So, the “massive restructuring,” of the medical center total $100 million in cuts in the budget, the “hundreds” of layoffs, including 15 senior executive positions (one of which was held by Michelle Obama). The Obamas cut them all loose once he won the election? Damn, that’s gotta be one of the worst political machines ever.
Which assertion did I make that I didn’t back up with a “factual cite”?
Assert is definitely too strong a word. However, you have implied that the cutting of Michelle Obama’s former job is indicative of the fact that the job she held was a sinecure intended solely to reward the Obama family with largesse.
Your implication, however, completely ignores the fact that the hospital made massive cuts in a number of areas, one of which was the specific focus of Michelle’s job. So the burden is on you to somehow explain away these facts in such as way as to provide more, shall we say, compelling evidence that the hospital, amidst many other traumatic cuts in difficult times, choosing to eliminate a vacant position somehow means that Barack Obama was being bribed through his wife.
Can you give me a cite to “massive cut” to the area of Michelle’s job. AFAIK, University of Chicago Medical Center still has ties to the community and still has external affairs - you know, Michelle Obama’s “area” for which she was paid the 300K/year salary.
Sure!
Key quote from the article (dated 1/13/2009):
That would be November of 2008. Considering that Michelle didn’t work at all in 2008 (part time in 2007), but waited until 1/9/2009 to officially resign, it makes complete sense that they would choose not to fill her job.
Oh, and btw, her salary was not 300K (close, I guess, but it was 273K in 2006 - her last full year on the job). Based on this, she was, in fact, paid less than other Vice Presidents ($291-362K).
They did fill the job. They just added her job to another exec who was already there. See the article I cited before.
Did you look at the link I gave for the income tax forms on which her salary is clearly listed? It’s on page 19.
Did you read your own cite, the one I paraphrased above? — http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/top-u-of-c-medical-center-doctor-steps-down.html
The position was one of 15 executive positions and one of possibly 1,000 jobs eliminated in the process of a $100 million budget cut. Are you seriously arguing that this is any kind of evidence that Michelle Obama’s job was purely a patronage position and that it was eliminated because the hospital no longer needed to pay tribute to Obama? That doesn’t even pass the straight face test.
Yes, the article says nothing about “massive cuts” to the area of Michelle’s job. In fact, it goes on to say that her job was just added to the workload of another exec at the hospital. Shows just how huge and time-consuming the job was, doesn’t it?
What does that statement mean?
Spell it out. What exactly is the evidence you are relying on? What are the implications? What is your reasoning? What is your conclusion?
Subpart (a): What do you think happened to the duties, responsibilities, and workload of all the other jobs eliminated?
Question 3: a. Have you ever held a job in a large organization (or any sized organization)? ii. How old are you?
Did you read either of the cites you asked for and that I gave you? She made over 300K one year based on a signing bonus and a retirement cash out. Bonuses do not constitute salary. And, no, they didn’t fill the job, they covered the responsibilities. There is a difference.
"Last month, Madara would say only that the hospital is eliminating 15 senior executive jobs, including vice president for community and external affairs, a position that had held been by First Lady Michelle Obama, a former medical center vice president.
Her duties have been taken over by Dr. Eric Whitaker, a friend of her husband, President Barack Obama, and executive vice president for strategic affiliations and external affairs."
Don’t know - the article didn’t say. Some were probably removed completely. But this one is specifically mentioned. Can you imagine - an important job, for which the hospital paid Michelle Obama 300K/year is now just another duty for an already (presumably) busy exec.
Can you imagine - an important, full time job, for which the hospital paid Michelle Obama 300K/year (273K if you prefer) is now just another duty for an already (presumably) busy exec.
:rolleyes:
Yes, I suppose it’s possible that unlike every other executive position within the ken of mankind, the ACLU offered Ms. Ripston her position without regard to her prior experience. And I suppose that for a job that involves contacts with many people in the legislative and judicial communities, it’s possible that the ACLU decided to disregard Ms. Ripston’s qualifications there. Possibly they put all the candidates’ names in a hat, and just drew one.
But since that practice would fly in the face of our common sense and our knowledge of how every other freaking organization in the world works, I would say that it’s not for me to provide a specific cite that it happened.
[/QUOTE]
It would be for you to answer the question that was actually asked, tho. Did I say anything about her experience in the post you (selectively) quoted? Let’s check it out in a more complete quote:
Hmm. I don’t see anything in that last sentence at all asking about whether or not her experience was part of what got her the job, yet that’s what you answered.
Based on your logic no position could ever be eliminated in any company ever. After all, those duties had to go somewhere, right?
I’m sure that seems outrageous to anyone who has never dealt with health care upper management and the prodigious executive bloat that hospitals develop over time.
I’ve worked in several hospitals and non-profit health care systems, and each of them has employed a small army of well-dressed people whose job is to attend meetings, mostly with one another. Some of these people are indispensible resources for dealing with the Byzantine nature of the business end of medicine, while others are zenlike masters at the art of looking really busy without ever actually doing anything. Either way, their salaries can be staggering.
All this is to say you may be right that Michelle Obama was getting paid a ridiculous amount of money to do a relatively superfluous job that was easily absorbed into the bureaucracy, but that this was hardly unprecedented. As to whether she came by such a job because her husband was a rising-star politician, I’m sure it didn’t hurt, but I’ve seen so many mediocre people in such positions that I have to believe a remarkable woman like MO could have made it happen on her own.
You say “executive bloat”. I say “sinecure”. It’s all the same. It’s Chicago, after all, political sinecure is a well established tradition there. And University of Chicago is a private hospital, so I don’t really care how they spend their money. It’s just funny that Ginny Thomas is seen as exploiting her connections while Michelle Obama is of course pure as fresh fallen snow.
Dude, OP is about a Thomas recusal. You wanna start a thread about how that compares with Michele Obama be my guest. For this discussion, it is irrelevant. Thanks for playing.
OK. You were responding to MY post which mentioned both experience and connections, but yes, I agree you mentioned only experience.
But my point still stands. The job of executive director of the ACLU would absolutely involve somene who had cultivated connections as part of her experience. And it flies in the face of common sense to imagine that the board of the ACLU offered Ms. Ripston the job of executive director without knowledge and consideration of her connections. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this post knows it. If you want to claim it didn’t happen that way, you’re making an extraordinary claim, and you need to provide some evidence that her job was handled in a way different than every similar top executive job for a legal and political advocacy group.
Yes, and it was specifically mentioned only because it was Michelle Obama’s job. The other jobs were held by people who weren’t married to the president, so they didn’t bother mentioning them.
Yes, I can. It happens all the time when there are budget cuts and layoffs. Some, indeed most, jobs still need to be done even if you no longer have funding for a separate position. They won’t be done as well, or with as much attention, or with as much time, but someone has to be assigned responsibility for them.
The duties of all those 15 executive positions were redistributed to people who are already (presumably) busy execs. And many of the duties of the up to 1,000 additional layoffs will also be redistributed to people who are already (presumably) busy.
If this one position had been the only position eliminated, that would be one thing. But here you’ve got a massive budget cut and layoff at a large organization. There’s nothing remarkable about Michelle Obama’s former position being one of those on the chopping block.