OT: A UofA Phx/Tucson controversy I knew nothing about

[ValleyCat]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/bu ... /80928412/

After reading it, I don't even have an opinion.

[Black Oaks]

Without knowing a bit more about the situation I am not worried about the situation. If the medical group run by Banner/UofA are building a health network, I say full speed ahead. My daughter is a nurse and works as a case administrator for a company in Phoenix. She told me that the Banner/UofA hospital in Phoenix was an old very poorly run hospital that was taken over by the current Banner/UofA group.

If the big plan is to make the Phoenix facility a satellite campus, albeit a very large satellite, I see no reason why equal funding should be equired between Tucson and the Phoenix facilities. Phoenix is not without hospitals including the Mayo clinic. I undersand anyone in any large organization lobbying for more budget. It is of course how one gets funds for one'w own salary. But the concept f equal fundinng between the two facilities and bitching about we/they/ Tucson/Phoenix is not very compelling. Show me how you can replace the Mayo Clinic with a little more budget, then I might be innterested.

Bearing Down on coming late to the party with nothing to offer doesn't create a good argumeent for more money

[El Gato]

the article really highlights what I think is a stupid mindset in Arizona. The competition/rivalry between Tucson and Phoenix is ridiculous. They are in the same state. One can't really succeed without the other because they are joined at the hip. The idea of the article seems to be that funding should be based on metro population size. Why? That would be a stupid and arbitrary way to do it. The article raises the spector of all these "Tucson people" running the show. Uh, how about considering that they are (state of) Arizona people running the show? Would it even be shocking if they pulled people from out of state? As a taxpayer do you want decisions based on geography? It seems to be a small time mindset that Arizona needs to grow out of.

As far as the governance issue regarding accreditation, well, accreditors are in many cases rightly coming under scrutiny. Take it to it's logical conclusion. A med school is found to be non-compliant because decisions were made by the parent school. The school ultimately loses accreditation (not saying that would happen here). Does that impact the education the students recieved? Not one wit. Do you honestly think criticism of the administrative decision making is reflective of students' performance on board exams? HIGHLY unlikely.

Also, the article insinuates that there is a problem in that the ABOR doesn't approve the salaries of the administrators. Actually, that would probably set off warning signs to the accreditors as well. They tend to favor those decisions coming from the CEO, not the boards of regents/trustees. Can't have it both ways regarding accreditation which the article tries to do. And the size of salaries? News flash - hospital administrators make a LOT of money. It's like toilet paper, mattresses, lasic eye surgery and shoes: not an area to skimp on.

I could go on, but I'll spare you guys.

[FlagCat]

While the republic article strikes a definite critical tone on Hart's hire Garcia (listing salaries, everything that may be perceived in a negative light), fwiw he was recently honored for outstanding achievement (something not mentioned).
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2016/03/senior-vice-president-of-health-sciences-get-an-award-for-outstanding-achievement

If he's is worth what he's paid I expect he can lead some resolution on whatever discontent is brewing there in Phoenix, on the way to making a top notch medical institution in both locations.