Saturday, April 16, 2016

What Russia's President Putin Can Teach Regents' President Rastetter

"'It’s extremely disrespectful to be talking to a camera instead of human beings,' University of Iowa student Brad Pector said in his address to the regents."

-- Katelyn Weisbrod, "Concerns Voiced at Regents Public Hearing," The Daily Iowan (online), April 16, 2017
Central to a representative democracy is the existence and efficacy of the dialogue between citizens and their representatives. There are many ways and contexts in which this can be done.

At the moment we're in the middle of one of them -- the party primaries and caucuses preceding a presidential election, with their accompanying opportunity for at least some citizens (starting with virtually all Iowans) to confront and question candidates one-on-one.

But the goals and methods of public dialogue are equally applicable in less dramatic contexts -- like the Iowa Board of Regents.

On Friday [April 15] Iowa Board of Regents' President Bruce Rastetter, and his supporting fellow Board members, put on a public display of their version of public dialogue with the stakeholders in Iowa's state institutions of higher education. They mounted a video camera in Room 2520C of the University of Iowa's Capital Centre, unattended by any Regent, where any who cared to do so could speak to this cold and unresponsive object of modern technology.

As if that was not discouraging enough, every other possible thing was done to minimize even the video camera's use.
* There was minimal notification of this stakeholder opportunity.

* Indeed, anyone exercising the initiative to search for information on the Regents' Web page would have been misled. Even someone willing to make the effort, who knew how to find the Regents' Web page, and who knew that what they were looking for was misnamed "Regents Public Hearings Schedule," would have discovered from the home page-linked document that the latest "hearing" was held last February.

* Persistent hunting for a schedule including Friday's opportunity would have required much more initiative, far away from the home page. "Public Hearings Schedule" ("4:00 – 5:00 p.m. University of Iowa University Capitol Centre, Room 2520C").

* Of all the buildings President Rastetter could have chosen for their "hearing," the "University Capitol Centre" (without providing a street address) would be one of the least well known among out-of-towners, Iowa City residents, and even University old timers and new arrivals. Thus, for some who might want to attend this would at least require some additional modest research.

* Only a total of one hour of the video camera's time was made available to stakeholders, each of whom would be severely limited to a three-to-five-minute slice of the hour. "Board of Regents, State of Iowa, Notice of Public Hearings Schedule," February 11, 2016, p. 2 (the document linked from the Regents' home page that only references "hearings" in February).

* Even worse, the chosen day and hour were the worst possible from among the 40 working hours available that week: from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. on a beautiful, sunny, 70-degree Friday afternoon in April.

* But of course the greatest deterrent to participation was the futility of doing so. As The Gazette's Vanessa Miller has described these "hearings": "The hearings occur the week before the board meetings, last one hour, and are staffed by institutional transparency officers. No regents attend the hearings in person, and speakers must talk into a video camera. Their messages are recorded . . .. No one verifies board members watch the videos." Vanessa Miller, "Speakers at University of Iowa Hearing Criticize 'Troubling' Regent Communication Process; 'Step Up or, in Fact, Step Down,'" The Gazette (online), February 18, 2016, 7:36 p.m. And for more material regarding this procedure, Mr. Rastetter's support of it, and others' objections, see below "Additional Related News Stories."
Clearly, Mr. Rastetter needs some mentoring, or at least some exposure to alternative means of promoting the democratic dialogue between himself and those Iowans with a stake in the state's institutions of higher education -- namely, all Iowans.

Admittedly, it would be as shocking to his system as his running naked out of a Swedish sauna in winter and jumping into a snowdrift to expose him, so to speak, to the contrast between what he is doing and the methods used today by some of the world's greatest democracies -- like the British House of Commons Question Time, or President Obama's Web-based opportunity for constituents to put questions and demand answers. For Rastetter, this is going to require baby steps. "Question Time," Parliament, "How Parliament Works" ("Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible. [It] takes place for an hour, Monday to Thursday, after preliminary proceedings and private business.") "We the People Petitions," Whitehouse.gov.

