August 14, 2008, 7:45 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Public Transportation and Energy Policy," August 11, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Anonymous Electronic Speech," August 10, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
And see, "500+ Posts Index"
"It Never Died," Said He
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he,
"I never died" said he.
"Joe Hill," and see Wikipedia, "Joe Hill," for "the rest of the story."
Joe Hill was killed by firing squad, and yet lives on in the passions and songs of labor activists.
Earthpark -- aka "The Iowa Child Project," "Coralville, Iowa, Rain Forest," "Iowa Environmental/Education Project," "Iowa Environmental Project," and simply "The Environmental Project" -- an unfunded proposal for an indoor rain forest attraction in Iowa, was pitched to, and turned down by (sometimes more than once) Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grinnell, Iowa City, Riverside, and Tiffin. Eventually landing somewhere under a tulip bed in Pella, now even Pella's "city officials . . . have not heard from Earthpark's representatives for several months [and have] put no money toward the project."
Notwithstanding this decade-long history that would have been at least discouraging to mere mortals, and thought to have been equally dead from the financial equivalent of a firing squad (its inability to match a $50 million earmark from Senator Chuck Grassley), Earthpark appears to be as alive as Joe Hill in the passions of its cheerleaders.
The Gazette brings us this odd "man bites rain forest" story in this morning's paper. Gregg Hennigan, "Vanishing Rain Forest; To Keep the Earthpark Dream Alive, Backers Would Consider Leaving Iowa," The Gazette, August 14, 2008, p. A1 (and source of the quote, above).
Although Hennigan quotes Earthpark CEO David Oman as acknowledging that he, financial backer Ted Townsend, and their Earthpark board are in a "pretty quiet phase" that has "no timetable to speak of," they remain in existence and "have not given up on the project."
Indeed, he quotes board member Linda Neuman as saying, "I think everyone on the board just thinks it's a terrific project and it's kind of a shame that it hasn't gotten legs here in Iowa." He indicates she also believes that "it's possible Earthpark could move to a different state" and that "the board has not discussed abandoning the project."
Although I'm described in Hennigan's story as a "critic" of the project -- and I can understand how one might get that impression -- I have thought of my role as more one of asking questions, and attempting to extract through the promoters' firewall lacking in transparency what I thought to be basic information about their proposal, than "criticism" as such. In fact, it's very hard to be either critical or supportive of anything without knowing what "it" is. As one critic put it, "It's a floor wax; it's a desert topping; it's whatever they want it to be."
I have written at great -- some might say excessive -- length about "Iowa Child/Earthpark" over the years. See the Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark," and its links to some 30 published and unpublished pieces of mine, along with 100s of media stories, reports, and comments of others. Needless to say, I'm not about to try to summarize all of that material in this little blog entry.
The project as been besieged with problems involving virtually all the fundamentals of such an undertaking.
* From the time Ted Townsend first thought of the idea (and pledged $10 million of his own money to it) until today there has been an ongoing shift in focus (e.g., tourist attraction, national research center, school, IMAX theater, teacher training facility, indoor rain forest camp ground, with animals, without animals) -- so it's been hard to know at any given point in time just exactly what they are talking about.
* Without a clear focus and project design it has been impossible to come up with a meaningful, realistic business plan (i.e., plans for coming up with the grants to sustain a national research facility are very different from realistic plans for raising enough admission income from visitors to sustain the operation of a "tourist attraction").
* Notwithstanding their own consultants' advice that they needed to have "the world's largest" whatever to have a prayer of getting enough visitors -- roughly a $300-350 million project -- as the focus and project shifted over time so did the construction budget, to $225, then $180, and now apparently $140 million, thereby making the possibility of financial viability ever less likely.
* The projected operating costs would have required that every Iowa man, woman and child -- from newborn babe to the terminally ill -- pay full fare at the gate at least once every two years for the entirety of their lives. To expect every Iowan to visit even once is a bit optimistic; to expect them to return with the regularity of migrating birds seemed to most economists to be wildly unrealistic.
Even though continuing operating costs were the most serious problem, most observers ignored it. They chose to focus on construction costs instead.
* But in fact the failure to raise those costs told an even more dramatic story. Notwithstanding the involvment of one former (and very popular) Iowa governor, Bob Ray, as board chair, another candidate for governor (David Oman), the Chair of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (Chuck Grassley), prestigeous board members and consultants, the backing of one of Iowa's wealthiest business persons (Ted Townsend), access to the nation's Republican Party leadership, the CEOs of the nation's largest corporations and foundations, not to mention the Iowa business community, and widespread support from the state's newspapers and elected officials -- they have been unable to obtain one bankable dime, from anybody, during the past ten years!
The question raised by Gregg Hennigan's story is: "OK, so they forfeited the $50 million Grassley grant; but has anything changed during the past year or so to suggest improvement on any of these fronts?" And the answer, sadly (or happily, depending on one's perspective) must be, "No" -- or at least not on the basis of anything the promoters have revealed to us during the interim.
Something I have found as mysterious as it has been disappointing during this past decade has been the seeming willingness, indeed enthusiasm, of elected officials and editorial writers to sing the praises of Iowa Child/Earthpark over the years as "a good idea," worthy of taxpayers' money, without addressing the underlying issues I've briefly noted above.
Any project must first pass "the laugh test" (something Earthpark failed to do, from Dave Barry's columns, through editorial cartoons, to "West Wing," to Senator John McCain and Governor Chet Culver). There needs to be an initial reaction to "the idea" -- whether "Wow, that's a great idea!" or "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of." And I can understand how some might think an indoor rain forest to be "a good idea."
