers like Branstad and Reynolds care.
During his candidate forum and later, Harreld actually played the cliched role of the well-connected businessman who can pick up the phone and make things happen.
What he routinely omits is that he himself is the single greatest liability the school faces, both because of the AAUP sanction and because he has proven that his word is no good. Combine the rot at UIHC with the faculty exodus at the College of Medicine, and the one area where such synergies make the most sense seems to be having the most problems. From a bit less than a year ago, after Robillard announced that he would be stepping down:. Unfortunately, the search committee that was belatedly empaneled to replace Robillard has fallen into a coma, and there is no sign that Robillard will ever relinquish his multiple roles in driving UIHC into the medical gutter.
Bruce Harreld, has done nothing to move Robillard out and stop the bleeding. To be fair, this a health care environment fraught with mines. So times are perilous. Nevertheless, seems Harreld and Robillard have given up on changing medicine, and being world class haha. And for Robillard it is about domination of area health care and decimation of any normal market or professional dynamics. There will be blowback, and consequences, there always is. But who knows in what form it comes, and how people react to a huge annoying money grabbing monolith rather than a finely turned gem that was a source of pride.
Whatever else you may have heard, the most important thing you need to know is that you are not a hostage to that process. Not only can you give voice to your individual concerns, you can empower your elected student government leaders to advocate on your behalf. Northern Iowa has proposed considerably smaller increases.
Differential tuition hikes based on college or class standing will increase the total cost even more.. Much of the new tuition revenue will be diverted to research, or to for-profit ventures such state-owned startups and corporate partnerships. Along with obscuring the total amount of revenue generated from the three most-recent tuition increases, they are refusing to release the estimated revenue that will be generated by the five-year plans under consideration. The board and schools have also largely refused to provide specifics about how all of that estimated revenue will be spent, and instead simply assert that the hikes will improve the quality of your education by various indirect means.
Using the contact info in the following section, make your voice heard on any or all of the following topics. Unlike many board decisions, these hikes are not a done deal. Let them know that you want answers to these questions so you can make an informed decision about the validity of these hikes. Tuition Task Force contact form.
A student-oriented Explainer has been posted here. You are currently paying a given amount for a product — your degree — and the board is looking at long-range plans for increasing the cost of that product. The obvious question is what you will get in exchange for paying any increase in price. The answer is that increasing the cost of your degree beyond the rate of inflation will confer little or no direct benefit, and that becomes all the more certain as the cost of your degree increases.
We know that because the cost of delivering the education you are already receiving has been remarkably consistent over decades, meaning revenue generated from hikes above inflation will necessarily be spent on non-educational functions of your university.
While perhaps of great interest to the administrators, faculty and staff at your school, subsidizing those expenditures will not increase the quality of your education or the value of the degree you receive.
Video was also posted of each campus meeting: The premise of those meetings was that five-year plans would allow for more predictable tuition hikes, thus preventing last-minute increases like those in the summers of and From prior posts, however, we know that the last-minute hikes in were manufactured by the board. We also know that the hikes followed an anomalous collapse in state revenues which was more than offset by the two tuition hikes that were approved in June and December of — meaning the last-minute hikes in the summer of were not actually compelled by legislative cuts or clawbacks.
You may also have heard that the state reduced funding to the regent universities for the current fiscal and academic year, and that is actually true. Why did Iowa lawmakers make a permanent cut in higher-ed funding in response to a temporary budget crunch?
To answer that question we have to dig into information that the board routinely obscures and suppresses, which is the total amount of new revenue raised from tuition increases. The Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa Tuition Proposals Currently, the cost of undergraduate resident tuition at all three regent universities is almost exactly the same. One of the policy changes under consideration by the task force is to allow the schools to diverge in price, and in fact that change was presumed by the proposals put forward at each school.
Specifically, because Northern Iowa is a comprehensive university — meaning it focuses on undergraduate education — its five-year proposal reflected that less-costly pursuit. By contrast, because Iowa State and Iowa are research universities, costs at those schools are higher because of the the inclusion of masters and doctoral programs, as well as the cost of outfitting those schools for scholarly research by students and faculty. First, state appropriations to ISU and UI have been greater because of research activity, often with significant funding specifically tied to that extra-educational mission.
Second, because of the nature of those two schools, and the fact that they are both about three times larger than UNI which has roughly 12, students , the foundations at UI and ISU have also vastly outpaced UNI in fundraising, and that charitable giving is often targeted at research.
While overall state funding has decreased in recent decades, that decrease is significantly less than the board claims. In the previous decade in particular, state funding faltered largely as a result of the Great Recession, yet the board and state schools routinely ignore that documented correlation.
If the state covers the cost of inflation then UNI will ask for 3. It can be assumed that the fifth year would be the same. However, if the state does not cover the cost of inflation, the bump in the first year grows considerably to 6.
In any event, the UNI five-year proposal is pretty much what we would expect to see in a disadvantaged school that was simply trying to keep pace, albeit with a little opportunistic administrative skimming here and there. While Iowa State presented no alternate scenarios contingent on appropriations, the proposal did assume that state funding would remain flat [p.
In that context, the first year of the ISU plan was not wildly different from the first year of the UNI proposal if no state appropriations are forthcoming. Where UNI settled into maintenance increases in the following years, however, Iowa State budgeted for the moon.
D in economics to boot, the idea that Allen would take it upon himself to propose such a radical departure from board policy is not credible. Meaning someone else gave him those numbers. As to why Iowa State needs all that new money, if you flip through the ISU plan — which, at nineteen pages, including intro and thank-you slides, is the shortest of the three — it is not at all clear what that massive windfall will fund.
Coming in at five straight years of 7. Bruce Harreld seemed preposterous in its precision, yet that number was actually determined by a formula Harreld had been talking about for more than six months.
That symmetry also meant that despite the policy change allowing schools to diverge in cost, Iowa and Iowa State would remain in virtual lockstep over the next five years, with UNI falling considerably behind. That parallel pricing between UI and ISU was effectively compelled, however, because without it the less-expensive of the two schools would undercut the other in terms of comparable degree programs, including the increasingly lucrative business and engineering colleges.
