Jane Sanders and the Messy Demise of a Vermont College

[ehrnst]

(Posted in Democratic Primaries, because it does discuss Candidate Sanders)

In 2010, as president and would-be savior of Burlington College — a tiny alternative school without a campus in this small offbeat city — Ms. Sanders championed a deal to buy a waterfront spread from the local Roman Catholic diocese. Within a year, she was ousted, and the college limped toward obsolescence, buried under debt. Then the story of the failing college turned into a political storm.
....................................................................

Mr. Dunn said additional factors also led to Ms. Sanders’s dismissal, including concerns that she had lost faculty support, and a heated argument she had with a student. (The student played down the argument in a letter to the board that was reviewed by The Times.)

Ms. Sanders said she had made no misrepresentations about donations: “I gave the most complete and accurate information I knew to all the people that required it.” In a final letter to the board, she laid out a number of strategic suggestions. “While some of you have clearly perceived my entrepreneurial approach and community perspective to be too expansive for our small college, I think it is extremely important that the next president have those broad skills,” she wrote, adding that she thought she was “leaving the school far stronger than it has ever been.”
..........................................................................

Three years after her departure, in 2014, a local Republican donor and gas station operator named Rodolphe M. Vallee, who goes by Skip, financed a commercial attacking Ms. Sanders’s $200,000 severance, mocking the Wall Street-flogging couple for taking “a golden parachute of their own.” (Ms. Sanders said she took only “my earned sabbatical and deferred bonus.”) Mr. Vallee and Mr. Sanders were already engaged in a long-running dispute over fuel pricing that continues to this day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/jane-omeara-sanders-burlington-college.html

[comradebillyboy]

1. That certainly was a very messy episode...

[ehrnst]

2. Yes. (nt)

[Gothmog]

3. K&R

[Me.]

4. Why Did The Times Bring It Up In June?

the huge $200,00 for earned sabbatical & bonus, is amazing.

1. Ruin a college and get a bonus?

2. And yet the workers in their campaign had to unionize to get paid properly.

[thesquanderer]

5. First Biden's brother, now this. I guess it's Family Scandal week on DU. (n/t)

[Scotch-Irish]

27. As Rudy Giuliani recently looked abroad for dirt on Biden and other candidates,

I see he found some. Now we get to read about his dirty acquisitions on DU. Just Russian interference/propaganda all over again.

[Scurrilous]

6. ...

[NYMinute]

7. K&R

Finally this is coming out and no longer suppressed.

[aikoaiko]

17. This has been on rotation every few months since 2016.

Suppressed? That's laughable.

[NYMinute]

21. It has never been thoroughly vetted.

There need to be financial audits to determine the money trail.

There needs to be an examination of loan applications to see if materially false statements were made to induce the bank to give a loan.

A lot of unanswered questions remain.

[aikoaiko]

24. Didn't the justice dept under Obama and Trump investigate that resulted in a...

...nothing burger.

When you say its never be thoroughly vetted, what do you mean?

[ehrnst]

42. Look!! Here's a recent article that answers your questions about the investigation!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/jane-omeara-sanders-burlington-college.html

[ehrnst]

22. This article is updated. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

25. I didn't see any new facts.

Just more people saying she shouldn't have done it or that she could have saved the college if she the plan had been followed.

What new facts do you see in this article?

[ehrnst]

30. I didn't say there were new facts. This is an updated summary.

You seem to think that it's derogatory.

Why? It exonerates her, and summarizes everything that's happened. If people had questions about it, they need go no further than this article.

Federal prosecutors have not spoken publicly about their investigation, though late last year, Ms. Sanders’s lead lawyer said he had been told it had been closed. And while doubts remain about the contribution pledges claimed by the college, the lawyer has said that neither Ms. Sanders nor her husband was even questioned by investigators, indicating a lack of significant evidence of a crime.

This offends you?

[aikoaiko]

33. What is it updated with if not new facts? Usually updated news reports have new facts.

Not so much this article.

I think the impact of the article is to feed Bernie haters.

The responses to your OP are expected.

[ehrnst]

34. So you think that the article is hate mongering?

How so?

And why would the NYT want to "feed Bernie haters?"

I often find that any journalist or media source that doesn't flatter Sanders is accused of that. Do you think that Bernie can't handle scrutiny of his and Jane's public actions? That doesn't show much faith in his candidacy.

[aikoaiko]

36. I think the NYT knows there are people like you who will post it in forums

and they'll get more clicks. Are you unaware of how newspapers make money?

Like I said, there is no new information in this article. It's just a rehash of the nothing burger from 2 years ago.

My entry into this thread was to say this issue keeps getting rehashed. Even the OP article is 2 months old.

You seemed to think something was new or updated and I don't see it.

