Jimmy,
Happy New Year to you,
I know you recently received an email from Jonathon Martin asking for members of Blueprint to support Sean O’Keefe in his present role as Chancellor of the LSU Baton Rouge campus. While Jonathon is unaware of our efforts, I wanted to share with you that John Davis (sic) and I along with other Baton Rouge business leaders have expressed our concerns about the Chancellors performance. John met with Sean some months ago to share our concerns directly with him and we have jointly discussed the issue with members of the LSU Board of Supervisors. I would be happy to privately discuss this with you but wanted to urge you to look at all of the issues before taking action.
I hope to see you in New Orleans for the big game.
John
Comments
Posted by Progresso on January 17, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What business does a local community foundation have in engineering the removal of the president of our state university? This is shameful!
Posted by nuchitchi on January 17, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I not only agree with Progresso, but where is the new govenor and his big talk of Ethics Reform?
I think the LSU Board of Un-Supervisors stepped over the line and caved to snooty academics who felt like they were in high school all over again with the school's sports team getting all the attention.
That Spain and others capitalized on the moment for advancment of personal agendas does not surprise me, that Lombardi did, does.
Posted by lostparker on January 17, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
O'Keefe didn't have the PhD credentials that the profs at LSU wanted to see and he wasn't one of them, so they b*tched and moaned about his appointment. Never mind that he was well connected and a great fundraiser and brought prestige to the university.
Lombardi is a snooty Yankee who has so far proven himself to be rude and tone deaf and has gone over about as well as a fire ant mound at a crab boil.
Good luck LSU on finding O'Keefe's replacement, if Lombardi hasn't already hand picked one that we don't know about yet. I would be surprised if they got anyone half as good as O'Keefe for twice the money. I sure wouldn't work with those yahoos. The inmates are running the prison.
Posted by Progresso on January 17, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, nuchitchi. It's also galling that these ethically challenged BRAF butt-in-skies represent a nonprofit, donor-supported institution. This is how they spend resources entrusted to them...in back-channel machinations? Too much money breeding an excess of self-importance.
Posted by leakbuster on January 17, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, well, well; it took a few years, but people like John Spain are eventually exposed. Now the rest of you know what some of us have know for years.
Posted by Congreve on January 17, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Spain and John Davies... these are the geniuses who just spent a million BRAF foundation dollars to hire a purposologist to tell them why and how to waste money marketing a road.
To me its pretty cowardly to throw around OTHER people's money and not your own.
Spain ran WBRZ-TV into the ground. Don't let him do the same to LSU.
Posted by Progresso on January 17, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For two do-gooder types, it's interesting to see how disliked these guys are. Never realized. To Congreve: That was beyond dumb. They had to go to a Texas ad agency "to define our brand." And then they come up with the silliest slogan ever devised...
Posted by jbaldy on January 17, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
as far as john spain (who the hell does he think he is anyway--oops! i forgot that he is the one who ran WBRZ's ratings into the ground.) is concerned-HORSE MANURE! Who are these "other Baton Rouge business leaders" he refers to in his childish and irrelevant e-mail? Chancellor O'Keefe probably wouldn't kiss their rear ends and did what was best for LSU.
no more money for BRAF. my football tickets just went up and the money is better spent for them, along with donations to TAF and the "FOREVER LSU" campaign.
Posted by docthetiger on January 17, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its a shame that a hard working professional like Chancellor O'Keefe gets shoved out by the likes of a few rich fat cats that have never produced anywhere they have ever been.
What's worse is we have a Board of Supervisors that backs them up. We have only the past governor to blame in part because she made some of those appointments that will end up in sticking it to LSU in favor of USL---oops UhLaLa.
I'm sure we will get another yankee doodle dandy to fit with Lombardi. And we will pay a price in many ways for it.
Posted by leakbuster on January 17, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Spain...spent Manship money, spent BRAF money. Board of Supervisors? Are you kidding me?...You have about 4 members that are qualified. The rest are only concerned about thier tickets and parking passes.
Posted by Congreve on January 17, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the current LSU Board, the majority was appointed by Kathleen Blanco. Her legacy lives on.
Posted by wblake on January 17, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, BRAF has done wonders for Baton Rouge and Louisiana for a long time. The banter on this comment board seems quite uninformed. Spain and BRAF are some of the more progressive and forward-thinking people in our state. I hope he can clear this O'Keefe business up. It would be a shame if a misdirected email undermined years of diligence and positive change.
I fault the Business Report for taking this email completely out of context and using it as a buzz producer.
Careful who you put down - there are far worse enemies in power who would love to see us slander our few brokers of progress.
Posted by leakbuster on January 18, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are about 95% correct;however, our "brokers of progress" were not taken out of context. They have elevated the mission without stakeholder consent.
Posted by Congreve on January 18, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taken out of context? That's idiotic.
The Business Report presented the email letter in its entirety, unedited.
Not excerpts, not reformulated or rearranged snippets. No commentary, just the letter itself.
Wblake apparently brings his own context to it.
Posted by wblake on January 18, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay Congreve, listen closely... context is a noun that means "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed"
What I meant by context was the events, circumstances, and conversations surrounding the email. Now please go be irrational and reactionary in somebody else's world.
Leakbuster - agreed. In fact I think the real stakeholders deserve an explanation - from business leaders to alumni to students - I just have to jump to the defense of one of BR's more worthwhile organizations. By all means though, let's not turn a blind eye to the truth.
Posted by Progresso on January 18, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No explanations. Off with their heads!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)