Good for you, D. I., bringing this to light.

Now, rather than showing sycophantic support for Hogan's populist shenanigans, please investigate the waste this opportunist brings to U of I a little earlier than two years too late. Thank you for your (hopefully) timely work.

Maintaining the President's residence with funds specifically allocated for such purposes seems hardly worthy of reporting. I commend the President for his actions towards the maintenance and beautification of the home. As a designer it is worth noting that this price isn't uncommon for a quality rug of this size.

Why do so many public officials in Illinois see their positions as a way to gain special privilege and not as a public trust?

From the Governor's office, down through the General Assembly, and even to University presidents, they all act like royalty run amok.

It really makes voters want to slap them silly while reminding them that it is OUR money, not theirs, that they are squandering.

I sort of have to admit that I don't see why this is news-worthy. Yes, a $42k rug is a large purchase... but it's also not something that's likely to be thrown out and replaced in the near future. Anyone who's ever done any kind of renovation will tell you it's not cheap (and cheaping out on the fixtures and furnishing usually comes back to bite you eventually).

On top of that, the President's House functions has more than just a residence.

Explain how this is waste? This is a mulit-million dollar property with over 10,000 guests per year who visit -- mostly donors and others who will help the University move forward. This is just lame reporting looking for a story and continuing to drag down this great university. The Whites did the University a huge favor by restoring the home, which was starting to fall apart. And as far as Hogan goes, he's already raised hundreds of thousands for the U of I and he's been here for only about 9 weeks. If any of us in fundraising knows one thing, we know you have to have good people who are willing to stand up in a positive way for the university. No one wants to invest in a dump or in a whiner.

We need to stop the whining, move ahead, and show off all the great things this university does or no one will want to invest. Kudos to the Whites.

With all due respect, I understand that the upper echelons, the overprivileged U of IL staff think they are entitled to all kind of perks. Don't expect those who pay for them to show similar enthusiasm.

We are told: "as far as Hogan goes, he's already raised hundreds of thousands for the U of I and he's been here for only about 9 weeks"

First of all, Hogan didn't raise the money from the cornfield... alumni and other donors send money al the time, Hogan-Schmogan. Secondly, Marie-Antoinette Hogan's contract involves - when perks and other expenses are considered - close to or in excess of one million dollars. Perhaps he should be more concerned about raising money for the university, and not for his own - obscene in a time of crisis - luxury.

The proposition that a rug costing more than the annual salary of a U of IL secretary was somehow necessary because donors are visiting... what a crook. A $10,000 rug... would have that been so bad? Did the opulent, wasteful rug inspire donors into donating more? Speak of non sequitur.

...All this in times when the "little" people are laid off, asked to sacrifice, one janitor is asked to do the work previously done by three janitors, students are being mercilessly stuffed down their throats all kind of extra taxes, fees, expenses.

"The Whites did the University a huge favor by restoring the home"

Let's not speak as if The Whites paid for any of it. It's easy to do yourself huge favors on other people's money and pretend you did it for the school.

Admittedly I am only one person, but I am a graduate and bombarded by requests for donations via email and snailmail on a regular basis. Even if maintaining the President's House is in any way beneficial for the fundraising capabilities of the University, it should be way way down the list of priorities considering the financial constraints being imposed on faculty further down the ladder. Honestly I can't see myself feeling right giving the University money any time soon.

The University of Illinois has done it's best to maintain a high standard of excellence despite unheard of budget woes. Maintaining a home is hard for anybody. Can you imagine what it must be like when thousands of people get invited to the presidents home to experience this universities own brand of unique hospitality? It would not be appropriate for visitors to see a house in ruins. The house is not only a home for a sitting president but a true picture of what it means to be a member of one of the best communities in the world. As a member of Illini-nation, and someone who has a disability, I am amazed at how well this university is kept up with the ever-evolving needs of a growing student population. Who ever the student was who accused the university of wasteful spending needs to rethink their stance. The next time your dorm-room needs repair because it's getting worn out, DO NOT put in a work request because the university and we as students pay millions every year into a campus beautification and upkeep fund. Is that a waste of money? The campus and everything on it is beautiful, shouldn't a president, sitting or former be able to spend some money to keep their house beautiful? I applaud the university student, faculty, staff and administration for working together to keep the University on the cutting edge of society. There is truly no other place in the world like the University of Illinois! I have looked! So don't be afraid to talk to President Hogan, Dr. Ikenberry, or any other high administration official. If there's a problem, look for useful ways to solve it! By complaining and not presenting a solution, a person does not deserve to speak. Present a solution and one person could change the face of the University forever. That person could be you!

I don't mean to be facetious, but the latest advocacy of the White/Hogan waste seems to emanate directly from some propaganda office.

Let's not inadequately compare changing a broken door with spending huge amounts of money on unnecessary luxury objects.

There's something highly demagogic and downright phony about "applaud[ing] the university student, faculty, staff and administration for working together to keep the University on the cutting edge of society," which in reality means larger classes and bigger fees for students, more work for custodians, more secretaries being fired on the one hand, bigger salaries for university administrators, obscene luxury for the president, and altogether enormous waste for the privileged few on the other hand.