But it is totally irresponsible -- in my opinion -- for editorial writers and public officials to then leap to the conclusion that we ought to execute every "good idea" without even bothering to mention (let alone seeming to care about) the need for precise planning and focus, physical and technological feasability, a rational business plan, construction funds in hand at the outset, and reasonable prospects for perpetual funding of operations.
A zoo exhibit of pigs with the ability to fly would no doubt attract a goodly number of tourists. It is, in that sense, "a good idea." But it would be irresponsible to put a $50 million earmark of federal taxpayers' money into the project without, first, working through some of the rather obvious initial challenges; namely, where to find, or how to breed, such pigs.
Moreover, the economic picture has not been improving for attractions of this kind anywhere in the U.S. See, e.g., Tom Barton, "Living History Farms sells 40 acres to developer," Des Moines Register, August 13, 2008; Living History Farms, "About Living History Farms" ("In 1999, attendance reached 110,092 museum visitors"); David A. Fahrenthold, "Living-History Museums Struggle to Draw Visitors; Creativity Drives Changes in Hunt for Attendance," Washington Post, December 25, 2005, p. A3; Sonja Barisic, "A 'Revolutionary' idea to lure tourists," Associated Press/Deseret News, April 9, 2006 ("Colonial Williamsburg officials have blamed declining attendance in part on less focus on Colonial history in schools. Annual paid attendance fell from about 1.2 million in 1988 to 710,457 in 2005."); Bruce Courson, "Why Rural Museums Are Becoming Ancient History," Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2005, 12:01 a.m. EST ("It is a story increasingly common for rural Massachusetts museums within a day's drive of major metropolitan areas. Many have current paid attendance numbers that are nearing 50% of what they were three decades ago.")
I suspect a skeleton of Earthpark will continue as long as Ted Townsend continues to pay David Oman his generous salary, expenses and benefits. But surely at some point Townsend will come to see that he's getting far more return on his money from his "Great Ape Trust" -- a project that's in place, really does have some potential, and could use more of the financial support now going to Earthpark -- than trying to tether to Planet Earth his beautiful dream of a rain forest in a greenhouse.
# # #
December 27, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
Earthpark
[And see, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Resources and Updates," December 18, 2007, and its links to additional sources and background.]
There are four things we know this morning, and two things we don't.
We know the media is reporting that President Bush signed the budget bill Congress passed and presented to him.
We have previously been told that, once he signs that bill its provision removing the $50 million matching grant for Earthpark is effective (unless the DOE acts on the grant application before he signs).
We know the media reports he did it on Air Force One while flying from his vacation location at Camp David to his vacation home in Crawford, Texas.
We know how high the budget bill is -- $555 Billion -- a bill taxpayers will someday have to pay, even if we succeed in handing it off to our grandchildren before the economy tanks.
Amy Gardner, "Bush Signs Domestic Spending Bill but Criticizes Pet Projects," Washington Post, December 27, 2007, p. A2.
What we don't know is how high he was flying when he signed it, or whether the DOE acted upon the grant request before he did. My best guess is that the DOE's Chicago office is still "reviewing" the Earthpark application. But I won't rely on that guess until I get confirmation from DOE.
Not incidentally, that application remains a "public record" (unless someone can demonstrate the contrary to me) that I continue to request the DOE put up on a Web site for all to see -- especially by those who may continue to be asked for money, since Earthpark's David Oman reports the project plans to continue its fund raising following a board meeting in January. (My recommendation remains what it has been for a couple of years: that Ted Townsend, Bob Ray and David Oman put their considerable expertise, energy and such financial resources as they may have into Ted Townsend's Great Ape Trust, and abandon the notion of a separate rain forest project.)
# # #
December 22, 2007, 5:30 a.m.
Another addition to Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Resources and Updates," December 18-20, 2007
Is there still a possibility that -- notwithstanding Congress' removal of the $50 million earmark matching grant Senator Grassley provided his Earthpark friends -- that they could still get the money?
As reported in the blog entry linked above, Congress stripped the grant from the omnibus budget bill. But two possibilities for funding remained: (1) That the DOE would grant the money before the president signed the bill, and (2) that President Bush would not get it signed by Friday.
So what's happened during the last 24 hours? It's not clear -- at least not to me. And here are two reasons why.
(1) The AP had a story about the $555 billion bill the Washington Post ran yesterday that concludes, "The provisions [for Pakistan aid] were part of a $555 billion spending bill Congress passed Wednesday . . .. President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law." AP, "White House Expresses Confidence Over Pakistan Aid," Washington Post, December 21, 2007, p. A17.
What's troublesome about that story? A story running Friday morning, saying the president "is expected to sign" is a long way from "the president signed Friday." And I haven't seen the latter anywhere.
(2) The Gazette carries a story this morning (no byline; dateline Washington) with the headline, "Rain Forest Review Continues; Congress Voted This Week to Withdraw Earthpark Funding," The Gazette, December 22, 2007, p. B9. (And see, "Earthpark Application Review Not Yet Complete," The Gazette Online, December 21, 2007, 5:12 p.m.)
It says, in part,
The U.S. Energy Department on Friday did not complete reviewing an application that could have helped Earthpark receive a $48.3 million federal grant, even though Congress voted this week to withdraw the funds. ["Even though"? What's the logical nexus between those two clauses?]
Department spokesman Brian Quirke said the review will not be completed before Wednesday.
. . .
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, secured federal funds for the project, slated for Pella, in 2003. In 2005, he put a hold on the grant, which originally totaled $50 million, until Earthpark officials could show they had raised an equal amount from private sources. That documentation is what’s now under review."
What are we to make of this?