In effect, under the guise of improving predictability and quality, students at Iowa and Iowa State will fund — but not benefit from — a billion-dollar economic development project. While the Tuition Task Force was announced in May, the actual meetings were scheduled for early August, when the campuses were almost completely devoid of students.
Moreover, for the initial day-long task force meeting — which was subsequently cancelled — the student representatives at each school were omitted from the elected and appointed officials who were invited to present.
And yet, because task force chair Larry McKibben made clear that no final decision will be made until a year from now, all of the task force meetings could have been held when students were on campus. What neither Harreld nor the board will acknowledge is that there is no scholarly research showing any correlation between tuition and peer schools. For example, in his presentation Harreld highlighted the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a comparable peer, yet he omitted the critical fact that the state budget of N.
At the same time, however, the board and its presidents resolutely refrain from mentioning the dollar amount of any revenue generated by tuition hikes, which in almost every instance is significantly greater than any cuts. While the Tuition Task Force pledged to look at every aspect of policy in pursuit of more predictable increases, and to have no preconceived notions about how that policy should play out, every single person involved in that conversation managed to avoid talking about the total amount of tuition revenue, in dollars, that would be generated by the plans put forward by UNI, ISU and UI.
Because students and families with have to pay any increase, no single aspect of the entire conversation is more important than understanding how much money those five-year plans will generate, yet that is precisely the information the university presidents and regents have conspired to omit from the conversation.
The fact that this information has been uniformly omitted reveals the board and the university presidents to be in league in attempting to take hundreds of millions of dollars from students and families in exchange for little or nothing of comparable value.
Without irony, the board is requiring students to complete coursework that will, among other things, help them learn how to minimize debt, while at the same time allowing its university presidents to propose hikes which will inevitably lead to greater debt for thousands of students.
If you are in college you are also old enough to know that most of the time it does not matter how sincere you are or how good your arguments are in opposition to abuses of power.
Fortunately, this is not one of those times. You do have a chance to make a difference, and the more you take the fight to the Board of Regents, the more likely it is that you will be able to limit future hikes to reasonable accommodations for inflation or specific educational needs. The election cycle, which is already under way, also factors in, and perhaps quite heavily now that one of the candidates — Republican Ron Corbett — actually called for abolishing the regents.
As a college student you are taught not simply to use reason, but to substantiate arguments with citations and facts. Instead of simply rejecting those plans outright, however, it is within your rights to ask for that missing information. How much state funding was cut, total and per-school, from the FY17 and FY18 regent budgets? How much new tuition revenue was generated, total and per-school, by the FY17 tuition increases in July of , and by the FY18 hikes in December of and June of ?
How much new tuition revenue, total and per-school, will have been generated at the end of five years? How much new tuition revenue, total and per-school, will be generated annually, and over five years, from any additional hikes which are not included in the UNI, ISU or UI presentations? Once the revenue picture has been filled in, students should be able to compare the amount of money that will be generated from specific hikes with the needs put forward by their school, but again we find that crucial information is missing.
While the board and university presidents have routinely justified prior hikes based on funding cuts — even in years in which funding actually increased — by the very nature of a five-year plan that excuse cannot be blamed for the proposed hikes by UNI, ISU and UI.
Instead, the board is asking students and families not to make up for funding lost to cuts, but to provide funding beyond current levels, and in the case of ISU and UI, well beyond. What are the specific needs, in dollars, that the tuition hikes at each school are intended to address? Of the total amount of money generated at each school, what will that money be spent on in terms of education and research? How much of any new tuition revenue at each school will be used to fund for-profit research, startups, or corporate partnerships?
The elected student representatives at UI, and others at the school, are already speaking up. As the UI makes a push to bring tuition rates up higher to compete with the peer institutions it benchmarks itself against, UI graduate student Landon Elkind said if the UI continues to raise tuition, he wants to see a line-item list of what that tuition revenue funds.
Were the presidents at the regent universities applying for loans instead of taking money from students and families, they would have to provide all of this information and more. Even a business student putting together a business plan for a grade would have to specify where any new revenue would be directed, whether it came from sales, loans, investors or venture capital.
Only at the Iowa Board of Regents is there a conviction that people should hand over hundreds of millions of dollars on vague promises. In crafting that plan, [President Mike] Richards said, the board will consider input from the universities, their community members, lawmakers, taxpayers and others.
But that does not mean the battle is over — in fact, far from it. While no decision will be made until next fall on any five-year proposals, that also leaves plenty of time for people who are opposed to the current plans to evolve in their thinking.
And of course there is also the question of tuition hikes for next year, which seem to be assumed, yet have no clear basis.
Continuing to pressure the regents about tuition policy will also force the board to do what it should have done long ago, which is to confront the legislature and demand that higher education be prioritized ahead of tax breaks for corporations. Strike a minimal deal for state-funded inflation adjustments for the next five years, and suddenly the only documented financial problem facing the state universities goes away.
If a school presents compelling need then a tuition hike might be warranted from time to time, but note also that because the regents are no longer keeping tuition in lockstep, there is now no justification for across-the-board hikes.
If you are a student at one of the regent universities, your voice matters in all of this. To amplify your voice, let your student representatives know you are concerned about these issues. They have the authority to speak for you, and the right to request information that will help you determine the validity of any requested hikes on your campus. If you are a student rep at UNI, ISU or UI, and you are denied information that you request, you should pass that along to your school paper, and to the media in your community.
On Wednesday the ISU Presidential Search Committee met in closed session and chose four finalists from among seven semifinalists for the position. There were originally eight semifinalists, but one dropped out — a trivial fact that may seem more relevant by the end of this post. The finalists will now advance to open forums on the ISU campus, which will be held on October 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th. After those forums conclude, the committee and Iowa State community will provide feedback to the Iowa Board of Regents, then the nine regents will conduct their own interviews and vote for the next president of Iowa State University.
To understand the dynamics of the current Iowa State search it is useful to look back at the previous ISU search in That search culminated in the appointment of Steven Leath, whose presidency ended in disgrace earlier this year.
