This has been bugging me for a while. Appreciate the feedback

Stranger said:

---

Baylor used to own it. When Robert Sloan was president he gave it away.

---

I agree with this. The only addition is that Baylor University Medical Center was pushing hard to get away.

whitetrash said:

---

About 1997 Sloan thought he could monetize BU's "ownership" interest in Baylor medical center and use the proceeds to fund construction of steeple-adorned structures and intelligent design institutes. Only problem is that any major transaction like that involving restructuring of a nonprofit must obtain approval of the Attorney General's office. They didn't bother to notify the AG until after they announced the deal, and also didn't notify Boone Powell, who was CEO of Baylor Med.

AG office strictly applies the cy ores doctrine: that charitable funds given for a specific purpose are used for that purpose, educational gifts for education, medical gifts for medical. I.e., if you give money to the Red Cross for disaster relief, they can't turn around and spend it to save the whales.

About 18 months before the Baylor deal, I had worked on a similar one involving a nonprofit non-church affiliated hospital in El Paso who sold out to a for-profit. The hospital board wasn't sure what sort of charity they wanted to use the proceeds for. We contacted the AG early in the process, and they told us t because they were charitable funds given for healthcare, they had to be used for healthcare only. So they set up the Paso Del Norte Health Foundation to promote public health initiatives along the border. A win-win for everyone.

Back to BU: when the AG got wind of it, they applied the same conditions: any funds BU received from "selling" Baylor hospital could only be used for healthcare, not education. PreacherBob didn't want that. They had to slink away with their tail between their legs and give up their governance rights to Baylor Hospital for the nominal separation fee.

The Alumni Association detailed all this in intricate gory detail in the Baylor Line. PreacherBob got mad and defunded the alumni association.

---

That's all true. Had preacher Bob handled it differently, Baylor could have benefited financially. Instead he took a clandestine approach and ended up giving the place away for nothing. It was all downhill after that.

By the way, the Baylor med school was a whole different entity and it was spun off for the reason stated. Baylor Med is now owned by Texas Ass & Mule.

This should answer ScottS original question.

https://news.bswhealth.com/en-US/releases/baylor-scott-white-move-forward-with-agreement-to-merge

whitetrash said:

---

About 1997 Sloan thought he could monetize BU's "ownership" interest in Baylor medical center and use the proceeds to fund construction of steeple-adorned structures and intelligent design institutes. Only problem is that any major transaction like that involving restructuring of a nonprofit must obtain approval of the Attorney General's office. They didn't bother to notify the AG until after they announced the deal, and also didn't notify Boone Powell, who was CEO of Baylor Med.

AG office strictly applies the cy ores doctrine: that charitable funds given for a specific purpose are used for that purpose, educational gifts for education, medical gifts for medical. I.e., if you give money to the Red Cross for disaster relief, they can't turn around and spend it to save the whales.

About 18 months before the Baylor deal, I had worked on a similar one involving a nonprofit non-church affiliated hospital in El Paso who sold out to a for-profit. The hospital board wasn't sure what sort of charity they wanted to use the proceeds for. We contacted the AG early in the process, and they told us t because they were charitable funds given for healthcare, they had to be used for healthcare only. So they set up the Paso Del Norte Health Foundation to promote public health initiatives along the border. A win-win for everyone.

Back to BU: when the AG got wind of it, they applied the same conditions: any funds BU received from "selling" Baylor hospital could only be used for healthcare, not education. PreacherBob didn't want that. They had to slink away with their tail between their legs and give up their governance rights to Baylor Hospital for the nominal separation fee.

The Alumni Association detailed all this in intricate gory detail in the Baylor Line. PreacherBob got mad and defunded the alumni association.

---

This explains how we know one another, btw, I was just out of school, but Mrs. Moore and Mr. Scott are sort of affiliates to me.

And btw, everything Whitetrash said is true.

The medical center needed reform and I'd have probably fired Powell, they were losing money and it was a drain. For no good reason.