Perhaps we should start with one of the world's largest communist countries -- Russia, headed by former KGB official Vladimir Putin. Once Rastetter has studied, practiced, and ultimately mastered Putin's approach to public dialogue, we could slowly introduce him to some of the more sophisticated techniques used in Western democracies.

Admittedly, there are some things that are a little problematical about President Putin. For example, "The White House said on Wednesday [April 13] that Russia had violated professional military norms over the Baltic Sea when one of its planes flew 'dangerously close' to an American ship [on April 11 and 12]. . .."Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Russian Plane Flew Close to U.S. Ship in Baltic Sea, White House Says," April 14, 2016, p. A8. (Photo credit: U.S. European Command; "An Su-24 Russian attack jet roars by the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea.")

What could be worse than that, you ask? Putin has endorsed Donald Trump! "'He is a bright and talented person without any doubt,' Putin said, adding that Trump is 'an outstanding and talented personality.' . . . [T]he Russian leader called Trump 'the absolute leader of the presidential race,' according to the Russian TASS news agency. Later Thursday [Dec. 17, 2015], Trump returned the warm words." Jeremy Diamond and Greg Botelho, "Putin Praises 'Bright and Talented' Trump," CNN Politics (online), December 17, 2015, including video of President Putin's endorsement, and Donald Trump's positive comments about Putin.

So how does this major communist country's leader, this Donald Trump enthusiast since last December, the fellow who was flying his attack jets at 500 mph near sea level and within feet of a U.S. Navy destroyer on Monday and Tuesday, how did he go about a dialogue with his people two days later?
President Vladimir V. Putin held his annual, live call-in show on Thursday [April 14] . . .. [T]he entire marathon [ran] three hours and 40 minutes, the 14th 'Direct Line' session . . .. Russians were clearly feeling vulnerable, as questions poured in about high prices, unpaid wages, rising utility bills, and the closing of schools and hospitals. In all, around three million questions were submitted by telephone and Internet . . .
Neil MacFarquhar, "Vladimir Putin’s Vulnerable Side Is at Fore in Call-In Show," New York Times, April 15, 2016, p. A6.

For more on this communist approach to public dialogue, including a video of the entire program (with an interpreter in English), see the Russian publication Sputnik News' report, "Topic: President Putin Holds Annual Q&A Session," April 14, 2016, 5:20 p.m.

I only watched the start of the program, but if the opening question was any indication it didn't sound like a softball question to me. Putin mentioned that a disproportionate number of the three million questions dealt with the deteriorating quality of the roads. Indeed, the first questioner presented video of traffic on the roads in her town, complained of the impact on vehicles of the abundance of potholes, as well as getting in some licks about the lack of sidewalks and bicycle paths.

As for Putin's responsiveness, Rastetter might want to note the Times report that, "Some problems seemed to be addressed quickly. After the first caller, from the city of Omsk, complained about the poor state of the roads there, the city posted on Twitter pictures of new asphalt being laid down before Mr. Putin was off the air."

While he's at it, there are a couple of other things, beyond public dialogue and prompt responsiveness, he might ask President Putin about.

One is the tuition-free university education nations including Russia provide their students, and how we might be able to join this expanding group of progressive nations. "Russia provides free education for all its citizens as guaranteed by their Constitution . . .." "Educational System in Russia," "Graduate Studies in Russia 2016, MastersStudies.com. "State higher education institutions offer courses which are free of charge for Russian citizens . . .." "Tuition Fees," Education in Russia for Foreigners. Whatever Russia is doing, it seems to be producing results: "According to a 2012 OECD estimate, 53% of Russia's adults (25- to 64-year-olds) has attained a tertiary (college) education, giving Russia the highest attainment of college-level education in the world . . .. In January 2016 the US company Bloomberg rated Russia's higher education as the third best in the world . . .." "Education in Russia," Wikipedia.

The other is how Putin manages to have a firmer grasp of American politics than Rastetter -- who put his money (literally and figuratively) on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, while President Putin perceived Trump as the candidate more likely to emerge from the Republican contest. See, "UI's President Could Have Been Chris Christie," October 3, 2015.