Four finalists were also advanced to the board in the search, but the manner in which that search played out serves as a cautionary tale. Specifically, both the pace of the search, and what happened after the four finalists were selected, are relevant to the current search, and for the same reason. As we learned from the fraudulent presidential search at the University of Iowa, if not also the corrupt preceding searches on that campus between and , the regents cannot be trusted to conduct a fair search process.
That the board played it straight during the recent UNI search is indeed a good thing for that school, but hardly an indicator of rehabilitation. Given the AAUP sanction of UI after the search, the board was under such extraordinary scrutiny that it effectively had no option but to conduct a fair and open search. For those reasons, only a fool would conclude that the UNI search demonstrated anything other than cynical, self-interested cunning on the part of the board.
Because no school in the regent system is more infested with crony corruption than Iowa State, the temptation to fix the current search in favor of a compliant president will almost certainly be too tempting for some.
Whether they are ultimately successful or not will remain to be seen years down the road, but the possibility — if not likelihood — of interference in the current search cannot be overlooked.
Whether from bad actors on campus, in the Ames community, or on the board itself, even at this late date there is still ample opportunity to skew the search in favor of a desired candidate.
As noted, four candidates were also passed along as finalists during the ISU search. Following that stage of the process, however, two of those candidates — meaning fifty percent of those deemed fit for the position — withdrew, leaving only Leath and one other candidate in play. And yet Leath was hired. Instead of a one-in-four chance, Leath suddenly had a fifty-fifty shot of becoming president at Iowa State. As to the remaining candidate, consider the following passage from a prior post on the search:.
But who to leave standing to compete against board-favorite Leath? Or better yet, if I showed you the listings for the names of both men from the ISU web page quoted above —. The obvious question, of course, is how the other two finalists could have been convinced to withdraw, and the answer is equally obvious. From a purely pragmatic point of view, why go through the considerable time and effort required during the remaining stages of the search process if there was little or no chance of success?
In a closed search there would just be more waiting involved, with perhaps a bit of off-the-record politicking with the various constituencies who would have a say in the final vote. In an open-ish search, however — such as those traditionally conducted by the Board of Regents — participating in a candidate forum takes serious preparation.
If finalists have not informed their employers that they are applying for another job, that in itself might cause hard feelings, which could of course be prevented by dropping out prior to being publicly named. As to how such a move might be orchestrated by others, there are two mechanisms which increase the odds that a candidate will drop out, and in combination they are that much more effective.
First, weaker competition is obviously better. If there are enough corrupt votes on the search committee to get the desired candidate through as a finalist — as was the case with Harreld at Iowa in — there might also be enough votes to get lesser candidates passed along instead of the strongest competition. That was not the case at Iowa, where all three of the other finalists were eminently qualified for the position. One particularly cynical means of accomplishing that goal involves voting for otherwise weak finalists on the basis of gender or race, which has the additional advantage of demonstrating diversity before the white guy is appointed.
After the finalists are selected, but before their names are publicly disclosed, all it may take to dislodge weak candidates are one or more credible voices communicating doubt about their viability. And of course because the finalists would want as much information about the competition as possible before having their own names announced, they would be particularly vulnerable to such information at that point in the search process.
Former board president pro tem, Katie Mulholland — who is currently a defendant , along with Rastetter, in a court case about the UI search — was the other regent on the ISU search committee. The second important factor in compelling finalists to quit is simply time itself. Here, however, not only is there a difference between the and searches at Iowa State, but the difference is profound.
In the search the four finalists were chosen at the end of two days of meetings on September 15th and 16th. All four names were then announced three days later, on the 19th, with on-campus visits scheduled for the 22nd, 23rd, 26th and 28th. Because two of the candidates dropped out, however, the two on-campus visits took place on the 22nd and 23rd, and the next president was selected by the board four days later , on the 27th.
All-told, progressing from the selection of the four finalists to the appointment of Leath took eleven days. The time between the selection of the finalists and the collective announcement of their names was three days, from the 16th to the 19th; the time to the first on-campus visit was another three days, from the 19th to the 22nd; and the time from the last on-campus visit to the appointment of Leath was four days, from the 23rd to the 27th. In that light, the idea that two finalists would suddenly and independently decide they did not want a given job over any amount of time seems unlikely — unless of course they were encouraged to withdraw.
Now consider the wildly divergent timeline of the ISU search. The four finalists were chosen on September 27th, and the campus visits are scheduled for October 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th — though unlike the search the name of each finalist will be announced the day before they appear. That is now standard practice for presidential searches at the Iowa Board of Regents.
That contrasts with seven total days between choosing the four finalists for the search and completing the two on-campus visits. Even acknowledging that there were only two visits in , that stage of the search was completed in less time than it will take to initiate the first on-campus interview for the search. As to the final interviews and vote by the board, that will all take place on October 23rd, another thirteen days after the last on-campus visit.
There is no question that the UI search was corrupt to its core. One of the blatant tells in that regard concerns the fact that once the corrupt leadership of the search committee and board knew they had the done-deal candidate they wanted, the original timetable for the final vote was greatly accelerated.
In that context, expanding the ISU timeline to allow for due diligence on the part of the ISU committee and community is clearly a good thing. Expanding the timeline to the degree that the board has done so, however, may in itself be an attempt to encourage some of the finalists to drop out.
From the 27th until the first finalist is named, on October 4th, is seven days. That candidate will then appear on campus on the 5th, after which they will have to wait eighteen days to find out whether they have been selected.
Waiting a couple of weeks to find out about any job is torture. Add in the fact that the finalists in the ISU search will be known to all, including their current employers, and the motivation to avoid twisting in the wind only increases.
Assuming there is no reprisal of the corrupt UI search, however — in which Harreld received negligible support and was still appointed by the utterly corrupt board — waiting to withdraw after the other candidates are known would definitely not be a good look, thus further incentivizing weaker finalists to withdraw before their names are disclosed. Consider again the currently unfolding week of anonymity between the 27th and the announcement of the first finalist on the 3rd, which stretches to twelve days for the fourth finalist.
