The Goat Pen

Owlman wrote:This agreement will eventually be done no matter what. It's just a matter what's going to be in it.

On another note, ex-Presidents don't go on Board of Directors. They get their money mostly from speaking fees (up to $100,000 per speaking engagement)

Bill Clinton's requested fee to speak at our global event later this year was $325K. We passed.

What would you have paid?

hedge wrote:What would you have paid?

We are paying Tom Brokaw $125K. Clinton was beyond the budget (I think the max was $200K) but if everyone involved thought we had to have him, we could have come up with the money. But, there was no consensus and the feeling was that getting away from a political guy this time would be good idea (last time we had Condi Rice and I know that in past we've had other political figures though not sure who).

I just went to a Stanford GSB dinner earlier this week and the speaker (ex McKinsey guy) gave a long speech about service and that the "asshole model" of executive leadership was overblown and not healthy. I enjoyed it, but he is fighting a battle already lost...at least for now.

How much did Condi Rice charge?

We got Bobby Knight for $20K about 7 years ago

hedge wrote:How much did Condi Rice charge?

I don't know the exact number but I think it was in the $100-125 range.

Sounds like politicking is a profitable business...

Cletus wrote:

hedge wrote:What would you have paid?

We are paying Tom Brokaw $125K. Clinton was beyond the budget (I think the max was $200K) but if everyone involved thought we had to have him, we could have come up with the money. But, there was no consensus and the feeling was that getting away from a political guy this time would be good idea (last time we had Condi Rice and I know that in past we've had other political figures though not sure who).

Your company sure does waste a lot of money on stupid shit.

Jungle Rat wrote:

Cletus wrote:

hedge wrote:What would you have paid?

We are paying Tom Brokaw $125K. Clinton was beyond the budget (I think the max was $200K) but if everyone involved thought we had to have him, we could have come up with the money. But, there was no consensus and the feeling was that getting away from a political guy this time would be good idea (last time we had Condi Rice and I know that in past we've had other political figures though not sure who).

Companies sure waste a lot of money on stupid shit.

fyp

yep: out of date

Reagan got $100,000 in 1990 to speak

Jungle Rat wrote:

Cletus wrote:

hedge wrote:What would you have paid?

We are paying Tom Brokaw $125K. Clinton was beyond the budget (I think the max was $200K) but if everyone involved thought we had to have him, we could have come up with the money. But, there was no consensus and the feeling was that getting away from a political guy this time would be good idea (last time we had Condi Rice and I know that in past we've had other political figures though not sure who).

Your company sure does waste a lot of money on stupid shit.

I agree but clients have come to expect stuff like this so we do it.

Snobs

What happened to corporations' only duty is to make money for their shareholders? Why don't shareholders flip out when they see all this money being wasted?

50 years ago, the way companies primarily grew was growth in their product. Hire more to produce more to get more product out. Tax cuts could work to facilitate because investing it back in the business led to more growth and even more money for the owner. Not true now. Companies have multitude other ways of making money other than hiring. Giving them a tax cut is just money in their pocket. The states that gave big tax cuts (Kansas, Louisiana, for example), end up with decreased revenue collection and slower growth. In Louisiana, the tax cut gave even more ammo to the accountants so that after the tax cut, there was an increase not in hiring but in more loopholes for companies. 65% of corporations paid no taxes and many actually got money not back from the state (since that would mean they paid it in the 1st place) but as an outlay from the state.

"The states that gave big tax cuts (Kansas, Louisiana, for example), end up with decreased revenue collection and slower growth."

Really? States that gave big tax cuts have slower economic growth, says who?

Louisiana and Kansas

grabs chair...

Police officer fired for not using force

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ing-force/

Radley Balko December 12, 2014
Here at The Watch, we’ve looked extensively at how difficult it can be to fire cops who use excessive force, even when independent bodies have found that they’ve done so on multiple occasions. So what can get a cop fired? In the case of one campus police officer in California, it was his decision to not use force on a possibly suicidal student.

According to local news reports, an unnamed officer with the California State University, Monterey Bay Police Department responded to a call in February about a troubled student at a university dormitory. Jeff Solomon, president of the Statewide University Police Association (SUPA), the union representing the officer, told The Huffington Post that the call came from a student’s father who was worried his son might hurt himself or attempt to commit suicide.

The student was black, according to information the officer’s lawyer shared with the Monterey County Weekly.

The officer was working alone, so he called the municipal Marina Police Department for assistance in calming the student down, according to accounts given to local news outlets by both Solomon and Marina Police Chief Edmundo Rodriguez.

The situation escalated when the CSUMB officer stepped away to get the student a glass of water, Solomon told HuffPost. The student became agitated again, stood up and raised his voice, prompting the three Marina officers to restrain him on the bed and use two stun guns on him. They reportedly asked the CSUMB officer to use his stun gun to control the student’s legs, but Solomon says the officer refused, saying it was neither justified nor in the student’s best interests.

The complaint against the officer was filed by the Marina officer who came to assist. Rodriguez, the Marina chief, claims that the officer “froze,” putting the other officers at risk. Solomon, the union head, told the Huffington Post that the officer had a 20-year history with no disciplinary actions. He also questioned why three officers would need stun guns to restrain a 150-pound student. The student’s father, the one who initially called the police, has also defended the officer for not Tasing his son.

In a statement in a SUPA press release, the student’s father, who also remained unnamed, expressed gratitude for the CSUMB officer’s actions.

“It defies logic and is extremely disappointing that, at a time when law enforcement isunder fire for using more force than necessary, an officer is being terminated for attempting to use civilized methods to resolve a situation.”

Given that the original complaint was that the student was potential suicidal, you also have to wonder why the response ultimately included four police officers but no mental health professionals. Local coverage from the Monterey Herald here.

I'm just hoping Cleveland burns.