But give it away? Amateur...

beardoc said:

---

BCM separated in 1969 to allow federal funding as you note. The Baylor Medical Center in Dallas was "sold" for $50 million some years later during Sloan. That was a giveaway of astronomical proportions, should have been about $1 billion based on revenue.

---

One other reason, intimately tied to funding and increasing Federal involvement in healthcare, was that Abner and the trustees recognized that the management of a medical school and research center had grown beyond their ability to manage well and properly within Pat Neff, and needed its own independent governance board.

Ghostrider said:

---

Stranger said:

---

Baylor used to own it. When Robert Sloan was president he gave it away.

---

Yep, second worst decisions in the history of Baylor. First being Steele

---

You could have stopped there.

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

On giving the medical center away: How in the hell would a BOR of a major university approve of that and if it was done without getting their approval, how on earth would there be no repercussions for those involved in giving it away. And before the "are you new to Baylor?" jokes roll in. Just think how horrible a decision that would be either way.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

They hired one of the better healthcare deal makers in Josh Nemzoff.

And Sloan sued him.

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

This. These were events that eliminated any surprise for future scandals.

To say it's the wrong crowd would be a monumental understatement.

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon, and knows personally, from "the inside", BU's management history dating back to Abner's time. But he does enjoy poking at Bears who market Baylor history which lacks depth of thinking, accuracy of "facts", and weak understanding of the effects of the players in the drama. There is much wisdom and knowledge in that old guy and detractors miss a great deal in dismissing him out-of-hand.

One Regent talked with me about selling the system to directly fund the endowment with 100% of the sale income. As it played out, as you noted, the board abdicated/surrendered their responsibility and care for the university to one man, and we got what he gave us. Badly damaged relationships with Dallas-Ft. Worth alums who were/are deeply invested in Baylor. Not sure that's been repaired. It was fortunate that the damage, at least potential damage, to the academy stirred up the no-confidence Senate votes, or we still might be led by Sloan, Jeffrey and their Calvin-college philosophical colleagues.

One huge board deficit in recent times is an insufficient understanding of higher education and the professional Academy and how they function. Shucking financial numbers and building steepled buildings and sidewalks with Scripture will never address core issues.

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon, and knows personally, from "the inside", BU's management history dating back to Abner's time. But he does poking at Bears who market Baylor history which lacks depth of thinking, accuracy of "facts", and weak understanding of the effects of the players in the drama. There is much wisdom and knowledge in that old guy and detractors miss a great deal in dismissing him out-of-hand.

One Regent talked with me about selling the system to directly fund the endowment with 100% of the sale income. As it played out, as you noted, the board abdicated/surrendered their responsibility and care for the university to one man, and we got what he gave us. Badly damaged relationships with Dallas-Ft. Worth alums who were/are deeply invested in Baylor. Not sure thats been repaired. It was fortunate that the damage, at lest potential, to the academy stirred up the no-confidence Senate votes, or we still might be led by Sloan, Jeffrey and their Calvin-college philosophical colleagues.

One huge board deficit in recent times is an insufficient understanding of higher education and the professional Academy and how they function. shucking financial numbers and building steepled buildings and sidewalks with Scripture will never address core issues.

---

. . . and all the people said, "Amen".

I believe the no confidence votes started a good 9 years or so after the medical center situation. So actually alot occurred after that on top of this situation to cause the no confidence vote even though this situation should have. The medical center situation did not give rise to a no confidence vote alone or it would have occurred around 95. The medical center situation occurred in Sloan's first year as I recall. If I recall the no confidence votes started in 04 perhaps. I believe Sloan stepped down around January of 05 if I recall the timeline correctly.

PartyBear said:

---

I believe the no confidence votes started a good 9 years or so after the medical center situation. So actually alot occurred after that on top of this situation to cause the no confidence vote even though this situation should have. The medical center situation did not give rise to a no confidence vote alone or it would have occurred around 95. The medical center situation occurred in Sloan's first year as I recall. If I recall the no confidence votes started in 04 perhaps. I believe Sloan stepped down around January of 05 if I recall the timeline correctly.