Whether by members of the search committee, members of the board, or outsiders who have been tipped off, there is now, at a minimum, twice as much time to try to drive some of the finalists out as there was in the search. In addition, not only will the two-week or more span after their names are disclosed weigh heavily on the finalists — particularly if they already have doubts — but disclosure in itself provides endless opportunity for others to prey on the minds of the finalists, through either attributed or anonymous comments.
Did I mention that there are not two, not three, but four regents on the ISU search committee? Indeed, one more and they would constitute a quorum of the board. Although it is less likely that a finalist will withdraw from consideration after their name has been disclosed, by the same token the opportunity for mischief explodes. And of course that includes former regent presidents. Because there will be two full weeks before the board makes its decision, other factors could also come into play after the candidates are known, including candidates using the search to re-sign with their current employer on better terms, or simply using renegotiation as an excuse to withdraw.
If the Iowa State search committee did its job and picked the strongest of the available applicants, then all four of the finalists should be in it to win it.
If one or more of the candidates drops out before their names are disclosed, however, we will have good reason to believe that the search committee made that happen by one or both means detailed above. That in turn will significantly increase the likelihood that a preferred candidate will be chosen by the board, as may well have been the case in Given the Iowa State search, the corrupt Iowa search, and the fact that many of the same cronies are still involved at Iowa State, I will be genuinely surprised if all four of the finalists stick it out through the remainder of the process.
Because the ideal time for a candidate to drop out is prior to having their name disclosed, we should know which candidates are in play in the next twelve days, but that still leaves another two weeks until the final decision. Imagine that four students at a public research university conspired to rig a student government election so one of them became president. From that position of authority, the fraudulent president also then rewarded the other three students in the conspiracy by funneling money to their pet projects and pushing their political agendas.
Were those four students later outed, what is the likelihood that the fraudulent president would be allowed to continue drawing a salary while serving in that role, and that the other students who participated in the conspiracy would remain enrolled in good standing? If the judge allows the case to go forward — and a ruling is expected soon — the trial is still set for November 6th. As regular readers know, for two years it has been all but a given that the person who first contacted Harreld about applying for the presidency at Iowa was alumnus and big-money donor Jerre Stead.
Not only had Stead and Harreld known each other for decades, on both a personal and professional basis, and lived a hundred miles or so apart in Colorado, but crucially Stead was a member of the UI Presidential Search and Screen Committee when it was announced in late February of that year.
As regular readers also know, even under the best of circumstances there is no good reason to believe Bruce Rastetter about anything, and that includes statements made in a deposition under oath.
While Rastetter would probably prefer to avoid a perjury charge, he actually exposed himself to that possibility by omitting another secret meeting with Harreld.
Whether the courts determine that one facet of the UI presidential search actually violated the law or not, no one other than the co-conspirators themselves believes the search was fair. What is not at all clear, however, is why Stead encouraged Rastetter to contact Harreld when Stead was a member of the search committee himself. In that context, and given their long history, the person who should have reached out to Harreld was Jerre Stead. Unless, of course, Stead and Harreld had already talked about Harreld applying for the position, and Stead wanted Rastetter on board with that plan.
That could have come before Stead was named to the search committee by Rastetter, and conceivably even factored into that appointment.
More importantly, we also do not know when Stead and Harreld first talked about the Iowa presidency. Did Stead talk to Harreld before the search officially began? How about as early as November or December of , when former president Sally Mason notified the board of her decision to retire? We do know Harreld liquidated two of his four known multi-million dollar homes in late and early — one of them in New Canaan, CT, the other in Cambridge, MA — suggesting he would not to return to the East Coast, where he had been a part-time lecturer at the Harvard Business School for six years.
There would have been nothing wrong with Stead telling Harreld about the Iowa job whether the position had been formally announced or not, or whether Stead had been appointed to the search committee or not. Again, the whole point of the committee was to recruit the best candidates, and if Stead truly believed that a burned-out former business executive with zero experience in academic administration was the best person to run his beloved alma mater, then no matter how deranged that belief may have been he had a duty to convince that burned-out executive to apply.
And of course when that burned-out executive was appointed against all odds, Stead would have had every right not only to be thrilled that his former business associate, social acquaintance and fellow Coloradan was the new president at Iowa, but to proudly proclaim that he had recruited Harreld himself. But that is decidedly not what Stead said after the fact. From the depositions in the Krapf case, and from press report over the past two years, it is clear that Harreld received preferential treatment at every stage of the search process, and that the people who were obligated to administer a fair search — meaning, specifically, regents president Bruce Rastetter and search chair Jean Robillard — not only failed to do so, they intentionally betrayed the University of Iowa.
By law, the Board of Regents can hire university presidents without searches. What it should not be allowed to do is waste taxpayer money on a fake search simply to give a done-deal appointee the appearance of legitimacy or institutional support.
To this day, Harreld insists he was not only completely oblivious to the corrupt administration of the search, but that he had no interest in the position until very late in the process.
As we later learned, however, not only did Harreld repeatedly fly to Iowa for secret meetings about the job, but he did so on private chartered jets at his own expense, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
That was, again, preferential treatment that no other partner was afforded during the fraudulent search. Bruce Harreld were innocent of those abuses of power.
In fact, if Harreld and Stead were innocents we would not only expect them not to lie about the search, they would be incapable of lying precisely because they would have no knowledge of the corruption. Where Harreld should have been glad to have Stead broach such an opportunity with him, and proud to have Stead advocate for him on the committee, instead Harreld lied to obscure his relationship with Stead prior to and during the search.
And the only possible reason why those two men conspired to distance themselves from each other in exactly the same way at exactly the same time is because they knew the search was dirty. One Simple Question When J. Bruce Harreld was revealed as the fourth finalist for the Iowa presidency in late August of , less than seventy-two hours before his appointment by the Board of Regents, many in the UI Community smelled a Rastetter. Were Harreld an innocent to the abuses perpetrated by Rastetter and Robillard, as he insists, he should have had no problem answering one obvious question that was asked mere moments after he was appointed.
In fact, he should have been incapable of doing anything but tell the truth, because he would have been oblivious to the fraud perpetrated on his behalf.
