Topic: Marshall related, but not sports....

[OhYeaahMU]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but just wanted to know if anyone else had a problem with this??

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2005020428/

So basically, tax payers and students paying tuition are allowing them to live free for 6 months?  Interesting.

[murox]

I didn't realize the President's home had over 12,000 sq ft of living space.  That's a big ass house.

[Mako]

I got a chance to go there a couple of times when I was an undergrad and it is sweet.  I don't have a problem with it because the President of a University is expected to entertain and beg money from people who aren't exactly used to living in your average family house.

[Photo by]

It sticks in my mind that it has a garage apartment too...seems like the Parthenon ME was living in it when I was a senior...

[OhYeaahMU]

I don't have a problem with it because the President of a University is expected to entertain and beg money from people who aren't exactly used to living in your average family house.

Oh, I agree with that.  But, Murphy isn't the President of Marshall University.  He is a student.  For him to be allowed to stay in the mansion and occupy it (using state funds for utilities, etc.) until a publicly-paid President is chosen seems demeaning to the position of the Marshall University President as well as to other students who do not get this sort of nepotistic/favorist treatment.

I know this isn't a big deal, I understand.  And while I may be alone in my views, I am a student and a taxpayer and it's unfair.  I have to pay rent.  No one offered me or anyone else a chance to stay in this house.  Why not have a quick raffle or contest -- at least a CHANCE for ALL deserving students to have this wonderful opportunity.  We elected Murphy.  The Board did not.  It's just f'd up if you ask me.

Ok, that's my rant.  No big deal, I know.

[Mako]

Quite frankly, it's probably better that at least someone is occupying the house.

[OhYeaahMU]

Quite frankly, it's probably better that at least someone is occupying the house.

Yes, this is true.

[Thundering Lydia]

Quite frankly, it's probably better that at least someone is occupying the house.

That's exactly right.  Insurance companies will drop you like a bad habit if you have an unoccupied house---it's a HUGE risk for them.  Especially in West Virginia, where homeowner's policies are such a big gamble for companies that many have quit signing new policies in this state.

[OhYeaahMU]

Quite frankly, it's probably better that at least someone is occupying the house.

That's exactly right.  Insurance companies will drop you like a bad habit if you have an unoccupied house---it's a HUGE risk for them.  Especially in West Virginia, where homeowner's policies are such a big gamble for companies that many have quit signing new policies in this state.

The question is not about the house being occupied or not.  The question is, "Is it fair for this student to live there..and for free?"  YOU are paying his utilities and upkeep of the home.  He is not on state payroll.  The University President IS however.  That's my concern.  I totally agree it's perfectly ok to have someone occupy the house.  But, why Murphy...as a present because he's getting married?  Who cares?  Many Marshall students are getting married and you don't see the Board of Governors giving them FREE HOUSING.  This is not a scholarship he received.  

Is this not the same as a football player who gets a job through the university and gets paid money for it??  Housing, money?  Is it not the same?  How can you not allow a sports athlete to get perks from the university, yet allow an "academic athlete" to get perks.  And not just any perk, but something paid for by the STATE and by the STUDENTS.

It bothers me.

[Thundering Lydia]

The question is not about the house being occupied or not.  The question is, "Is it fair for this student to live there..and for free?"  YOU are paying his utilities and upkeep of the home.  

I can see your point.  However, we're paying the utilities and upkeep no matter who is in there.  And if the Board of Governers can identify a student who is responsible and trustworthy, I would rather it be an MU student staying there than some other joe.

Someone HAS to be there, so why not a student we can trust with the place?

I have rental property here in town and, believe me, tenants who are responsible and trustworthy are hard to find.

[Thunders]

I would say it would be fair for the interim pres. to stay there before it would be the student pres.!  I don't really agree with that.

[Thundering Lydia]

I would say it would be fair for the interim pres. to stay there before it would be the student pres.!  I don't really agree with that.

Why would the interim president move out of his Huntington home to live somewhere else for 6 months?  For that matter, why would ANY homeowner in huntington want to?  I wouldn't.

[MeHerdMePlayGames]

I would say it would be fair for the interim pres. to stay there before it would be the student pres.!  I don't really agree with that.

Why would the interim president move out of his Huntington home to live somewhere else for 6 months?  For that matter, why would ANY homeowner in huntington want to?  I wouldn't.

The student body president should not be allowed to stay for free in the university president's home.  I mean why dont you put a medical student or someone else who pays a zillion dollars tuition in it instead of a regular student.  Board of Govs is shady if ya ask moi.