(a) Does it mean that there was, in fact, a pre-condition for the removal of the funds: That the president sign the bill by Friday; that he failed to do so; and therefore the money is still, potentially, available?
(b) Clearly, the "documentation" from Earthpark remains a "public record" that should have been made available to the public and media regardless of what the facts may be.
(c) But why does DOE "now" still have that documentation "under review" -- unless there is the possibility of a grant? Why would DOE continue to invest human resources into reviewing a grant that Congress has forbidden the Department to make, and the Department does not intend to make?
I'll be asking Brian Quirke these questions in my effort to seek clarification, but meanwhile confusion reigns. Is there still a chance they'll soon be singing "Here Comes Santa Claus" in Pella?
Perry Beeman, "Official: No Plans to Fund Earthpark," Des Moines Register, December 22, 2007, provides the most clarification:
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., had said the department could still issue the grant if it did so before President Bush signs the bill, which was expected as early as Friday.
"We don't plan an announcement today," Quirke said. "We don't plan an Earthpark announcement anytime soon."
Asked if the grant is officially dead, with the president expected to make it final, Quirke said "If the grant is rescinded, we won't have any money to grant."
What this sounds like is that (1) the president has not yet signed the appropriations bill, but (2) until he does, the DOE remains athorized to give Oman the $50 million, and (3) is therefore obliged to continue its review of the documentation, although (4) (while not stated in so many words) is disinclined to make an award knowing that Congress has ordered it not to, because (5) apparently there was no provision in the bill requiring the president to sign it by Friday in order to strip the $50 million; it will be removed whenever he does sign the bill.
In short, the rainforest may be on life support, but I haven't yet seen solid evidence anyone's actually pulled the plug.
# # #
December 18, 2007, 3:20 p.m.; December 19, 2007, 12:15 p.m.; December 20, 2007, 6:00 a.m.; December 22, 2007, 7:00 a.m.
And see, Nicholas Johnson, "Rainforest: Here Comes Santa Claus? [Dec. 22]," December 22, 2007, for additional, puzzling update.
EXTRA! UPDATE! [Dec. 19, 12:30 p.m.; Dec. 20, 6:00 a.m.] Think Earthpark's finished? As Mark Twain once said during the early years of this project, "Rumors of Earthpark's death have been greatly exaggerated. Keep the champagne corked until further notice."
"Grassley said in a statement that the grant still could go through if the U.S. Department of Energy rules by Friday -- the day President Bush is expected to sign the budget bill -- that Earthpark has pledges to match the grant as required.
'Earthpark could bring unique opportunities to Iowa – not just environmental or energy related -- but also long lasting benefits to Iowa’s economy and education system,' Grassley said in a statement."
. . .
Executive director David Oman said the Earthpark board will have to reassess finances at its meeting in January. However, he said, Earthpark has been in touch with potential cash sources from the United States, and one in Europe. He declined to name them or to lay out Earthpark’s latest financial plans.
Said Oman: “Yes, I would expect that we would continue.”
The AP reports that budget bills passed by both House and Senate strip the $50 million matching grant opportunity for Earthpark, if (1) the President signs the bill by Friday (Dec. 21) and (2) the DOE does not finish its staff work, and award the grant, prior to Friday. So stay tuned.
"Congress Kills Earthpark Grant," Des Moines Register, December 19, 2007.
And see, Perry Beeman, "U.S. Earthpark Grant All But Dead," Des Moines Register, December 20, 2007; Gregg Hennigan, "Earthpark funding cut irks Iowa leaders," Gazette Online, December 19, 2007, Updated 6:43 p.m. (and in hard copy edition as Gregg Hennigan, "Congress rains on Earthpark; Bill rescinds $48.3 million in key funding; chances of restoring money slim to none," The Gazette, December 20, 2007, p. A1).
Note to DOE: Please disregard what I've written below about the desirability of acting quickly on this application.
# # #
Today's [Dec. 18] entry is a source of references as well as commentary.
Table of Contents
Commentary
Links to Prior Nicholas Johnson Earthpark Blog Entries
Links to State29 Earthpork Blog Entries
Acts of Congress (Senator Grassley) Authorizing Federal Expenditure
Code of Federal Regulations Re: Department of Energy Process
Senator Grassley Earthpark Letter to Constituent
Exchange of Emails between Nicholas Johnson and DOE's Brian Quirke
Commentary
David Letterman once had a long-running routine in which he was waiting for Oprah to invite him to be a guest on her show. Every night he'd call his main office to ask if she'd called that day and then dutifully enter in his log, "Oprah didn't call again today."
It was all reminiscent of the line from Randy Travis' song, "Since my phone still ain't ringing I assume it still ain't you." Randy Travis, "Is It Still Over?"
So it has been with the U.S. Department of Energy these days insofar as releasing Earthpark's application for $50 million is concerned.
Earthpark's David Oman apparently timely filed some sort of document with the Department (charged with administering Senator Grassley's generous $50 million earmark to Oman) on December 1. To get the money Grassley subsequently provided that Oman must match it. The document supposedly shows how Oman has defined a "match" -- and the Department now has to rule on whether it complies with the terms of the grant and other federal law.
Notwithstanding the fact this is a "public record," a document to which the public and the media have a legally granted right of access, it is being withheld by all who have copies: Oman, Grassley, and the DOE. Why?
The AP reported a DOE spokesperson said the agency would have the matter decided "a couple of days" after December 1. (That spokesperson tells me he really said "several days," but acknowledges that now, nearly three weeks later, qualifies as neither "a couple" or "several.") Why the delay? According to the legislation authorizing Grassley's earmark, to get the money Oman would have to have $48 (or $50) million "secured" by December 1 or the grant would revert to the U.S. Treasury. Is that so difficult to ascertain? It would seem to me he either had it, or he didn't, on December 1. Hopefully, he's not being permitted to "amend" his documentation.