Instead, on two separate occasions, Harreld lied to cover up for the conspiracy that led to his appointment, and in particular to obscure his relationship with Jerre Stead.
The question Harreld should have been able to answer with ease was how he first came to the attention of the search committee. So how did Parker Executive Search, the firm hired by the regents, find Mr.
Harreld for a job so far outside of his expertise? That major-university president was Mitchell E. As should be clear by now, this halting explanation by Harreld is literally not possible.
And Harreld knew that even as that lie was spilling from his lips. He could have said, and should have said, that Stead got in touch with him — or, if he wanted to insist that he and Stead did not talk first, that Stead put Rastetter in touch with him — but instead he conjured Mitch E. So why did Harreld lie? Why was one of his first acts as president-elect a bald-faced lie to the press, the UI community and the people of Iowa? The obvious intent was to distance his candidacy and appointment from Stead, but if everything about the search was on the up and up — or at least Harreld was oblivious to any abuses — how did he know to tell that lie?
What should have prompted the simplest answer — that Jerre Stead recommended him for the job — instead became a moment of pure, premeditated deceit. As was the case with Harreld the day before, what should have been the simplest question for Stead to answer instead prompted bald-faced lies:. Although Stead is at an advanced age, he is also the CEO of his own multinational corporation, and in his quarterly conference calls shows no sign of diminished capacity.
What Stead should have said to Miller was that he knew Harreld from way back, and when he thought about people who would be good for his alma mater he though about Harreld. Stead said he wanted to vet him and make sure he was prepared and qualified for the job.
Unsatisfied with merely perpetrating fraud against the UI community, however, Stead went on to troll the victims of his abuse, even as both he and Harreld conspired to lie to the press about their relationship a mere twenty-four hours apart:. Stead said he was disappointed with the way members of the UI community treated Harreld during a public forum Tuesday, at which he was peppered with harsh questions about whether he was already offered the job, if he had inappropriate relationships with regents, and why he even wanted the position.
In response to that fallout, on the weekend before taking office Harreld gave interviews to the local press — his first, and last — and revealed the previously unknown Kirkwood meeting that Jerre Stead arranged. Despite the utter wreckage resulting from those interviews, however, and the sudden obvious involvement of Stead in the special treatment that Harreld received, Harreld told another lie about the origins of his candidacy.
Instead of Daniels, who was not mentioned once in those interviews, Harreld asserted — falsely as we now know — that someone at Boston Consulting pitched his name to Rastetter. You can also see that lie on video. Three times in the span of two months, Harreld twice and Stead once told lies to the press for the same exact reason: Incredibly, despite the fact that Harreld divulged the previously unknown Kirkwood meeting only days before taking office, and in doing so completely demolished his personal credibility, he still told a new lie to cover up the fact that Stead put his name in play as a candidate.
The obvious question, of course, is why those two men — who to this day profess to have done nothing wrong despite the blatant corruption of the search — nonetheless both told provable lies that had the same objective? These were also not slippery lies of omission, where some critical fact was elided in conversation, but full-on lies of commission — blatant, knowing falsehoods uttered with the intent to deceive.
By rights the fact that Stead brought Harreld to the UI presidential search should have been a meaningless footnote to the fraud perpetrated by Rastetter and Robillard, yet precisely because Harreld and Stead repeatedly lied to conceal their relationship we know they were in league. But to what end? While it is not yet on the record, there are rumors of yet another undisclosed meeting arranged by Stead, this one at his Arizona home in April of That meeting purportedly included Rastetter, Robillard and perhaps Matthes, but whether Harreld attended or communicated with the others by electronic means, or was the subject of that meeting, is not clear.
Whether money was the original objective or merely a side benefit we cannot say, but we do not have to speculate to show that both Harreld and Stead each profited by millions of dollars after Harreld was appointed. Most obviously, had Harreld not been jammed into the Iowa presidency by the co-conspirators who engineered his hire, he would not be drawing a paycheck from the state.
While it is true that someone would be drawing a salary from the state as president of the UI, without the fraudulent search it is also true that Harreld would not be making that money. As for Jerre Stead, whose wealth dwarfs that of Harreld, Robillard and Rastetter combined, he profited from a transaction that took place almost immediately after Harreld took office.
Some university building naming decisions have been handled that way in the past. The new name for the hospital was not revealed publicly until the committee meeting. Bruce Rastetter, president of the regents, said that he has come to know and respect Jerre Stead this year while both of them served on the UI Presidential Search and Screen Committee.
Bruce Harreld, who was appointed UI president in September, said in a previous interview that he has viewed Stead as a mentor for decades. He also said Stead helped persuade him to meet in early June with Robillard and Rastetter — a meeting that helped lead Harreld to consider applying for the job. Both Robillard and Stead had served on the member presidential search committee that netted Harreld as a finalist, and both had personally interacted with Harreld during the search process — either over the phone or in face-to-face meetings.
Again, however, without taking depositions under oath we will probably never know what agreements were made while those men were shepherding Harreld through the corrupt search, but as it turns out that is not critical to our inquiry.
Naming buildings or parts of buildings in exchange for substantial donations is a time-honored tradition in academia, and in most instances there is nothing wrong with doing so because the facilities are obscure. Donate a few million here and there and you get a plaque anchored to an ivy-covered edifice that most of the world will never see.
Implicit in such transactions, however, even if the calculations are never actually made, is that all such namings have a market value, even if that value is little or nothing. We know this from major sports arenas, where the naming rights can be sold for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, in large part because of the publicity those facilities generate.
On the UI campus most named buildings are known only to people who work or conduct business at those facilities, yet even relatively obscure departmental buildings can have a surprising market value. Naming decisions at UI have been controversial in the past. Have you been in it? Have you ever even seen it? Certainly less than a major league sports arena, but also certainly more than the UI College of Public Health. In reality, that is a question that should not be open to debate.
In fact, even setting aside the obligations of the board, it is inconceivable that the key players in that transaction did not know they had an obligation to establish the market value for those rights. In his career as a businessperson Jerre Stead has performed over acquisitions, and you can bet he did exhaustive due diligence prior to every transaction.
