Hitchcack story in NY Times

[Dane Pound]

I guess this, not King, was the reason for her early departure. Case of Former SUNY Official Points to Ethics Law Loophole-NY Times

[reeder]

Wow - very disappointing and embarassing.

 

I think many people thought she left because of a disagreement with the SUNY chancellor.

[GODANESGO]

Don't change judgement too quickly. SUNY and Hitchcock were at odds for sometime and was constantly pushing. This might just have been the thing that decided exactly when she was going to give into their pushing, not necessarily if.

 

Also, if you look at it..she wasn't imbezzleing (sp?) or taking money for personal use, etc...the contractor was going to give money for a professor's seat. And, as most students would agree we REALLY need more teachers.

 

So while I don't like the backdoor secret dealings, I think this is really blown out of proportion here. Also, I haven't heard additional residence facilities possibly being built or looked into at any of my meetings, kinda odd. Finally, weird that it took a year for this story to get out.

[UAalum72]

As the story says, she already was a tenured professor, so how would she benefit from this supposed deal? And since the investigation is supposed to be kept confidential, it makes you wonder who leaked the story (someone investigating "ethics"?), and why?

[Oldtimer]

GODANESGO and UAalum72 have read it right. If there was a true Ethics issue it would not(or should not) have reached the Times. This is a political issue, from a political appointee and a politically appointed committee which the legislature will never change because they rarely do anything ethical. Pres. Hitchcock did many things to improve UA and some people just don't give up!

Edited February 26, 2005 by Oldtimer

[alum73]

It's still an ethics issue. If you get the contract because you'll kick back $, even for a worthy cause, its still wrong. If you embezzle money and give it to the poor, its still embezzling.

[UAalum72]

It's still an ethics issue. If you get the contract because you'll kick back $, even for a worthy cause, its still wrong. If you embezzle money and give it to the poor, its still embezzling.

I know, I was just going for the irony of some ethics investigator breaking confidentiality.

[DaneFan2k3]

Also, if you look at it..she wasn't imbezzleing (sp?) or taking money for personal use, etc...the contractor was going to give money for a professor's seat.

 

Did everyone who read the story miss the following line??

 

But at the time, Dr. Hitchcock faced a state ethics inquiry into accusations that she offered to steer a campus construction contract to a developer, who in exchange would pay to endow a university professorship that she could fill once she left her job as college president, according to state officials familiar with the ethics review.

 

I'm reading that as, she would quit as president and take this new endowed scholarship, which I'm assuming would pay very well.

 

That's a sneaky way of embezzling.

Edited February 27, 2005 by DaneFan2k3

[GODANESGO]

But the thing is she already would have this benefit as President because she had tenured teaching status.

[Dane Pound]

But the thing is she already would have this benefit as President because she had tenured teaching status.

That's exactly the point her lawyer made in yesterday's paper (Probe targeted ex-UAlbany leader-TU) She could have done it to augment her income or maybe setup a nice no-show job for herself.

 

Since the ehtics investigation isn't ongoing anymore this is really just a he-said she-said thing and we'll probably never know what happened. From the court of public opinion standpoint she probably would have looked more innocent had she stayed and fought the charges instead of taking a job in another country. If she already had problems with Chancellor King you can certainly see why she wouldn't be willing to do that.