This is not really "working together," it's more like a "shut up and suck it up" kind of stance. Pretty characteristic for the mentality of the state of IL in general.

An NPR article shows it rather well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129485742

Excerpt:

"Corruption At All Levels

And how about this for a measure of just how corrupt Illinois is: The chairman of the political science department at the University of Illinois-Chicago, Dick Simpson, has as his area of expertise studying political corruption.

Simpson says there's no question about it: Illinois is indisputably the most corrupt state, and Chicago is the most corrupt city in the nation. And he has some eye-popping figures to back up those claims.

"So far, we believe there have been since 1970 about 1,500 people convicted of public corruption. Most of them are public officials, either elected or appointed," he says. "They occur at all levels of government from suburban trustee to the governor of the state of Illinois."

Simpson, who served as a reform-minded alderman in Chicago in the 1970s, led the small but vocal opposition bloc to the machine led by the late Mayor Richard J. Daley. He says the first corruption trial in Chicago took place in the 1860s, and they have continued ever since.

"At the most local level, the building inspector might take a $50 bill or a $100 bill to not write up a building violation. An alderman might take $500 for a zoning variance so you can build a high rise instead of a single-family house," Simpson says.

A case in point: While the Blagojevich trial was going on this summer in one courtroom in Chicago's Dirksen federal building, in another, former Chicago Alderman Ike Caruthers was sentenced for taking bribes from a developer in exchange for favorable zoning changes — something his father went to prison for when he was alderman nearly 30 years ago.

"Chicago politicians do not seem to be able to learn," Simpson says. "They repeat the same mistakes over and over."

In yet another courtroom, Al Sanchez, who served as Streets and Sanitation commissioner under current Mayor Richard M. Daley, was tried and convicted."

.

This many not be directly relevant to the University of IL situation. However, obviously, in Illinois the Orwellian meaning of solidarity means that the little people need to swallow in silence whatever waste the big shots impose on them. Why should the University be an exception?

More amateurish "Gotcha!" journalism by the DI. The DI received more than 1,200 pages of documents responsive to a FOIA request Wednesday afternoon and violated every principle of fair, objective expository journalism by ramming a half-baked "Breaking News!" story onto its website shortly before 1 a.m. with no context whatsoever. DI reporters and editors didn't obtain a single comment or explanation for the expenses before putting the so-called story up on the website.

Of course "thousands" of dollars have been spent on the maintenance and decoration of the President's House. It is, after all, a nearly 80-year-old physical asset--a gem--of the University that would cost nearly $4 million to replace. Upon its completion in 1933 Trustees stipulated it would be a place for the people: "Naturally the house would be too large and expensive to maintain were it considered simply as a personal residence for the President. It is primarily in terms of official uses that the Board has always conceived it and that the attempt has been made to use it."

Indeed, the House averages about 5,000 visitors a year, most of them trooping through during the academic year for a myriad of different events. Among those coming by the house are alumni; major donors who have provided tens of millions of dollars in gifts to the University; faculty, staff and students; members of the Champaign-Urbana community; dignitaries and office holders from the U.S. and abroad. Joe and Mary White embraced the premise that the House belongs to the people of Illinois. They were gracious hosts and conservative, conscientious stewards of the House.

The orginial slate roof has been replaced with one that should last several more generations, and stave off further water damage to the interior. The house was made more welcoming, and accessible, to all of the thousands of guests. The sitting room--ground zero for entertaining large groups--received its first makeover in 20 years, with a piece of floor art as its aesthetic centerpiece, funded by a gift expressly intended and often used for that purpose since it was endowed in 1980--The Chester Fund. The rug? Visitors will be admiring and stepping on it for another 25 years or more.

The facts are friendly in this case and not a secret, as the 1,200-page FOIA response document will attest. Yes, "thousands" have been spent to maintain an iconic, beloved and major physical asset of the Univeristy, where "millions" in gift funds are raised and thousands of people come annually as guests of the University. It's a shame the DI, once again, neglected to share all the relevant facts with its readers.

Thomas Hardy

Sir, you sign as UIArch04.

You also assert that "As a designer it is worth noting that this price isn't uncommon for a quality rug of this size."

You do realize, I hope, that this is not simply and merely "a quality rug" (which may cost anywhere between $5,000 and 10,000) but a CUSTOM-made, HAND WOVEN rug, not even made in the US (that much for American money helping American economy). An unnecessary luxury object more adequate for oil-rich Saudi despots rather than for a budget-poor state university.

In the documents bravely produced by Daily Illini (good job this time, fellows!), an interesting detail emerges - a certain architecture graduate and designing specialist was involved in the decision-making...

I am not insinuating anything uncouth here, but please pardon me if I don't think the advocacy of somebody involved in the project (if and *only if* that is the case) could be even remotely considered as either objective or relevant.

One cannot be a player and a referee at the same time.

Far from amateurish, Daily Illini needs to be congratulated for doing its job and for disclosing things of interest to the larger U of I community.