And of course the entire premise of J. The fact that the rights were never assigned a value was intentional on their part, as was the last-minute announcement of the granting of those valuable rights to Jerre Stead. As a result, at a time when every higher-education dollar is precious, the University of Iowa, under the direction of J.
Bruce Harreld and Jean Robillard, and the Iowa Board of Regents, under the direction of Bruce Rastetter, transferred tens of millions of dollars in asset valuation — at a minimum — to Jerre Stead. Granting Stead an asset conservatively valued in the tens of millions of dollars undercuts the entire premise of the justification for naming the building after the Stead family in the first place.
To see why, all you have to do is compare the valuation of the naming rights with the amount of money that Stead donated up to that time, whether overall, or at UIHC alone.
Now, assuming that was all true two years ago, when the hospital was still under construction, then in combination with the current football season the value of those rights has almost certainly exploded now that the hospital is partially open. Not only is the celebrated wave that football fans are performing for the kids in the hospital a local phenomenon, but it has generated considerable national publicity.
What would John Deer or any other corporation pay to be associated with a feel-good story like that , which last week was also plastered on the ESPN home page? When it suits their purposes, the regents — collectively and individually — talk about their fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers of Iowa. As it turns out, however, there is no evidence that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the regents, or the presidents who are in their employ, to get the best deal for the citizens of the state.
At a time when the board and the universities are howling about cuts in appropriations, and calling for egregious increases in tuition, the fact that three of the men involved in the conspiracy to fraudulently appoint J. Bruce Harreld at Iowa also conspired to give one of those conspirators a state asset worth tens of millions of dollars should be prompting a lot of hard questions. Included in those questions is how State Auditor Mary Mosiman signed off on that transaction, when it should have been self-evident that state wealth was transferred to a private individual.
The Most Important Question of All Whether you believe the UI presidential search was legitimate or illegitimate, and whether you believe the secret regent meetings Rastetter arranged were legal or illegal, J.
Bruce Harreld and his old pal Jerre Stead both profited after he was hired to the tune of millions of dollars. Now, nearly two months after the hospital was scheduled to start accepting patients, Rod Lehnertz, UI senior vice president for finance and operations, said the hospital opening still may be more than a month out.
That neither of the two highest ranking administrators on the UI campus investigated that waste and abuse would also seem to indicate that they were both okay with it, if not responsible themselves. The larger concern, of course, is that this is simply one relatively trivial example of the power Harreld can wield over the course of his five-year deal.
What others abuses do we know nothing about? What other objectives did Harreld and Stead have when Stead was championing his candidacy every step of the way, throughout the corrupt search?
This is a rich man who was put in office by three other very rich men, whose single-minded larcenous focus has been stripping students and families of as much money as possible in exchange for nothing of value. Quite apart from whether five members of the board broke the law during the fraudulent search, the lies that Harreld and Stead told to obscure that conspiracy continue to be rewarded.
At the beginning of this post we posited a scenario in which four students at a public research university used illicit means to install one of their own as president of the student government. And yet at the University of Iowa, now two years on, J. Only Bruce Rastetter is currently subject to even the faint possibility of punishment, provided the court allows the Krapf case to proceed. As a result of the depositions in the Krapf suit we know that J.
All of which leads us to the most important question of all. In early , when the search for the next president of the University of Iowa commenced, Steven Leath had been president of Iowa State for just over three years, and William Ruud president of Northern Iowa for less than two. By late , several months after the appointment of J.
And yet, as we now know, less than six months after Harreld took office in early November of , Bill Ruud found himself without a contract offer at the end of his initial three-year deal. No explanation was ever offered by the Rastetter-led board, but by the end of Ruud was gone and Mark Nook had been hired to replace him. Rise and shine for an early morning rave Get the workday off to a jolly start by raving it up in of course East London with a pre-work bop with Morning Gloryville, a new global concept now found in eleven countries across the world.
They also do party packages, and a truly terrifying version with live action zombies. Meet minds with Thinking Bob Even in this bustling city, it can be hard to meet new people. I recently took some amateur cryptographer friends to Lockd , a new venture in South London with puzzles dreamed up by two Russian physicists.
A great resource, listing every escape room in London, can be found here. Draw on your dark side Art Macabre hold quirky drawing salons on all things weird, wonderful, camp, creepy and odd. Young is a master chocolatier, and his Aztec hot chocolate is the stuff of legend. Pop in to one of his stores in Angel, Soho or Bank to try a thick, creamy cupful of molten chocolate laced with fragrant winter spices.
In summer, try his homemade ice cream with melted chocolate sauce. Tickets can be booked up to two weeks in advance. Keep an eye out for other events in the space too, including literary salons, engineering tours and sky-high yoga sessions. See the city through new eyes Unseen Tours is an award-winning London tour company with a difference: Try something new with Hackney Arts Social enterprise and creative hub Hackney Arts runs masterclasses in everything from leatherwork to computer coding.
Visit a gin distillery There are a few gin distilleries in London now, but Sipsmith is one of our favourites. Reserve your place online. The East London Liquor Co, which makes not only its on gin but vodka and whisky too, is also a good bet. Take your tossing to the next level Covent Garden cocktail bar Bungatini — yes, inspired by the antics of former premier Silvio Berlusconi — runs every Monday and Tuesday from 7pm.
Get up close and personal with magic The Magic Hour is an intimate close-up magic show that sells out almost as quickly as tickets go on sale.
Turn your hand at terrariums A terrarium is essentially a little glass box containing plants that can, in theory, live indefinitely as water evaporates, condenses, and slides back into the soil. Drink cocktails in the dark Immersive cocktail experts Pitch Black have finished their successful run in Shoreditch and moved to Covent Garden, now offering their unique drinks in the dark concept to discerning boozers in the West End.
Get crafty in Carnaby Maverick souvenir emporium We Built This City runs all sorts of arty events in collaboration with the many local artists that stock its shelves. Past events have included jewellery-making, paper-cutitng and live portraiture. Check out the Vaults The eerie Waterloo Vaults play host to oodles of cool and creative events all year round, and tickets are usually pretty reasonable. Get creative at an arty party Paint Republic offer painting parties where even the artistically challenged can take home a piece of canvas artwork they can be proud of.