Its not about having faith or not having faith. I support Bernie, but he's not my candidate.

[ehrnst]

39. "I think the NYT knows there are people like you who will post it in forums"

Care to clarify what you mean by "people like you?" People with a subscription to the NYT? Someone with good judgement on what is and isn't toadying or fawning of a candidate? Do tell.

Are you unaware of how newspapers make money?

Please. The NYT is not clickbait like Breitbart. Are you unaware of the difference between the two?



But, FYI, they sell hard copy and online subscriptions as well as ads in both. You're welcome.

You seemed to think something was new or updated and I don't see it. Like I said, there is no new information in this article. It's just a rehash of the nothing burger from 2 years ago.

Since you ignored it when I answered you before, here it is again:

Federal prosecutors have not spoken publicly about their investigation, though late last year, Ms. Sanders’s lead lawyer said he had been told it had been closed. And while doubts remain about the contribution pledges claimed by the college, the lawyer has said that neither Ms. Sanders nor her husband was even questioned by investigators, indicating a lack of significant evidence of a crime.

You think that's a "hater" writing that? This offends you?

Again - all candidates will be vetted this time around, and this is something that will likely be brought up. This will be a good resource for those who look for information on Sanders.

We hear all about Sanders' Civil Rights activism back when he was in college, and when he came to Washington when MLK spoke - nothing new or updated there, either. The Burlington College business is much more recent.

[ehrnst]

41. No answer?

[TCJ70]

40. Supressed? Lol. OK.

I'll give you a break since your account is only a few months old...but let me enlighten you.

2015:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251626359

2017:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141768573
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016187696
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141770546

2018:
https://www.democraticunderground.org/100211425020
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141955229

And there are more but I'm not going to link them all.

[HeartlandProgressive]

8. why start a circular firing squad?

Wouldn't time be better spent posting about why your candidate would make the best nominee instead of posting a two month old article about a candidate's wife?

[ehrnst]

9. I don't see this as a circular firing squad, any more than the otther articles about candidates'

family members/spouses posted here on DU are:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=256397

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024487427

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211640105

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10028147424#post1

[ehrnst]

13. "guilt by association" is OK, at least when it comes to some candidates - yes?

HeartlandProgressive (41 posts)

117. guilt by association

I think people pay attention to how close that association is.

doesn't that matter?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=258758

[oasis]

10. "Golden parachute"? Someone's gonna have some 'splaining to do.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

11. This article is two months old

Clearly had no effect

[ehrnst]

12. "Effect?"

What effect are you referring to?

[Otto Lidenbrock]

14. When major news publications dig into family members...

It is to embarrass the candidate's campaign. That this article gained little traction, to me, says it's a non-story.

[ehrnst]

15. So you're saying that the NYT is out to damage Sanders' campaign?

All candidates, as well as spouses, are vetted, going back years when they run for POTUS.

Senator Sanders is no exception.

But I think you should express similar concern over on this OP:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=256397

[Otto Lidenbrock]

19. I've expressed similar concern regarding Hunter Biden

I don't think the NYT is out to damage Sanders campaign. Democrats are just treated to a higher standard. The Trump family worked in cohorts as private citizens to get around the law and now profit off his politics. That's what ought to be focused on...not the wife of a US Senator or brother of the former VPOTUS. If those public officials were implicated we'd have heard long before they ran for president. I never knew Joe had a brother until now.

[ehrnst]

31. The NYT can't do articles on both Trump and Democratic candidates?

That's what ought to be focused on...not the wife of a US Senator or brother of the former VPOTUS.

All candidates need to be vetted earlier than later. The "October surprise" isn't something that's positive, as we've seen.

And Bill Clinton's past was definitely fair game for many here on DU during the GE.

[Demsrule86]

18. You mean like Biden's brother and son...thought I saw you on those posts.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

20. I haven't commented on Biden's brothers thread

I never knew he had a brother until now. Regarding Hunter I saw the allegations debunked by a Ukranian official a couple of months ago and that was that for me.

[ehrnst]

29. Perhaps you should.(nt)

[Cha]

23. 2 months is nothing. We're suppose

to cover this up.. not read it?

[ehrnst]

32. Considering that other Democratic Candidates got scrutiny for things their spouses did

decades ago.

[Cha]

35. Exactly, ehrnst!

[Bradical79]

38. Trump has warped our sense of time...

Two months feels like two years now when it comes to scandals/controversy lol.

[Demsrule86]

16. Very messy indeed...and the GOP would have field day...Trump would probably order Barr to

investigate.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. I don't trust her. n/t

[NYMinute]

37. +1000 nt

[Celerity]

44. +100000

[betsuni]

28. K&R

[Gothmog]

43. K&R