The heated, less than coherent intervention from Mr. Hardy hardly merits any commentary. However, some points need to be addressed:

Not thousands, but HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars have been spent on that renovation. If a simple rug wasted so much money from the University budget, we should - and probably will - find out during the following days, once D. I. makes its way through more documents, what the cost of other unnecessary "embellishments" may have been.

"Upon its completion in 1933 Trustees stipulated it would be a place for the people"

Easy on the rhetorics there. "A place for the people"? Do you mean this building benefits as much the learning process and all U of I students as it benefits the ephemeral President's vanity and appetite for luxury? Which percentage of the U of IL student community even set foot on that rug?

"The rug? Visitors will be admiring and stepping on it for another 25 years or more."

So does that type of cop-out explain/excuse/justify any kind of expense? As long as "visitors will be admiring" them, why not also add to the house bathtubs made of pure gold, platinum toilets, and other "admirable" yet unimaginably costly "details"?

What's the difference exactly?

You see, Mr. Hardy, you seem to underestimate the wisdom of the U of IL student and staff population. No community member in his/her right mind would dispute necessary repairs to the house, such as roof-leaking repairs, nor a decent, economical neatness. Please do not even attempt to suggest otherwise. Do not raise straw-man arguments.

It is the excess, the waste - while the university budget is so strained - that's what people are disputing, and with good reason.

For a $193,500.00 annual salary + generous benefits, you could either offer a more rational defense of that infamous billionaire-style rug, or apologize on behalf of your bosses. What you should not do is to insult the journalists who brought the issue to public attention.

There are reports that the White House has just installed an extremely expensive new rug in the Oval Office, with five "historical quotes" woven in:

"The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself"--President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Towards Justice"--Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Government of the People, By the People, For the People"--President Abraham Lincoln

"No Problem of Human Destiny is Beyond Human Beings"--President John F. Kennedy

"The Welfare of Each of Us is Dependent Fundamentally Upon the Welfare of All of Us"--President Theodore Roosevelt

There's a little problem there:

Martin Luther King did say what the White House attributes to him, but it wasn't original to King, and King never claimed it was. King quoted 19th-century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker, who wrote it in 1853.

Oops.

Embarrassing.

That's what a Harvard education gets you, once you benefit from Affirmative Action - which simply means you may be underqualified, undereducated but, because you have a Kenyan father, you are going to graduate anyway.

What are the excuses of expensive rug-lovers Joseph White, Thomas Hardy, and Marie-Antoinette Hogan (loved that moniker, I predict it will have a glorious career)?

The DI has done well-for a change.

An excerpt from a larger post on Tom Hardy and his woefully elitist, hagiographical post:

Accusing the DI of exploiting a “Gotcha” moment, and launching into several name-calling tirades such as “amateurish” “half-baked” and in violation of fair, objective journalism the post is rather extraordinary since there was little to castigate in the DI’s originally article. Nowhere in that article appears any conclusion or insinuation of wrongdoing warranting the accusation of a “Gotcha” moment that Hardy insulates in his Palpatinian out lashing. Indeed, the DI reported the renovations, attached the price to the rug, and includes the relevant documents. In the second and third paragraphs, the DI identifies the go-between, and the source of the funding. Nowhere in either does the publication insinuate or identify any improprieties-a hallmark nonetheless characteristic of the White regime.

The second to last paragraph merely is a statement of record, concerning White’s fate regarding the admission scandal. Nothing contained therein reported is false-White did resign. He was replaced by Ikenberry and ultimately succeeded by appointment of Michael Hogan. Or would Hardy dare to challenge these facts? Hmmm?

Finally a promise to follow up on the story. If, if we can bear to take Hardy’s word, there are 1200 more pages worth, this hardly seems unrealistic. Needless to say, hardly anything worthy of the boorishly delivered monikers of “half-baked” or unprincipled.

Hardy’s tirade, in which he attempts to take the moral high ground with claims about “friendly’ facts and a lack of secrets, becomes even more incredible when one bears in mind that, in addition to being called out by the IPA for "thumbing its collective nose" at the FOIA request regarding the cost of presidential searches, he and the university currently face a push for a state ruling by the News-Gazette for failing to adhere to the recommendations of the IL Public Access Counselor. Nor shall we forget that this man previously (in an equally brazenly hypocritical, snide, albeit less hot-headed manner) chastised the DI’s editorial picture for calling into question BJ White’s actions during the admission scandal. The context was the revelation that White (which he testified to) used his position on behalf of a member of his own family, which Hardy bizarrely omitted, in his letter to the DI, ever happened. Hardy's description of White handing himself over to "private" life also causes some scratches to the head (for us behind the ears), given that White is now a golden-parachute faculty member, teaching of all things ethics(!). Given Hardy’s brazen need to completely whitewash White of anything, no one would be surprised if tomorrow Hardy started to insist White’s urine was, in fact, wine (if only “half-baked.”)

Perhaps this was a non-story, and we shall wait to see if it was. But Hardy’s expose of bureaucratic indignation over some fiscal transparency and accountability has replaced it. Regardless of the journalistic merit of White’s unsurprising largess (a topic that has been, and will likely continue to be rightfully criticized). Tom Hardy IS now the story.

Posted by Hound No 9 The Hounds of TASSers'ville