The [Monday] Papers
"Richard Herman doesn't have to do much teaching as part of his $212,000 faculty job at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign," Jodi Cohen reports for the Tribune.
"When he resigned as chancellor after a high-profile admissions scandal, he made a deal to teach just two classes a year in the College of Education, where a professor typically teaches four.
"But Herman's class this semester was canceled for low enrollment - the second time that has happened since 2011. His biography on the College of Education's faculty website is blank. Herman, who lives in Chicago, said through a university spokesman that he goes to campus about once a week."
Herman said that through a university spokesman because he wasn't willing to be interviewed.
"He did not respond to requests for comment from the Tribune, instead relaying his answers through university spokesman Thomas Hardy."
Richard Herman, God's special creature.
"Herman, chancellor of the state's flagship university from 2005 to 2009, resigned in October 2009 after a Tribune series revealed that the campus had a shadow admissions system that allowed well-connected applicants to get into the public university over more qualified students.
"A state commission, formed in response to the Tribune stories, investigated the university's admissions abuses and concluded that Herman was 'the ultimate decision-maker' for the applicants who were connected to trustees, lawmakers and other powerful people. Herman at times overruled admissions officials to enable the students to get into the school.
"After resigning, Herman worked for eight months as a special assistant to the interim president at his nearly $400,000-a-year salary. Then, during 2010-11, he took a $244,000 sabbatical designed in part to prepare him to teach.
"Since he joined the faculty in fall 2011, he has taught two online classes and one on-campus class. Slightly more than 50 students total took those classes."
"But the balance of the evidence goes to show that gaming establishments do not have any especially stimulative economic effects.
"There will be construction jobs. There will be employment. But those things would result no matter what development were to occur on those lands. Think of it this way. Forget the casino. If a developer proposed a new stand-alone shopping mall at Exhibition Place, it would generate economic growth, but without much inflated boosterism or impassioned argument. Would it have gotten as far as the casino has? Likely not.
"Studies of the socio-economic consequences of casino gambling show there is no special windfall to be had. Yet the rhetoric claims otherwise. Such arguments are apt to be advanced - with unwarranted emphasis - when it comes to proposed casinos and major-league sports franchises; sports teams do not bring the same social problems, but both tend to be promoted and subsidized by government. They are invariably a fertile source of tenuous economic propositions."
"The participants who indicated opposition to a casino did so for a variety of reasons. Some expressed the opinion that casinos attract illegal activities such as drug dealing, prostitution and money laundering. Others felt that the social costs of a casino far outweigh any benefits to be gained, citing the potential for a casino to severely impact problem gamblers and their families. Some participants at the open house discussions related how their friends or family members had lost their savings, jobs and families as a result of gambling. Some felt that the need for additional social services for problem gamblers and their families would be difficult to meet, given the current demands on the City's social services system. Some stakeholders indicated that there is evidence that the potential for problem gambling increases with proximity of a casino.
"Many participants challenged the projected revenues the City would gain from a new casino, indicating that estimates from various sources (e.g. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation/OLG and the Ernst and Young Report) were unclear, unsubstantiated, or varied significantly from one another. Some indicated that the revenues expected to be obtained from casinos in other cities have not materialized. Because of the negotiations still required to finalize the amount of revenue the City might receive, many felt they could not determine or have confidence in what would be the actual revenues received by the City.
"In addition, some felt that the revenues would be offset by the cost of additional social services needed to respond to the social impacts caused by gambling. The view was also expressed by some that the City should look at creative ways to fund long-term economic prosperity without a casino. Many participants viewed a casino as not aligning with nor being compatible with the residential neighbourhood focus in Toronto. They see Toronto as a vibrant, world class city with many arts, cultural, theatre, restaurant and entertainment attractions to which a casino would add little or no value as a tourist draw and in fact could negatively change the international image of the city. The concern was expressed that a casino may adversely impact existing local businesses and cultural activities due to a loss of customers and sales."
The Lost Lessons Of The Payton Prep Saga
"Furthermore, parents who may be somewhat unhinged to begin with become more so when their kids face adversity."
Chicago Had A Pipe Show
The Weekend In Chicago Rock
SportsMonday: Noah vs. Rose
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Even The White Sox's Injuries Are Boring
The Beachwood Tip Line: Compelling.
Posted on May 6, 2013
© 2006 - 2017, The Beachwood Media Company