Spend an afternoon with bees and beers Hiver, the honey beer, runs bee-keeping experiences in Kennington alongside tastings of its sweet, alcoholic nectar. Get up close to a live hive at Bee Urban and follow it up with a tutored beer and food matching sesh. Go scavenging Especially perfect for hen dos, stag dos and corporate events, The Big Smoke Events arranges scavenger hunts that encourage participants to explore the city while making memories and taking lots of comedy photographs!
Sign up for a masterclass The City Literary Institute offers an ever-changing carousel of evening classes and short courses — over 5, of them! Go white water rafting Hiding away in Waltham Cross is the massive Lea Valley watersports facility that was initially built for the Olympics. These days, it earns its keep with all kinds of aquatic activities for adventurous types, including white water rafting, hydroboarding, canoeing and kayaking.
Bletchley Park is just around the corner from the train station, so no crazy non-London bus routes necessary. Eat at The Clink Prison charity The Clink offers unique dining experiences to support the rehabilitation of prisoners through hospitality training, and you can find one of their restaurants at HMP Brixton.
Your entire meal will be cooked and served by prisoners, and all proceeds go to charity. Play ping pong Ping pong bars are becoming increasingly popular in the city, and are a great venue for a date or smallish birthday gathering. Last Wednesday of every month.
Last Friday of every month. Tickets are cheaper in advance. Dress up for Blitz Party Blitz Party is a monthly ish event that recreates the glamour of s Blighty.
Fancy dress is essential. Listen to live piano music Piano is close to my work so we go there a lot. The pianists change all the time, but most of them can do a decent rendition of Single Ladies as well as all the classics. They also have a branch in South Kensington. Tickets are available online. Occasionally they crop up on Groupon-type websites too.
Stuff some animals Not for the squeamish. All creatures are ethically sourced, and you can even take your furry friend home with you at the end. I reviewed a class here. Buy some affordable art Art aficionados looking to adorn their abodes with affordable, original pieces can visit the Affordable Art Fair , which pops up periodically in Battersea and Hampstead.
Learn to knit Why not knot your own knit with the needle-wielding duo from I Make Knots? Cocktails are an expensive way to drink, but they have happy hour promotions all day Monday and 4: Listen to live jazz at Nightjar This is a favourite bar of the trendiest guy in our office.
Advance booking — weeks in advance — is essential. Bookings are in two hour slots and can be made online. Go in fancy dress The Last Tuesday Society always hold the most insane events.
They had a ball pit, tarantulas and lots of live music. Attend a Intelligence Squared debate Intelligence Squared organises highbrow debates about history, economics, politics and sociology. Indulge in a bottomless boozy brunch Spend an indulgent weekend feasting on some of the best brunches the city has to offer alongside unlimited bubbles and breakfast cocktails.
Discover London through a lens Put that fancy camera to good use and explore the rich landscape of East London, overflowing with ephemeral art and quirky characters. Foto Ruta , originally from Buenos Aires, offers photography tours and treasure hunts to help you make the most of the incredible scenery on our doorsteps, and at the end everyone compares pictures over a glass of wine.
Full listings are available online. Dine somewhere different Grub Club is an online platform that sells tickets to pop-up dining experiences hosted by enthusiastic foodies and professional chefs alike. Get into bingo Unconventional bingo halls are popping up all over London. The Breakfast club runs bingo in Battersea and Angel review here every Tuesday night, and other bingo organisers pop up all over town, including Rebel Bingo and Musical Bingo.
Read my review here. The day-long course includes lunch and refreshments, a tour of the dairy and cheese caves, an introduction to cheese-making and, of course, lots of samples to try throughout the day. Have a whirl at weaving The jolly gals at The London Loom run their chilled out weaving masterclasses from various London locations, and offer workshops in everything from Japanese-style weaving to tapestry.
Design your own perfume The Experimental Perfume Club runs fragrance design masterclasses from all around London and in its lab in Dalston. Blow some glass bubbles Renowned glass artist Peter Layton runs his gallery, shop and glassblowing studio in London Bridge, and budding blowers can sign up to learn this ancient craft too. Workshops last anything from an evening to several weeks.
More information online at Vertical Chill. For tickets, I like Theatremonkey , but Lastminute and Lovetheatre do great deals too. Many shows also run lotteries for the chance to buy cheap tickets; Aladdin allows you to apply online every Monday morning, The Book of Mormon requires you to turn up at the beginning of the day to register your interest.
Learn to appreciate chocolate… Everyone loves chocolate, but think how much MORE you could love it if you learned how to taste it properly.
Take afternoon tea A bit standard, but always a nice experience. Go to the opera The marketing people at the London Coliseum, home of the English National Opera, are painfully aware that its key demographic is, er, dying out a bit. You need to apply to join Access All Arias three weeks in advance. You can buy two tickets for a time, using one for a more aged friend or relative.
Mince like a pro The perfect experience for the savage, blood-thirsty carnivore in your life, top meatery the Ginger Pig runs hands-on butchery classes from its fancy Marylebone shop.
Choose from beef, lamb, pork or sausage-making and spend three and half hours slicing, dicing, cleaving and mincing, followed by the hearty two-course supper you just prepared. The Film Gala is only on once a year, but there are dozens of other concerts focusing on movie scores, as well as special screenings where you can watch whole movies to a live musical accompaniment think Lord of the Rings, The Matrix and Titanic..!
Punchdrunk Theatre often comes to London, and Secret Cinema is selling tickets by the thousand. Discover Russian spa Banya No. Read all about my experience here. Take a ride on the Ginger Line The Ginger Line is a nomadic restaurant experience that pops up from time to time in secret locations along the London Overground.
London in the Sky hoists diners into the air for sky-high breakfasts, dinners and champagne receptions. Go flyboarding Three words: I recently discovered they do workshops out of their East London workshop, which includes a piece to take home for yourself. Included is three activities — which could include stand-up comedy or drinks-tasting, a three-course dinner and hot breakfast, overnight access to all galleries and temporary exhibitions, live music, edible insect-tasting, an all-night monster movie marathon and a cash bar.
