I have two posts I am copying and pasting for the edification of those who choose to think about these larger issues on campus before now. I see a lot of unusually venomous claims made towards persons who suddenly have fallen out of favor - usually with the teeth of a UK fan. (which is none) From a friend on another board:
"The purpose of non-profit foundations, established to support universities that are "public" (read: government owned and run) is to allow donors to support the university without having officials - politicians or bureaucrats - control, and skim off a share of, their donations. It's also more efficient, to say the least, to have a foundation handle contracts or deals involving land, construction, and corporate sponsorship. Land owned by the university - such as UofL's Shelby campus - could be productively turned into a profitable asset only by a private foundation controlled by the university. A presence downtown, other than the health center, for the business school, or a cooperative undertaking between the university and a corporation, could not be achieved if there were not some non-political entity involved. This is the function of a University foundation. It's to give those responsible for operating and growing the institution a means to expand and improve its core functions while seeking to increase its long term endowment as a hedge against lower support from state funds and tuition. A foundation directed aggressively to do these things will almost assuredly get involved in projects and activities that private investors and entrepreneurs - such as Blue - covet for themselves. It is not only Louisville and UofL that has dealt with controversies of this nature; other communities and other schools have also seen conflicts. \
Jim Ramsey was an aggressive, visionary and very effective head of the UofL Foundation. That is what made some enemies for him. Why else should Blue care about UofL billboards with Ramsey's photo on them? The idea was to publicize an era of outstanding growth for UofL and the advertising agency argued that the campaign would be more effective if a person were identified with it, and that should probably be the president. The problem is that even though these non-profit foundations are not State-owned the universities they serve are public, which means that if the activities of the foundation irritate enough developers, money managers, bankers or others with profitmaking aspirations unrelated to the university involved, they can go to the State and use political leverage to curb or stop these activities. They'll use arguments quite similar to those who argue against athletic spending; i.e., "These things are not the purpose of an institution of higher learning. We need to focus on academics and most of all the students." Those arguments always resonate among some, even if the value of athletics or the return on foundation activities are clearly of real benefit to the institution. That is what's gone in Louisville. This article, which reveals just how irritated Blue became over having to compete with activities of the foundation, is evidence of what I have said. Needless to say, Jurich and Ramsey agreed on the potential value of the foundation and its activities. The notion that both men "had to go" is the result of people who did not personally benefit from these activities (and could care less what good they could do for the University) going to government to make changes. Getting rid of both Jim Ramsey and Tom Jurich with slanders or innuendos - the method of politics -as needed for justification has been achieved. Local citizens, who read and hear the reports in the media - most of which have no understanding but love scandals - are hard pressed to know if Ramsey was a crook or not or if Jurich was a bully or not. They just want the whole episode over. Those people who resent both men, and feel like Mr. Blue, have won, and that's too bad. IMO
also...........................
"I have defended Jim Ramsey, who has admittedly been a friend of mine. I also in previous threads on more than one occasion said that I wished he'd left a year or two earlier because his way of handling the Foundation was bound to create enemies. I don't condone every step or action he took, but I also know he is not a crook. Those who wanted to wrest control of the Foundation from him made lots of statements that were scandalous in my view but that is how politics is played (as I can attest having been a DC Lobbyist for five+ years). If you disagree with how he ran things at the end, due to overconfidence, that's acceptable. Calling him a crook is not.