Or is it that Senator Santa and the DOE think they can sneak $50 million into Iowa past the media and concerned citizens while everyone's distracted sometime around Christmas, New Year's, or the January 3 Iowa caucus without anybody noticing -- or reporting? If so (1) they don't need to be concerned, since the Iowa media seems determined to avoid this major national story and Iowa embarrassment, and (2) Senator Santa is going to need a bigger tractor than the one he used in his campaign commercials to mow his own lawn to bring a sleigh with that much money across our snow-covered corn fields.
This project has been dogged with public doubts since its inception, some of which I'll set forth in a moment. Those concerns have only increased over time. Putting all that aside, whatever may have been the arguments in favor of making a federal investment in the project some years ago, to put $50 million of federal taxpayers' money into the project now -- knowing what we now know -- clearly will be nothing but $50 million of the kind of government waste Senator Grassley has endeavored to make a reputation for fighting rather than funding.
Assume we make a gift to Oman of the $2 million he took from the $50 million fund before the match requirement was in place. Assume he now has $48 million cash in the bank -- a highly unlikely prospect, given that, the last we heard the project has been unable to raise a single dime during the last ten years! Even if he did have the $48 million cash on hand that, plus the $48 million cash match, would mean he'd have $96 million. Where is the additional $44-$54 million to come from, given this decade-long failure at fund raising?
The project was originally proposed to be a $300 million venture. Its own consultants have said it would not have a prayer of financial sustainability if it were to be reduced below $225 million -- and that was a few years ago (before construction costs increased), and when it was proposed to be located along an Interstate highway (or possibly even at the intersection of two). Now they're talking $140 million in a town of about 10,000 souls at a location far away from any major highway.
To give $50 million of taxpayers' money to such a project, knowing that -- best case -- it will require perpetual taxpayer subsidy to keep the doors open, and even then be a financial disaster is irresponsible if not criminal. Worst case it will be $50 million entirely wasted, as the project will never be built, or will be built only to promptly close.
Links to Prior Nicholas Johnson Earthpark Blog Entries
Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake," November 26-December 7, 2007.
Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Grassley's the Story," December 7, 2007
Nicholas Johnson, "Maybe It's Only Human/Earthpark" in "To Err is Human, To Keep it Secret Even More So," December 14, 2007
and, of course, the monster Web site for Earthpark-Iowa Environmental Project-Iowa Child at http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.
Links to State29 Earthpork Blog Entries
State29, "Earthpark Rainforest: Preferring Secrecy To Openness," December 16, 2007
State29, "Exposing Chuck Grassley For The Fraud That He Really Is," December 12, 2007
State29, "Earthpark's Grant Application: More Than $100 To Copy," December 11, 2007
State29, "The Earthpark Roadmap," December 7, 2007
State29, "Grassley Finally Comments On Earthpark," December 6, 2007
State29, "Earthpark: Bloggers Doing The Jobs That The Media Won't," December 6, 2007
State29, "Blogger Malpractice?" December 5, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: Oh, The Irony," December 5, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: Keeping The Boondoggle Boondoggling," December 4, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: The Day After The Deadline," December 2, 2007 (updated, and thoughtfully providing local media with 14 categories of questions in case any ever choose to write about the matter)
Acts of Congress (Senator Grassley) Authorizing Federal Expenditure
(1) The language of the original earmark created by Senator Chuck Grassley in 2004 provided, in its entirety:
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Science. For an additional amount for "Science", $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, is provided for the Coralville, Iowa, project, which is to utilize alternative renewable energy sources."
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Title V, Div. H, §130, 118 Stat.3, 441 (2004).
This was one sweet deal: "$50,000,000 available until expended"! No conditions. No legislative requirements regarding process or oversight.
(2) It was subsequently revised to provide:
"Section 130 of division H (Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-199, is hereby amended by striking "is provided for the Coralville, Iowa, project" and all that follows and inserting: "is provided for the Iowa Environmental and Education project to be located in Iowa. No further funds may be disbursed by the Department of Energy until a one hundred percent non-Federal cash and in-kind match of the appropriated Federal funds has been secured for the project by the non-Federal project sponsor: Provided, That the match shall exclude land donations: Provided further, That if the match is not secured by the non-Federal project [**2282] sponsor by December 1, 2007, the remaining Federal funds shall cease to be available for the Iowa Environmental and Education project."
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, §315, 119 Stat. 2247, 2281 (2005).
Code of Federal Regulations Re: Department of Energy Process
The Department of Energy, Chicago office (which has the action on this one), is governed by the terms of Grassley's earmark and also the Department's own regulations involving grants. After being announced in a daily federal publication called the Federal Register they are ultimately arranged and bound in a multi-volume collection of all agencies' regulations called the Code of Federal Regulations. DOE regulations are in Title 10 of the CFR.
The relevant regulations regarding the rain forest project are called the Federal Assistance Rules, found in Part 600 of Title 10, especially (according to the DOE's Brian Quirke) sections 600.123 (Subpart B, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-profit Organizations," "Cost Sharing or Matching"), 600.224 ("Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," "Matching or Sharing"), and 600.313 (Subpart D, "Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with For-Profit Organizations," "Cost Sharing or Matching").
(Although it would seem to me from the subpart titles that only Subpart B (non-profits) would be relevant to the rain forest project. In any event, all are somewhat repetitive. They require, in general, that in-kind contributions are to be valued at reasonable, local market rates.)
Given the length of these provisions, I will not reproduce them here in full. They may be found on the Internet, however, at the Government Printing Office site with this URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/10cfr600_07.html.