CuriousEmily 31st August 9: Tee 17th November 3: Emma GreenGlobalTravel 31st August Wish I had this amazing list when I went in December. Love the city and the culture and this list just amplifies it. CuriousEmily 31st August CuriousEmily 29th September 4: Ah, good to know! What a brilliant briliant list. CuriousEmily 27th January 9: Let me know if you stumble across any more to add to my list!
This list is incredible! That just reserved a number one spot on my personal London-bucket-list hehe! Sander 3rd June Do you have any recommendations? CuriousEmily 5th July 4: I like to give experiences as birthday presents too, I hope your lucky recipients enjoy them.
CuriousEmily 9th July So pleased to hear it! Anthoulla 20th July 8: Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. CuriousEmily 19th August 4: The thing that comes immediately to mind is City Dash! It fits perfectly in your price range and can accommodate that number of people. Hi Emily, that is amazing, exactly what I was looking for.
Jackie 14th September This could keep anyone entertained for a long time. Interests for any type. I just with I could add this to my Pinterest board! Milli Abrams 3rd October 5: What a fantastic list, and an entertaining read! I visit London from time to time live in the BVI , so very much looking forward to trying most of your recommendations. CuriousEmily 3rd October CuriousEmily 7th October Mark O'Donovan 2nd November 8: CuriousEmily 2nd November And if you pass Paul.
Have you booked yourself in with the Bookatable deal? Afternoon tea is a great shout — how many of you are there? Alternatively, if you are not from the UK you could try a traditional English Sunday roast?
Actually, screw it, even if you are used to this glorious tradition, try Hawksmoor. Not suitable for vegetarians! Try and get a slot at sunset! Peter 30th November 7: Luke McCormick 15th December 6: Justin 30th December 4: Emily — this list is amazing! A unique perspective and plenty of outside-the-box ideas.
Any ideas for something unique night? CuriousEmily 30th December 9: There are also late nights at some museums, specifically Natural History and Science, which are adults only and great fun! There are plenty of shows too, which are great evening activities, and there are loads of good comedy clubs in Central too. The ones around Leicester Square are all upstairs in grotty pubs but cheap with a good atmosphere. If you like jazz then make a performance reservation for Nightjar near Old Street, or its new bar, Oriole.
Justin 10th January 1: Shayne Zalameda 10th January Dawn 13th January 8: Hi Emily What a refreshing read! Who knew there was so much to do in london! There will be ladies aged We are thinking of staying overnight in shoreditch and hit the bars in the evening but we are struggling to find a fun activity to do during the day that will appeal to most of the group.
Can you point me in the right direction? They are an open minded fun bunch! CuriousEmily 13th January 9: So glad you found it useful. This is quite hardcore. Not suitable for vegetarians.
I reviewed one here: CityDash is a wide game in London that does require some physical activity. They do games in Shoreditch sometimes, so keep an eye out.
Brus 18th January Catherine Julianne 21st January CuriousEmily 21st January 1: In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made excellent content ass you did, the net can be a llot more helpful than ever before. Her Idea Blog 9th February 2: This list is perfect! Thank you for all the wonderful ideas!
CuriousEmily 9th February 2: Aah, that means a lot! I hope your husband has a lovely time…you never forget your first! This is such a great list! Do you have any ideas on activities etc? We are planning on going to a show, dinner at sketch or sexy fish, sky garden, and pedicures at Selfridges for myself and my grandmother.
But want some FUN, unstuffy things to do. We are going for 3 days at the end of April , any help would be really appreciated! Emily Gibson 19th March 2: Yes, you have to pay for the champagne. As you are going to be here during the day possibly during the week? Or champagne and cheese tasting? The London Gin Club is near Tottenham Court Road station and is an adorable bar where you can try different gins — very nice!
Where can I find a sexy place for two to wine and dine and listen to cool jazz music in the Southbank tomorrow? CuriousEmily 18th February Can you make a little trip? Bakedtoimperfection 9th March Just wanted to say what a great post this is, must have taken a long time but it was really helpful and listed loads of fun and unusual things that places like Timeout miss.
Curious Emily 9th March I do add new things when I hear about them so do bookmark the page. Ferwerda 10th March Hi Emily, what a great list. I would like to tell you about a tour group that I went to in London, http: I love dancing and the swing patrol caught my attention, I went a class after work and I loved it. I am now going to try other things you have listed. Now i have a reason to forward to weekdays as well as weekends. Curious Emily 10th March Thanks for these great ideas.
Husband, 16 year old daughter and me. Any ideas for a mid-March visit that includes a teen? I took my own mother and she loved it. There are tonnes of street food markets — where is your hotel based? I recently saw Kinky Boots, which is set in Northampton, England, and it was fantastic! Theatre Monkey is the best site for sniffing out the deals. The latter two can have queues of up to two hours, so try and go for very early or very late lunches or dinners. Do you have any special interests?
Happy to make recommendations! Thanks so much for this. Thanks for your quick response and for your terrific website. Penny 30th March 4: Emily you are a star and your list is brilliant. Emily Gibson 5th April 1: James 5th April Hi Emily, what a fantastic list — kudos on putting it together!!
Fascinating stuff in there and amazing to read just how much experience you have of the city. Anyhoo, I wondered if you would be able to help a best man in need?! Basically I have a party of 12 coming down on the 14th May for one night arriving via train at St Pancras around 10am late notice I now realise as most activities are booked! Camden is very close to Euston though it is, in my view, an absolute shithole and I avoid nights out there like the plague.
Get them to add the code ghl9f to get their first ride free — that should take care of any issues getting back to the hotel! The grooming idea is really nice: Aside from that, how about:. This is based in East London.
If you go for Shoreditch in the evening, Bounce ping pong bar might be a cool place to start. There are some cool water-based activities to do on the river, though it may be a gamble with the weather! You could do a wakeboarding sesh at Wake Up London, or flyboarding would be super fun! Or a flying trapeze class?
Also a few people will shit themselves most comically. If your group is quite fit, you could try a Parkour lesson? Probably not for the faint-hearted! James 5th April 1: Not come across that one yet?