Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
The circumstances under which USF's medical school dean was removed may only encourage even more political meddling in the university system.
The removal of Robert Daugherty as dean of the University of South Florida's medical school represents an especially damaging chapter in the poisonous politicization of the state university system. Daugherty made a bad mistake in attempting to cope with that politicized culture. His efforts to collect campaign contributions from his staff for House Speaker Johnnie Byrd's U.S. Senate bid were clumsy and technically illegal. But Daugherty was trying to do what he thought was best for the medical school and the university. The circumstances of his departure will only encourage further meddling from Byrd and other local and state politicians.
In his relatively brief tenure as dean, Daugherty bolstered the organization of the medical school and the morale of its staff. He enhanced the school's national reputation and strengthened its role in the community. Along the way, Daugherty occasionally clashed with the leaders of other area medical institutions whose interests do not always perfectly coincide with those of the medical school. He also occasionally clashed with local and state politicians who try to exert undue influence over the university's business.
For example, Daugherty ran afoul of Byrd during this year's legislative session when he argued that Byrd's pet project, a new Alzheimer's research center at USF, should be part of the medical school rather than an independent entity. Byrd didn't get everything he wanted for his Alzheimer's center - and he saw to it that USF didn't get everything it wanted for its medical school.
When the Legislature failed to fund the medical school's request for a new teaching clinic, Daugherty tried to win future support by playing the game by Tallahassee's corrupt rules. He says lobbyists on USF's payroll, including former House Speaker John Thrasher, suggested that he raise a pile of money for Byrd's Senate campaign as a way of winning the speaker's support for the clinic. Daugherty asked about 25 of his top staff to contribute $2,000 checks, which were to have been presented to Byrd this week during a scheduled visit to see plans for the new building.
Byrd canceled his visit and claims to have had no idea that Daugherty was raising money for him, but the episode fits the speaker's established MO for crass and intimidating fundraising tactics. USF president Judy Genshaft, who removed Daugherty from his job, properly criticized Daugherty for soliciting campaign contributions from his staff. Yet Genshaft, like other university system presidents, spends all too much of her own time being compromised by similar political pressures. She can't have been as shocked as she claimed to be by Daugherty's fumbling efforts to cope with the system.
Then there is the troubling role of Thrasher, who chairs FSU's board of directors and led the effort to establish a medical school at FSU. To say Thrasher's "lobbying" efforts for USF conflict with his more influential roles at FSU is to state the obvious. USF and FSU are rivals in many respects, and the new FSU medical school is an unneeded political plum that diverts resources from the system's established medical schools in Tampa and Gainesville. USF officials apparently hope Thrasher will do them less damage if he's on the school's payroll. But in the incident that led to Daugherty's departure, USF didn't get much for its protection money.