In summary, both President Putin and President Rastetter take questions from constituents. But there the similarity ends.

President Putin receives the questions, he and his staff seem to select representative questions reflecting the issues of greatest concern to Russians, and then Putin answers or otherwise at least acknowledges and responds to them. Iowans cannot know whether President Rastetter and other Board members even watch the videos of Iowans' questions; what Iowans can know is that they will not receive any acknowledgment their questions were even received, and they certainly won't be getting answers, responses, or opportunities for dialogue.

President Putin, at least on this occasion, devoted nearly four hours of his "Direct Line" program to this dialogue, during hours convenient for the greatest number of people, broadcast nationwide, during which he was an active participant. President Rastetter devotes one hour, during the day and time least likely to encourage participation, in which neither he nor any other Regent participates.

President Putin receives three million questions from 143 million people. A comparable goal for President Rastetter, based on the comparative population of Iowa, as he slowly evolves the Regents' procedure to the standards of communist countries, would be 60,000 inquiries from Iowans -- something like 10,000 times the current level of participation. Hopefully, of course, he will in time be able to far exceed these mere communist standards.

# # #

Additional Related News Stories

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Commentators Call for New Head Regent; Views Recorded at Public Hearing," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 16, 2016, p. A3

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI to Break Record for Comments to Regents? Input at Last 2 Video Hearings Set New Records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 14, 2016, p. A3

Vanessa Miller, "Regents President Rastetter Criticizes Behavior at University of Iowa Town Hall for Harreld; Rastetter Praises Harreld's Efforts," The Gazette, February 25, 2016, 5:00 p.m.

A shorter version of this blog essay appeared in The Daily Iowan as "What Putin Can Teach Rastetter," The Daily Iowan, May 6, 2016, p. 4; and also available as a blog entry here. For the record, the text submitted to the paper was as follows:
Iowa Board of Regents President, Bruce Rastetter, appears to need some mentoring regarding the democratic dialogue between the Regents and the stakeholders of Iowa’s state universities -- namely, all Iowans.

It might be too much of a shock to start with examples from the world’s great democracies – like the British House of Commons Question Time, or President Obama’s “We the People Petitions.” That would be like Rastetter running naked from a Swedish sauna and jumping into a frigid snow bank. No, it’s best he begin with baby steps.

Perhaps he should start by studying the communist countries.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, spent his 20s and 30s with the KGB. Rastetter could begin by aspiring to achieve Putin’s style of democratic dialogue.

So how does this major communist country's leader, this Donald Trump enthusiast since last December, the fellow whose attack jets flew at 500 mph near sea level and within feet of a U.S. Navy destroyer April 11 and 12, how did he go about a dialogue with his people two days later?

As the New York Times reported, Putin’s “live call-in show [ran] three hours and 40 minutes . . .. [Q]uestions poured in about high prices, unpaid wages, rising utility bills, and the closing of schools and hospitals. In all, around three million questions . . ..”

From the opening question, this was no nine-inning softball game. Putin acknowledged how many questions dealt with poor roads. Indeed, the first questioner showed a video of traffic on her roads, complained about the abundance of potholes, and even got in some licks about the lack of sidewalks and bicycle paths.

As for Putin's responsiveness, Rastetter might want to note the Times report that, "After the first caller [from Omsk] complained about the poor state of the roads there, the city posted on Twitter pictures of new asphalt being laid down before Mr. Putin was off the air."

There are a couple other things Rastetter might discuss with President Putin.

One is the tuition-free university education Russia provides its students, and how Iowa might join this expanding group of progressive states and nations. (Russia has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the world.)

The other is how Putin gained a firmer grasp of American politics than Rastetter -- who put his money (literally and figuratively) on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In December, President Putin already perceived Trump (whom he’s praised) as the candidate most likely to win the Republicans’ nomination.

In summary, both President Putin and President Rastetter take questions from constituents. But there the similarity ends.