---

Some more outspoken faculty were calling for no-confidence votes within the faculty senate as early as '97

Here the D Magazine story on the split from August 1997. The timeline of the events was apparently October 1996 until March 1997. Sloan took office in summer 1995.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1997/august/how-baylor-was-saved/

The mid-90s was the period of great turmoil in healthcare as the for-profit chains (Tenet, HCA, Columbia, etc.) were expanding rapidly and throwing big $$ out trying to gobble up nonprofit hospitals. Some of the deals were structured as joint ventures (nonprofit contributes physical assets, for-profit contributes cash and takes over operations), but often they were straight up cash sales that took the nonprofit out of the picture but left them with a sizable cash endowment for future charitable endeavors.

Like I said earlier, I had spent most of 1995 working as seller's counsel on the sale of the only nonprofit hospital in El Paso to Tenet. At the time there were 3 forprofit hospitals and Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, but Providence (the nonprofit) was the largest. However, it was not church-affiliated and only had a modest endowment. Its board (all prominent El Paso citizens) realized they did not have the endowment base to keep up in the arms race with the $$ the forprofits were willing to inject, so they put it up for sale. Columbia owned the #2 and #3 hospitals in town, while Tenet owned the smallest one across town. Board accepted Tenet's offer (Columbia would have raised antitrust issues). Deal was negotiated in secret and a definitive sale agreement was signed in May (not just an offer and letter of intent with a closing later). A four month due diligence period followed that adjusted sale price up/down based on findings, and there was a 3 year postclosing period that also adjusted final price based on operations. It caused lots of consternation in El Paso at the time, in that at the same time that the largest locally-controlled hospital was sold, the largest local bank and largest local department store also sold out to Wells Fargo and Dillard's respectively.

As soon as sale was announced, we contacted the AG's office, as is required any time a nonprofit corporation is making a significant change in its specified purpose. Board knew that the cash from the sale would provide a large charitable foundation to support local causes, but was not certain what or how. AG's office came back and said any charitable funds that had been used for healthcare (i.e., running a hospital) must continue to be used for healthcare purposes. So we worked alongside the AG to set up Paso del Norte Healthcare Foundation, and all sale proceeds created an endowment to be used to fund and promote health initiatives along the border region (immunizations, children's and women's health, etc.). Turned out to be major boost for a region that lacked significant resources in that area.


Fast forward to spring 1996. St Luke's Hospital in the Texas Medical Center (run at the time by the Episcopal Church, who had a far less healthcare presence than the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics or Presbyterians) announces a joint venture with Columbia much like I described above: they contribute the hospital and Columbia would take over management. Only problem was when M.D. Anderson gave the land on which TMC was established in the 1940s, it had a deed restriction that no for-profit enterprise could be conducted on the land (this caused an issue when they built a McDonald's in Texas Children's Hospital: they franchise ended up being set up as a nonprofit held the hospital auxiliary and operated by a McDonald's operator). We represented TMC in enforcing the deed restriction and got the AG's office to entervene; Columbia/St Luke's called off the deal in August 1996, paid our legal fees, and to this day none of the TMC hospitals are owned or operated by for-profits (the Episcopalians ended up selling St Luke's to the Catholics; insert your Reformation joke here).

So all this immediately preceded Sloan's salvo in October 1996, and was public knowledge enough to know (especially among any VE healthcare lawyers in Houston) how the AG office would react. Maybe they operated under the mistaken assumption that any funds from selling Baylor Hospital could be used for educational purposes instead of healthcare, or thought they could strongarm their way past the AG (neither Sloan nor VE were necessarily known for their humility or lack of arrogance).