Senator Grassley's Earthpark Letter to Constituent
(Source: Letter from a reader reproduced in State29, "Exposing Chuck Grassley For The Fraud That He Really Is," December 12, 2007.)
Thank you for expressing your concerns about Earthpark, the rain forest project to be located in Pella, Iowa. I am glad to have this opportunity to respond.
While the project was originally designed to be constructed in Coralville, the project leaders announced on September 28 that the project would be built in Pella. It will be relocated to a proposed residential, recreational and retail resort to be built on 240 acres on the southeastern shore of Lake Red Rock. It will be surrounded by 50,000 acres of natural habitat.
Federal funds for the rain forest project were included in the fiscal year 2004 spending bill through the Department of Energy. The $50 million federal appropriation only pays for part of the project, which has a total estimated cost of $150 to $200 million.
In November of 2005, I froze and put restrictions on the $50 million appropriation. My legislation requires non-federal dollars to be raised before additional federal tax dollars are spent. My measure also says that non-federal money must be secured by December of 2007 or the remainder of the federal funding will be reclaimed. Earthpark must submit the details of its proposal, including information on contributions they have received, to the Department of Energy by December 1. The Department of Energy will then determine if Earthpark has met the requirements specified in receiving the funds.
I appreciate your suggestion to require certain documents from the project leaders before unfreezing the federal funds. I will do just that an plan to study their match proposal carefully.
I want this project to succeed because it's a great opportunity for Iowans. Not only does the rain forest project show great promise for research and education, but it will also help the tourism industry in Iowa. Construction of this project will ultimately help Iowa build a better workforce, and provide more educational opportunities for teachers and students.
I understand the concerns that some Iowans have expressed about the amount of federal funds that we have appropriated for this project. Please know that during my time in Washington, I have worked for responsible government spending and to hold Congress accountable for your tax dollars. I will hold true to this commitment as I continue to work in the US Senate.
Again, I am glad to know your thoughts on this project. I always welcome your views, and urge you to stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Comment: That he could write that sixth paragraph indicates to me that he either doesn't know the past history and current set of proposals regarding this project or is willing to misrepresent what he does (or should) know. Whatever one might have been excused for thinking or saying about this project five or ten years ago, so much more is known now that those representations simply can no longer be made with a straight face.
Exchange of Emails between Nicholas Johnson and DOE's Brian Quirke
[1] December 6, 2007
Dear Mr. Quirke:
As you are probably aware, there is a great deal of interest here in Iowa regarding the Earthpark application for the remainder of the $50 million Senator Chuck Grassley has made available to David Oman and his associates.
I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate your response.
1. Who (name and email) has the initial DOE responsibility for a judgment as to whether, or not, the conditions of the match have been met?
2. Who (name and email) has the final sign-off responsibility?
3. Because your indicated title is “Office of the Manager – Communications” are you a part of this decision making process, or are you primarily the public and media relations person for the Chicago office?
4. The local press reported that the application was timely filed by Earthpark (sent November 30, and received on December 1). I am assuming this is correct. Is it? It also quoted you as saying that document, and the DOE decisions regarding it, would be available within “a couple of days.” That would have been sometime between last Monday and Wednesday, depending on what days are counted. What is the current status of the decision making process and when do you now expect your decision will be made public?
5. Given the degree of interest in this matter, it would seem to me both more efficient for DOE, and certainly more efficient for citizens and media, if you would be willing to put the Earthpark document up on the DOE Web site. Agencies, including your own, often do this as you know. While the FOIA enables citizens to file formal requests, and even sue agencies if necessary, to get access to public documents, it certainly does not contemplate that this will be the required process in every case. Question: Are you willing to make the Earthpark application available via the Web (either in the electronic form in which it was provided to the Chicago Office, or if it only came in hard copy, as a scanned document)?
6. Can you refer me to the statutory, or DOE regulatory, directions from Senator Grassley’s office, or other written standards that will be applied by your office in determining whether whatever Earthpark has or has not provided should be considered to constitute a “match”?
Respectfully,
Nicholas Johnson
[2] December 7, 2007
I left a phone message but also decided to follow-up with an e-mail.
Q.1 and 2. The answer to both of these questions is Eric Simpson at eric.simpson@ch.doe.gov. Eric is the contracting officer for the Rainforest/Earthpark project and will be reponsible for signing/not signing the document which would realease federal funds to the project.
In doing this specific task (as is the norm for large projects) Eric has assembled a team of advisors to help ensure that federal acquisitions rules (Federal Acquisition Regulations...FAR) are followed and that the direction DOE received from Congress is complied with, i.e. the grantee has/has not met the congressional requirment to assemble private donors to match the allocated federal funds. This team includes another contracting officer, a project manager, financial experts to determine what is allowable and not allowable, and an attorney.
Q. 3. I am not part of the decision-making process. My role is to communicate to reporters and taxpayers what we are doing and how we are doing it.
Q. 4. Yes, you are right, the local media did report correctly that DOE received the application packet from the grantee by the prescribed deadline. Now we are reviewing each element of the application to determine whether or not it meets the direction we received from Congress and the FAR requirements. Clearly we will be paying special attention to the pledges to determine if they are legally enforceable; and if they are from responsible organizations.
I was accuratly quoted in the Cedar Rapids Gazette by Greg Hennigan (sp?) and then in the following AP story when I indicated we expected the review would take several days. Our position is that we intend to do this job correctly...not attempting to honor a deadline or schedule.
Q. 5. DOE's attorneys who handle FOIA matters are reviewing the documents...in an effort to to determine what to release and when.
