Is the DETC really second-rate?

[ham]

If Ivy and RA are Cadillacs, NA is a Toyota, a nice value for the money whose useful qualities more than offset the lack of chrome and velour. Keep the government out of the marketplace and the consumers will decide the value of the product.

I say this: it's like visiting a five stars restaurant. You receive two balls of ice creams in glamorous settings with crystal lamps, chalk countertops etc, served on silverware by a fully attired lackey and pay say 50$ for that. Conversely, you can visit an ice cream parlour or supermarket and buy the finest ice cream for $10 or 15 the kilogram.
The same applies to the DL/B&M divide...
With B&M you get tasty 'contracts' to the delight of contractors on friendly terms with the B&M establishment with the blessings of its 'elected' puppeteers; you get sporting halls, fantastic 'varsity sport' contracts and other paraphernalia worth millions.
You pay for that in taxes & tuition fees EVEN IF you hate sport & never visit sporting hall.
The latest example: the Quebec government grants CAN$ 245 millions to UQAM university after the same sunk its own budget after a hectic row of speculations in real estates that left holes as big as

# L'UQAM avait la responsabilité de la dette totale de l'Îlot Voyageur, 142 M $;
# L'UQAM avait la responsabilité de la dette totale du Complexe des Sciences, 180 M $;

Guilt lays with heftily paid 'consultants' and 'administrators' who are now gone while new consultants, lawyers and administrators turn shocked to big brother to make up for the 'glitch'.
Of course only biased evil thinkers may surmise that some of those 'honest administrators' stuffed their bank accounts as a result of those real estate deals.

Les quatre syndicats de l’UQAM reçoivent avec satisfaction le Rapport du Vérificateur général du Québec déposé hier à l'Assemblée nationale. Nous acquiesçons à l’identification des grands facteurs à l’origine de la situation financière catastrophique dans laquelle notre Université se retrouve aujourd’hui.

À la lumière du Rapport, il apparaît que la responsabilité de l’ancien recteur, de son vice-recteur aux Affaires administratives et du directeur des Investissements est indéniable, et s’il y a matière à poursuite, le dossier doit suivre son cours.

http://scfp.qc.ca/modules/nouvelles/nouv...&langue=fr