As an epilogue, the for-profit frenzy died almost as quickly as it rose, especially when Columbia got ensnarled in Medicare fraud and ended up in Chapter 11, merging with HCA. The nonprofits were able to regroup and many merged into the nonprofit systems we have in place today: Harris Methodist in FtWorth and Presbyterian in Dallas merged to form Texas Health Resources (eventually taking over the Adventists in Burleson as well), Baylor/Scott & White was one of the last "big" mergers, and Memorial and Herrmann merged in Houston (Memorial and the Baptists were the only big hospital group not in TMC, Herrmann was a standalone charitable trust founded based on a single sentence in George Herrmann's will in 1913: "I leave the rest, residue and remainder of my estate in trust to operate a charitable hospital for the benefit of the citizens of Houston and Harris County, Texas."). I was involved in reforming Herrmann from a trust into a nonprofit corporation that could merge. Even the Catholics rolled up their hospitals into one of three separate systems: Christus (St Johns in Houston, Santa Rosa in San Antonio), Ascension (Seton in Austin, Providence in Waco) or CHI (St Luke's in Houston, St Josephs in Bryan). The stronger nonprofit health systems seem to have weathered the storm and are operating about as well as they can these days.

PartyBear said:

---

I believe the no confidence votes started a good 9 years or so after the medical center situation. So actually alot occurred after that on top of this situation to cause the no confidence vote even though this situation should have. The medical center situation did not give rise to a no confidence vote alone or it would have occurred around 95. The medical center situation occurred in Sloan's first year as I recall. If I recall the no confidence votes started in 04 perhaps. I believe Sloan stepped down around January of 05 if I recall the timeline correctly.

---

It was when the admin began to meddle in academic areas that the Senate and faculty opposition arose. You are correct that the medical/healthcare issues did not precipitate their response. Baylor health only added weight to the questions about leadership which accrued over time.

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon,

---

FYI, tell that to the people on the football board.

That was the reason I said 'detractors'. I'm not one of them.

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Ya think??

---

---

One huge board deficit in recent times is an insufficient understanding of higher education and the professional Academy and how they function. Shucking financial numbers and building steepled buildings and sidewalks with Scripture will never address core issues.

---

we have a professionalism problem.

Here's a hint: Ask a board consultant which of our board members would be in demand by other boards of directors, either in higher education or corporations.
Their response after the last scandal was.....to hire a board consultant who put them through training. So not only did we take the PR hit, we got to pay for it again. Nice work if you can get it.

Then there is that pesky accountability problem. Many of these regents have never made significant donations to Baylor. It's not always a disqualifier but at LEAST it means they don't serve multiple terms.

As I've said before, it wasn't Art Briles text messages that would be interesting, it was the emails and texts to Ian from Regents asking for game day perks. You'd know quickly who did what. And more importantly, you'd see that that barring some collective amnesia, there was no way in Hades that the Regents could be surprised about the management style and compliance of the football program.

Oh and yeah, the dildo salesman. Not ONE regent did the due diligence of checking his background. Sounds like malfeasance to me.

That should tell you how easy a group it is to exploit.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon,

---

FYI, tell that to the people on the football board.

That was the reason I said 'detractors'. I'm not one of them.

---

LOL! Football board is where he does his best work goading folks!

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon,

---

FYI, tell that to the people on the football board.

That was the reason I said 'detractors'. I'm not one of them.

---

LOL! Football board is where he does his best work goading folks!

---

and let's face it, it's sorta easy, LOL

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Stranger said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good Lord that's embarrassing. Had Baylor retained counsel to help with this?

---

Sometimes people don't listen to wise counsel.At the end of the day, there was no oversight of the overseers.

---

There's more to this story than has been discussed. Baylor's BOR has been inept and somewhat corrupt for longer than some would admit.

---

Ya think??

---

But Strangers detractors will say he's perpetually disgruntled. The hospital fiasco was a wake up call, and one that many missed. They(board, sloan) insulated themselves from criticism and the organization paid the price.

We had no one on that board that understood what was at stake nor the ramifications. And we gave all of the decision authority to....Bob Sloan. Net result was the brand took a hit. In addition to the hits that were happening in no confidence votes by the faculty and sports scandals.

You'd have to be nuts to trust this board, there are a few good leaders sprinkled throughout the organization, but historically speaking there are simply too many that lack the vision or understanding of higher education.

---

For starters, Stranger isn't a disgruntled curmudgeon,

---

FYI, tell that to the people on the football board.

That was the reason I said 'detractors'. I'm not one of them.

---

LOL! Football board is where he does his best work goading folks!

---

and let's face it, it's sorta easy, LOL

---

The classic fish in a barrel!