UT pays Rick Stansley $1,200 a day--and that's not the worst of it

Today's Blade features a story about Rick Stansley, Jr., the head of the University of Toledo Innovation Enterprises who UT pays $1,200 a day (yes, you read that correctly). You can read all of the slimy details in the article--how Stansley was appointed to the UT Board of Trustees by Governor Taft and was eventually given a $307,200 a year position at UT--no conflict of interest there. The article also points out that his contract was never approved by the UT Board of Trustees. It all seems to be a very suspicious relationship that UT President Lloyd Jacobs has forged with Stansley.

But that's just part of the story. While Stansley is getting paid taxpayer dollars through his UT position, he owes over a million dollars in various state and federal taxes.

I'm not an attorney, but I found some information about Stansley that sounds like he might be in a lot of legal trouble. In a complaint filed on July 25, 2012, with the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, Stansley is listed as the Defendant and the State of Ohio Department of Taxation as the Plaintiff in a $1,053,576.76 sales tax lien. In doing some investigating, I found that Stansley had sold off part of his failing business enterprises, so could this be the result of not paying the taxes on what he sold?

It doesn't end there. It appears that the IRS has a lien on property that Stansley owns on Main Street in Sylvania where Chandler Cafe is located (and from the information that I could ascertain is operated by his wife). The date on that lien is November 9, 2011, for the amount of $24,950.33.

So, the man that President Jacobs describes as having "great business sense," is getting paid taxpayer funds as a UT employee, but doesn't worry about paying the taxes he owes--the best of both worlds!

It's hard to understand why the University can't find a person who possesses scruples and a successful business background. And it's equally difficult to believe that the UT Board of Trustees continues to put up with President Jacobs' arrogance and the total disregard for faculty and students.


Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

"In doing some investigating,"
Are you really this guy?

I've been Willardized by a man who--in his wildest dreams (awaiting comments about my dreams and his mother)--couldn't fathom doing his own "investigating." (However, I am disappointed that the photo does not feature a morphing effect.)

this most certainly seems to be a blatantly obvious case of cronyism. However, Rick Stansley is worth the salary they pay him if his projects generate a lot more than his salary to the university, AND he is better at this job than are most people who want it. Whether he has tax issues or not, does not alter his abilities to deliver for the university, unless he is coerced in some way, such as being paid "under the table", to make decisions which are not in the best interests of the university. And I have read nothing which suggests that his personal finances have affected his decisions.

Dr. Jacobs is an extremely politically astute person. Generally, I may not like his management style, but he has certainly reached a very high level of personal prestige and power.

I just can't figure you liberals out. You hated Romney because he didn't pay enough taxes (even though he did paid what he owed), but Stansley is still a swell guy even though he doesn't pay the taxes he owes. They're both 1 percenters. Go figure.

I never stated that I "hated Romney." I also did NOT state that "Stansley is a swell guy..." As I have pointed out before, I am not an ideologue. I'm sorry for all of the right-wingers who post here that I don't fit neatly into an ideological category.
I have both 15 years working in the private sector with my father in his "mom and pop" business, and 22 years as a state union officer with shared responsibilities for running that small business. I have stated before that I hold entrepreneurs in high regard. From my business experiences, I would evaluate Stansley's worth based upon his work record.
Do I like the appearance of cronyism in Stansley's getting his current employment? NO!
Do I like his possibly being a scofflaw regarding paying his taxes? NO!
If Stansley broke the law, the Federal Government will prosecute him. That's not the job of the university. If someone else can do his job more effectively than does Stansley, and/or for less remuneration, that's Dr. Jacobs's call. BTW -- In the interest of full disclosure, I have never had a conversation with Dr. Jacobs, and I wouldn't know who Mr.Stansley was if I passed him on the street.

Now, as far as Willard R. and his taxes are concerned, it's a case of mega-millionaires investing millions to influence lawmakers to write tax laws to benefit (surprise, surprise) mega-millionaires! Ronald Reagan's tax plan in the 1980s was constructed to cut marginal tax rates to the point where there would be no defensible reason to have a lower tax rate for investments. Reagan clearly stated this. The lower tax rate for unearned, investment income skews the tax code to the point of strangulation!
Willard followed the law that Willard and his mega-millionaire cronies bought and paid for! When a mega-millionaire and his wife pay a lower percentage of their gross income in Federal income taxes than a married couple constituted of two retired teachers, and flaunts his lower tax rate fallaciously as important to the economy, I do resent it! It is un-American. And, it is untrue to the Reagan conservative legacy.

Reagan's stand on taxation is one reason why I have stated that Ronald Reagan could not get the Republican nomination to run for President today. He was too fair! Here is what Reagan stated when he signed the "Tax Reform Act of 1986" into law. "[This act is] "a sweeping victory for fairness" [where] "vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation will pay their fair share." This law called for capital gains to be taxed at the same rate as earned income. Please notice Reagan's use of the words "fairness" and "fair share" when describing this act. These are words I have been excoriated for using by modern right-wing ideologues who post here.

Dale said: I never stated that I "hated Romney."

You stated on this very forum that you believed a vote for Romney was "backward" instead of a vote for Obama being "forward". Among other derogatory assertions about Romney's abilities and philosophies and so on. That's hate, Dale. Stop denying what's clearly documented by your own posting record. It's embarrassing to watch.

Dale said: If Stansley broke the law, the Federal Government will prosecute him.

They are; so far they're using "liens". Are you really going to try to dance around the topic here? Stansley is exactly the same One Percenter that you badmouthed Romney for being. And yet you support the man because you perceive this particular crony tax-cheating One Percenter to be in your own best interest. Around these parts, we call that "hypocrisy".

Willard Romney. I'll let those who read these posts assess if stating a vote for someone is a "step backward" is even close to being a statement of hate.

I never stated that I, personally, support Stansley. I don't know the man. I have very little understanding of the situation. My gut reaction is that I am highly suspicious of anything that has to do with Dr. Jacobs. As I did state, I don't like his leadership style.

I also never stated that I hate all "one per-centers." First of all, I reserve the word "hate" for people like Osama Bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler.
In addition, I have no problem with a person who is successful and acquires great wealth, which I assume to be the majority of one per-centers. I do have a problem with one per-centers who feel no obligation to those who toil in the businesses they own and/or in which they invest. I do have a problem with one per-centers who inherit their wealth and show little or no concern with those who struggle to make a living and raise a family. It has been my experience that those who inherit great wealth have a very hard time relating to us common folks. They may be fine spouses and parents. They may manage their wealth responsibly and even expand the wealth they inherited. Good for them! But, to be elected President of the United States, I would hope for someone, wealthy or not, who understands common folks. Willard Romney never exhibited that quality to me. But hate for him? Not from me!

Not an ideologue......but you'd vote for Chelsea Clinton in 2016 for no other reason than, her last name.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

swallowing it whole!

For the record, in 1992, I preferred Paul Tsongas for the Democratic nomination. There were a lot of things I liked about Bob Dole in 1996, but I did prefer Clinton, and his record speaks for itself.
In 2008, I preferred, in this order, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. Yes, I am embarrassed by the type of person John Edwards was revealed to be.

Also, for the record, in 1990, the Ohio Federation of Teachers officially endorsed Republican George Voinovich for Governor of Ohio when I was a state officer. I fully supported that endorsement, and Voinovich proved to be an excellent Governor!

I am not even CLOSE to deciding for whom I will work and vote in 2016! But it's sure fun rankling some posters on this cite! And it is a fact that Chlesea turns 35 in 2015. And she is a very bright, articulate person. Scary, huh!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.