President Putin takes the questions of greatest concern to Russians and answers or otherwise responds to them. Iowans get no responses; it’s not clear Regents even watch their video comments.

President Putin gave the exchange nearly four hours, on nationwide television, during convenient times for viewers, in which he was an active participant. President Rastetter devotes one hour, during times least likely to encourage participation, in which no Regent participates.

President Putin receives three million questions from 143 million people. A comparable goal for President Rastetter, based on Iowa’s population, would be 60,000 inquiries from Iowans.

Hopefully, of course, he will soon be able to far exceed these minimalist communist standards. [For more: tinyurl.com/jpoho97]

# # #

Friday, April 08, 2016

The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People's Voice

Senate Ignoring the People's Voice

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 8, 2016, p. A5

Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, April 7, 2016, 2:15 p.m.
Des Moines Register Online, April 8, 2016, 8:58 a.m.
"Examining the 'People's Voice,'" The Gazette, April 10, 2016, p. A3
The Gazette (online), April 10, 2016, 11:00 a.m.
"The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People’s Voice," The Daily Iowan, April 15,2016, p. 4 (not yet available online, 160415; a shorter version, with full text available below)

The U.S. Constitution mandates that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court." [Art. 2, Sec. 2.]

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, President Obama sent the Senate his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. [Photo of Judge Merrick Garland.]

Of course, any senator can vote “no” on Garland’s confirmation.

That’s not enough for today’s Republican Senate leadership. It totally rejects all portions of the confirmation process.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork’s Senate hearing went badly. Nonetheless, his commitment to the Constitution caused him to insist on the full Senate’s confirmation debate and vote he knew he’d lose, saying “A crucial principle is at stake...the deliberative process.” [fn 1]

Given that the Republican Party professes as much allegiance to a literal reading of the Constitution as of the Bible, their Senate leaders’ refusal to vote is difficult to square with either the language of the Constitution or its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork. [fn 2]

What justification do they offer? Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says they want to "give the people a voice" in the selection of Supreme Court justices. [fn 3] Let’s examine this rationale.

(1) For starters, the Constitution’s drafters were more interested in muffling the people’s voice than in sharing the establishment’s power with “the people.”

(2) Ours was not to be a direct democracy with decisions made by national referenda. Elected representatives would make the decisions.

(3) There were severe restrictions on who could vote — initially only land-owning, white males over 21. African-Americans got the vote in 1870 (15th Amendment). Women in 1920 (Amend. 19), and 18-20-year-olds in 1971 (Amend. 26).

(4) The drafters restricted for whom citizens could vote. Still today, we won’t be voting for president next November. The Constitution says our president will be selected, not by the people's voice or vote, but by "electors" appointed by each "State...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” (Art. 2, Sec. 1.)

(5) Nor could “the people" even select U.S. senators. "The Senate...shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof." (Art. 1, Sec. 3; changed in 1913, Amend. 17.)

(6) Thus, respect for Justice Scalia’s search for “original meaning” should preclude Senators Mitch McConnell’s and Charles Grassley’s deference to a “people’s voice” in the judicial confirmation process. [Photo of Senator Charles Grassley.]

(7) Even if constitutionally relevant, which it’s not, that people’s voice was clearly heard with the election of President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And the Constitution offers no hint that a president's judicial appointment power is any less on the last day of their presidency than on the first.

(8) If the popular vote in presidential elections is “the people’s voice,” what is it saying? At best, a majority’s preference between two candidates.

(9) Although not constitutionally compelling, theoretically a presidential campaign could turn on one single, dominant issue. But that wasn’t true in 2008 or 2012. Clearly, neither of those elections raised, let alone resolved, the Senate's constitutional right to refuse to undertake confirmation proceedings.

(10) These points are equally applicable to Senator McConnell’s insistence that the 2014 election of Republican senators was a people’s voice for Senate refusal to hold judicial confirmation proceedings.

The Constitution’s drafters knew the court’s justices could only function as intended if the public believed they were independent and non-partisan, able, honest and just.