We have a pretty good track record of honoring the sentiment you talked about in your e-mail....releasing documents without FOIA requests. Specifically regarding this project, the DOE Chicago Office made available a series of quarterly project management and financial reports (from the Rainforest grantee to DOE) on our website. This was in 2004 when we made available the prior (2003) reports and then continued the practice with reports as they were receieved.
Q. 6. Eric Simpson will be using the two documents mentioned above...the Congressional direction passed by the legislative branch in November 2005 and the FAR to make the decision.
Give me a call if you would like additional ainformation.
Brian
[3] December 7, 2007
Brian Quirke
DOE
Brian:
Thank you very much for the effort to call me, and the relatively prompt email response to my questions.
1. Given your prompt, professional and responsive reply that reflects favorably on you and the DOE – and I presume is actually a public document – I assume you would have no objection to my reporting its contents. But as a courtesy I didn’t want to do that without asking if there would be some reason I’ve overlooked as to why that might be inappropriate. So, is it OK I put it in my blog?
2. On Dec. 4 I quoted from a November 28 AP story as follows: “[Dec. 4] A week ago the Associated Press reported that Department of Energy spokesperson "[Brian] Quirke said a decision on the application could come within a couple of days after it's received." Associated Press, "Deadline for Earthpark matching funds is Saturday," wcco.com/Iowa Wire, November 28, 2007.” In your email to me you said you had indicated it would be within “several days.” It’s a minor point in some ways (and not in others), but did the AP story misquote you? Did you in fact say DOE would act within “a couple of days”? I don’t want to attribute that to you if it is not correct.
3. You have pointed me toward, “(Federal Acquisition Regulations...FAR) . . . and . . . the direction DOE received from Congress” in response to my question 6 (Can you refer me to the statutory, or DOE regulatory, or directions from Senator Grassley’s office, or other written standards that will be applied by your office in determining whether whatever Earthpark has or has not provided should be considered to constitute a “match”?) for which I thank you. My question wasn’t as clear as it should have been; what I wanted was (a) access to the full text of any relevant documents, (b) including any written, or record of oral, instructions received from Senator Grassley or any member of his staff regarding this matter (i.e., what was intended by “match” and whether the money was intended for construction costs or for any pre-construction expenses (including David Oman’s salary) the projects’ promoters wished to spend it on). What I meant to ask for was simply the citations to the source material (e.g., are the Federal Acquisition Regulations somewhere in the CFR, and if so what is the citation?). What is the citation to “the direction DOE received from Congress”? I can look it up on Westlaw or Lexis, or the Internet, if I have the citations – which I’m assuming are easily at hand for either you or Eric Simpson. If there are specific sections within the FAR that are applicable here, or a focus of your consideration, knowing what they are would also save me a lot of time.
4. Based on my earlier experiences with members of the House and Senate – probably round about the time your grandmother was born – I’m assuming that if Senator Grassley wanted to put a block on this, or delay it for further review, or conclude on his own that what Oman has presented is simply not what Grassley had in mind as constituting a “match,” that he could do that. Is that true? You may not want to express a position on that, but I’d be interested in anything you could tell me on that score.
5. Speaking of source material, I have a vague recollection of years ago looking at some of those reports you mentioned from the project that you all put up on a Web site. Do you happen to have the URL for where that material is? Is that where the document in question will be posted?
6. Although I am aware that there are exceptions to what an agency must make available under FOIA, I cannot offhand (without reviewing the law) think of any that would be applicable in this case. It seems to me that once the application was received by you it was a public record. That being the case, while the DOE may have a legal right to continue to withhold it on a representation that you all are “reviewing the documents...in an effort to to determine what to release and when,” it seems to me the answers to those questions ought to be “everything submitted” and “now.” Can you give me an estimate as to when you think this “review” might be completed? I do think that, in terms of the best interests of DOE, it will look bad if the decision is arrived at and released at a time when the Department is still refusing to make the project’s application public.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Nick
[4] December 14, 2007
[There was no response to my December 7 email; therefore, I wrote again, as follows:]
Dec. 14, 2007
Brian:
I intended to send you the message, below, on Dec. 7, just before leaving town. Given how prompt you were in responding to my earlier email, and the fact I’ve not heard back from you (so far as I know), my guess is that it must not have been sent for some reason (since I sometimes have that problem with my email accounts) – or maybe you were out of town as well. Anyhow, here it is again. I’d welcome your response. If there are any you have good reason for not wanting to answer just let me know that, too. Or if, as before, you’d have a preference for dealing with this in a phone call rather than an email that’s fine; just give me the time that would be the least disruptive for you.
Nick
[This was followed with a copy of my December 7 email.]
[5] December 17, 2007, 11:02 a.m.
I have time right now for a phone conversation if you would like.
Brian
[6] December 17, 2007, 11:03 a.m.
Regarding one of your questions, I did consider our earlier e-mail conversation to be "public" and therefore if you want to post it to your blog I would have no objections.
Brian
[Note: We spoke that afternoon, during the course of which he indicated that a full, written response to my December 7 email would be forthcoming. He also provided some clues, but not full citations, to the source of the directions from Congress (Senator Grassley) and the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the $50 million earmark grant.]
# # #
December 14, 2007, 2:30 p.m.
Maybe It's Only Human
How is an unfunded indoor rain forest like a university?
Two stories, one theme.
Gregg Hennigan, "Earthpark decision expected ‘soon,’" The Gazette, December 14, 2007, p. B2.
Editorial, "UI officials must be open about their response to sexual assault allegations," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 14, 2007.
