Next year they will have a "wave surcharge" on any ticket purchased for football.
I’ve heard that they’ve had troubles with census at the new hospital. It’s a mess though.
I have been looking through the thread and have a question. Can the hospital even sell the painting? Was the painting donated to the hospital and therefore, unable to sell it?
Olsen donated money for a building by trice. It’s getting tore down soon. If something is donated it can be sold. It’s yours now and your wishes. They don’t sell it because some people may look poorly on it.
I think a donor can put restrictions on donations if the recipient agrees to it. Not sure that's the case or not with the painting. Some people may indeed look poorly on the painting being sold to pay a "plumbing" bill, and it may be enough to discourage people from donating in the future if they think their donation won't necessarily be used the way they intend. At least I assume a study or appreciation of the painting is done as part of an art major's program, and I assume that being able to point to the painting is part of the way potential art students are recruited.
This is absolutely correct. It was mentioned earlier that they should use their endowment to pay for this - they can't. The money in the endowment is donated for specific purposes typically scholarships or salaries for a specific faculty position) and if it were to be used for something other than it's intended purpose, the donor could pull the funds.
As a small business owner that article was frustrating to read. Most of my invoices are $10,000 and below, but every once in a while you get slow played by somebody and it starts messing with how your business runs. I can't imagine being owed millions like that.
Wasn't there some pressure to sell paintings after some flooding (maybe 08?)
I don't want to go overboard sticking up for the University of Iowa, but this painting is a treasure of a study and learning opportunity for students majoring in that sort of thing. Selling it would be similar to when the regents sold WOI TV from Iowa State. It was shortsighted, asinine, a **** move, it sucked, and it continues to sucks.
Except that selling WOI was done out of spite by the UI cronies on the BOR (at the behest of the Gov). It wasn't done out of a need to generate revenue to pay for a giant university cockup.
All of those articles were written by the same person. Coincidentally, her mother lost her job at UI Hospitals and Clinics earlier this year. I wonder why that fact is not disclosed in these articles (actually, I don't wonder at all).The Gazette had a series of articles earlier showing what a cluster the project became. Almost no accountability at the top. I would love to see the regents smack them down, because they repeatedly told the regents that the project was under control.
I like him a lot. He's been leading the charge on legalizing gambling.
All of those articles were written by the same person. Coincidentally, her mother lost her job at UI Hospitals and Clinics earlier this year. I wonder why that fact is not disclosed in these articles (actually, I don't wonder at all).
Not exactly. What you described is restricted funds. There are unrestricted assets that could be used to pay for something like this.This is absolutely correct. It was mentioned earlier that they should use their endowment to pay for this - they can't. The money in the endowment is donated for specific purposes typically scholarships or salaries for a specific faculty position) and if it were to be used for something other than it's intended purpose, the donor could pull the funds.