The Republican Senate leadership’s response to Judge Garland is wrong, both constitutionally and in their "people's voice" rationale. It also further erodes public confidence in our unique and precious judicial institutions.

Whether they are also wrong that their chosen path will best serve their political self-interest we will only know after the people's voice is unambiguously heard in next November’s Senate elections.
_______________
Former law professor Nicholas Johnson served as a law clerk at both the U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact him at mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.

Notes

Footnote 1. "There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions [regarding the probability of my Senate confirmation]. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. . . . For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored." ["Bork Gives Reasons for Continuing Fight," The New York Times/Associated Press, October 10, 1987.]

Footnote 2. In The Gazette's hard copy version of the column, this paragraph was edited to read: "Given that the Republican Party professes a literal reading of the Constitution, their Senate leaders’ refusal to vote is difficult to square with either the language of the Constitution or its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork." The numbering is also removed from the numbered paragraphs.

Footnote 3. "'The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue. So let's give them a voice,' Mr. McConnell said in an animated speech on the Senate floor." Carl Hulse, "Supreme Court Showdown Could Shape Fall Elections," New York Times (online), March 17, 2016, p. A1; and, "'It's not about him because we're living by the principle "let the people have a voice,"' [Senator Chuck] Grassley said." "Grassley, Garland Reprise '90s Court Fight; The Two Are Set to Meet for a Private Breakfast Today," The Gazette, April 12, 2016, p. A1; The Gazette (online), April 12, 2016, 6:05 p.m.

# # #

The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People’s Voice
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, April 15,2016, p. 4 (not yet available online, 160415)

The Constitution mandates the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court."

President Obama sent the Senate his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland on Feb. 13.

Of course, any senator can vote “no” on Garland’s confirmation.

That’s not enough for today’s Republican Senate leadership. They reject the entire confirmation process.

President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 nomination of Judge Robert Bork went badly. But Bork insisted on full Senate debate and the losing vote because “A crucial [constitutional] principle is at stake . . . the deliberative process.”

Thus, the leadership’s refusal to vote conflicts with both their professed allegiance to a literal reading of the Constitution and its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork.

Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley say they want to "give the people a voice" in the appointment of judges. Let’s examine their rationale.

(1) For starters, the Constitution’s drafters were more interested in muffling the people’s voice than in amplifying it. Major issues would be resolved by elected representatives, not national referenda.

(2) Restrictions limited direct elections. Our Constitution still says our president is selected, not by the people's voice or vote, but by "electors" appointed by each "State . . . in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Nor could “the people" select U.S. senators. "The Senate . . . shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof" (changed in 1913).

(3) There were even further restrictions on who could vote — initially white, males, over 21, who owned land. African-Americans got the vote in 1870, women in 1920, and 18-20-year-olds in 1971.

(4) This history, plus the leadership’s respect for the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s search for the Constitution’s “original meaning,” should preclude any reference to a “people’s voice” in the confirmation process.

(5) What is “the people’s voice” saying in presidential elections? At best, a majority’s preference between two candidates. Even if constitutionally relevant, which it’s not, that people’s voice was clearly heard in President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 elections. And the Constitution offers no hint that a president's judicial appointment power is any less on the last day of their presidency than on the first.

(6) Theoretically a presidential campaign could turn on one single, dominant issue. Clearly, neither the 2008 nor 2012 election raised, let alone resolved, the Senate's constitutional right to refuse to undertake confirmation proceedings.

(7) These points are equally applicable to Senator McConnell’s insistence that the 2014 election of Republican senators was a “people’s voice” authorizing his abandoning the constitutionally mandated confirmation process.

The Constitution’s drafters knew the court’s justices could only function as intended if the public believed they were independent and non-partisan, able, honest and just.

The Republican Senate leadership’s response to Judge Garland is wrong, both constitutionally and in their "people's voice" rationale. It also further erodes public confidence in our unique and precious judicial institutions.

Whether they are wrong that their chosen path will best serve their political self-interest we will only know after the people's voice is unambiguously heard in next November’s Senate elections.

# # #