Earthpark. The Iowa indoor rain forest promoters claim to have satisfied Senator Grassley's demand that they match the $50 million earmark of taxpayer's money he's appropriated for their pleasure. They had to submit the documentation by December 1. Apparently they met that deadline.
So, do they actually have $50 million cash in the bank? Do they have pledges that can be called as soon as the pledges total $50 million and are accepted by the Department of Energy as meeting the standards for a match? Or are they offering little more than smoke and mirrors and possibilities of unspecified "in-kind" contributions at some undisclosed time in the future?
No one's talking.
Project CEO David Oman refuses to make public copies of his DOE application -- which is, of course, a "public record," and one in which the public has considerable legitimate interest, given that it is $50 million of our money. Senator Grassley, who admits to having a copy of the application also prefers secrecy to openness, as does the DOE. (The DOE has been presented a number of FOIA requests -- including one from The Gazette -- to which it will, ultimately, have to respond. But it offers no justification for not satisfying those requests now -- or, better still, just putting the document on the Web.)
"The Greatest 'Story Two' Never Told." From November 15 to 21 I wrote five blog entries regarding the alleged sexual assault at the University of Iowa. Nicholas Johnson, "The Greatest 'Story Two' Never Told" in "Not Getting Answers," November 21, 2007 (with links to the prior four).
The designation of a "Story Two" was my effort to make the point that there are really two stories here, not one.
"Story One" involves the alleged incident, victim, accused, and the investigation and evidence obtained. No one -- or at worst very few individuals -- have suggested that story needs to be told in ways that harm individuals and their reputations, or impedes the process of investigation.
"Story Two" has almost literally nothing to do with "Story One." Story Two is the story of what University of Iowa officials were involved, and when, and what they did. Not the names of students. Not students' reports of events. Not which students, by name, spoke with officials. But which officials talked to which other officials and when (as distinguished from what they talked about -- to the extent it would reveal details about the students involved, or what the evidence has revealed, that would have an adverse impact on the students or the investigation).
The Press-Citizen has been pursuing Story Two. Brian Morelli, "UI withholds documents in case; Could reveal if officials responded appropriately to alleged sex assault," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 8, 2007 -- the basis for this morning's editorial, linked above.
Some of the questions the paper is asking UI officials could potentially reach into Story One, and possibly impede the investigation. But the focus of the paper's inquiry involves Story Two. The editorial acknowledges UI President Sally Mason's call for "sensitivity" regarding the alleged accuser, and suggests that any compromising information simply be redacted from the requested documents. But as it concludes, "Answering our questions would in no way preclude the university from being sensitive to the victim. Not answering our questions gives the public cause to distrust the university's motives."
If it turns out that the University has had something to hide regarding its administrators' actions in this case, it will pay a very, very high price indeed for its secrecy and willingness to sweep under the rug of "being sensitive to the victim" what those administrators did, or failed to do. Not only does it give "the public cause to distrust the university's motives," it also puts a very heavy tarnish on whatever statements may be offered in the future when the University may have very legitimate reasons for secrecy and the public is left with no more trust in the truth of what it is being told than the trust it has in the statements of a White House press officer.
Despite the hundreds of lessons history offers as to the folly of attempting stonewalling and cover-ups of that which will, ultimately, become public, it may be only human to think that, "for me, on this occasion, I'll be better off to duck and cover than to come clean."
And that's how an indoor rain forest is like a university.
# # #
December 7, 2007, 10:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m.
[This is a continuation of Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake," November 26-December 7, 2007. Like the "Holy Roman Empire" that was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake" proved out to be neither week-long nor a wake. It did end up creating a blog entry that now prints out at about 38 pages. All of that content is hereby "incorporated by reference" and remains as relevant as ever.
NOTE: Because I may very well be out of Internet reach during the next four or five days, if anything breaks and you don't see it here, that's why. Check State29 and read between the lines in everything in (or left out of) your local papers.]
Johnson Forms "Exploratory Committee" to Challenge Earthpark's Grassley
I have been asked on more than one occasion in the past to run against Senator Chuck Grassley. I've always rejected the invitations. Not only do I not dislike Senator Grassley, I actually admire the attention he gives to constituent services -- it is of a quantity and quality among the best of any elected official in Washington. Moreover, I've always taken some responsibility for putting him in office, having lost (by my count by six votes) the Democratic primary for Congress in 1974 that led to a general election of then-legislator Grassley to the U.S. House of Representatives that year. Besides, as Art Small and others have discovered, running against Grassley is more of a sacrificial service to the Democratic Party than a realistic opportunity to gain a U.S. Senate seat.
But I have to say, with the way the Earthpark $50 million earmark is going, I'm seriously re-thinking my past reluctance. And this morning's (or was it yesterday's) Des Moines Register story about Grassley's current position on Earthpark was enough to prompt a serious discussion with my wife over breakfast this morning about my undertaking a statewide race against Grassley.
That's how strongly I feel about this.
Grassley is the Earthpark Story
What would you think on reading the following headline:
Tony Leys, "Grassley: No more extensions for Earthpark project," Des Moines Register, December 6, 2007. (And see, State29, "Grassley Finally Comments On Earthpark," December 6, 2007.)
"No more extensions" is Washington-speak for "more extensions." And that's exactly what seems to be going on.
Oman's document proving (he says) he's "matched" the $50 million of taxpayers' money Grassley's offered to give him if he can match it, is a public document. Many members of the media and public would like to see that document -- and are entitled to as a matter of law. Oman refuses to release it. Senator Grassley, who knows what's in it, refuses to tell. The Department of Energy has been asked to put it up on the Web, or at least respond to the formal Freedom of Information Act requests now pending at the DOE. It has yet to respond. Why all this secrecy about something that is, by law, a public document?
If we can't see what Oman filed on November 30, how can we ever know what revisions he was permitted to make in the document thereafter?
If the DOE said last week they'd have an answer in "a couple of days" how can this continued delay, on top of the secrecy, be considered anything other than an "extension"?
Moreover, it's an ancient trick of government agencies and other institutions to save major announcements that might reflect adversely upon them for the evening before major holidays, when they know there will be few journalists around to cover the story. I first wrote about this in the Saturday Review in 1972, Nicholas Johnson, "Why Ma Bell Still Believes in Santa." Is that what we have in store?
Leys writes: "Grassley said he had been told what was in the financial documents, but he declined to predict whether the project’s application would pass muster. He said he would not lobby the administrators.
“I’m writing the law, they’re administering it, and I’ve got to be careful not to contact the department while they’re making their decision,” he said. “I don’t think I ought to be seen to be trying to influence it one way or the other.”
Let's put aside for the moment the difficulty of having "been told what was in the financial documents" while being "careful not to contact the department."
What are we talking about here?
For starters, the initial $50 million was provided in one of those secret, undebated, "earmarks." The beneficiaries were Republican leaders, friends and campaign contributors of Grassley, who paid a former Grassley staffer handsomely (and successfully, as it turned out) to lobby the Senator for the $50 million. From the beginning, the grant was viewed by some fellow Republicans, journalists, stand-up comics, editorial and TV writers as laughable. The project has been offered to, and rejected, by a half-dozen or more Iowa cities -- some more than once -- and for very good reasons.
But let's put even all of that aside.
There was never a time at which a strong case could be made for the wisdom of using $50 million of taxpayers' money for this purpose. But my point, for now, is that whatever case one could try to make at the time of the initial award -- the time at which the case was strongest (weak, but its strongest) -- has continued to erode over time until today, when it has completely evaporated.
Even if you want to excuse Grassley for making the money available in the first place (and I'm not inclined to do so), there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for his failure to step in to prevent its being made available now -- match or no match.
It is by now obvious to all who will but look that "the emperor has no clothes." Such conditions as might have ever existed, when more was not known, no longer exist. There is not a prayer that this project will be built to the standards that would be necessary for it to even have a chance of programmatic and financial success -- or, even if it were, that it would create a sufficient cash flow to continue operations without ongoing taxpayer subsidy.
Consider the analogy to Iran.
If it is true that Iran has an active program underway to manufacture and imminently launch an atomic bomb our way (or Israel's), a presidential proposal that we launch a pre-emptive strike, start a war, and bomb their manufacturing facilities can still be questioned, but it will be considered in light of his rationale premised on that intelligence.
Once the NIE reports that Iran is not now, and has not been, engaged in such activities for the last four or five years, however, it is no longer possible for the president to continue -- at least not rationally or responsibly -- to advocate that course of action.
Give Grassley the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't just doing a $50 million favor for friends, that he actually thought the project had merit for Iowa, and a probability of raising the additional $250 million (initially proposed) that economists thought necessary to a successful venture.
The point is, now he should know better -- as all do who have been paying attention. He cannot be permitted to pass this off onto the DOE, anymore than Bush could pass a post-NIE strike against Iran off onto the DOD.
To have awarded the $50 million in the first place may have been bad judgment and abuse of the earmark process.
To permit it to be given now, knowing what we do, knowing that it will be, if not entirely $50 million wasted at least never produce what was initially proposed, is not only shameful, it should be considered criminal.
Not up to speed on what we now know? Take a look at Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake," November 26-December 7, 2007, and my Earthpark Web site.
What Leys has succeeded in extracting from Senator Grassley -- that he refuses to step in and guarantee the taxpayers will be saved this criminal expenditure, for which he is solely responsible -- is a beginning. And the Register is to be praised for getting us this much. But it is far from the end of this story.
For my suggested questions for Grassley that still need to be pursued see, in Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake," November 26-December 7, 2007, the discussion and questions following the sub-heading, "[Nov. 30] Senator Chuck Grassley Has Explaining to Do," about half-way down, following the Sharpnack editorial cartoon.
Don't let him "sidestep" this one.
Come on, Iowa media! Let's get going on this major national -- not to mention statewide -- story. Get us the Earthpark public document that has been sitting at the DOE for a week now. Ask Grassley how he can justify not stepping in to stop this criminal waste of taxpayers' dollars. Save me from having to go around to Iowa's 99 counties at my own expense running a fruitless campaign against our Senator as a way of getting this story to the Iowa voters. Please.
_______________
The one-minute fair use clip, above, is from the delightful 1982 R-rated full-length musical comedy, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," staring Burt Reynolds and Dolly Parton, among a great many other accomplished and well-known actors, and still available for rental and sale. It's based on a true story of a brothel outside LaGrange, Texas, that was ultimately closed down in 1973, following the work of investigative reporter Marvin Zindler of KTRK-TV, Houston. The writing was done by Larry King (whom I remember from Austin in the 1950s), the Governor was played by Charles Durning, and the studio was RKO Pictures. The film is copyright by, presumably, RKO. The use of this very brief clip is for non-commercial, educational and commentary fair use purposes only. Any other use may require the permission of the copyright owner.
# # #
November 26, 2007, 5:30 p.m.; November 27, 2007, 7:25 a.m., 7:15 p.m.; November 28, 2007, 6:45 a.m.; November 29, 2007, 6:40 a.m.; November 30, 2007, 6:00 a.m. (questions for Senator Grassley); December 2, 2007, 8:00 a.m.; December 4, 2007, 7;00 p.m.; December 6, 2007, 3:10 p.m., 5:30 p.m.; December 7, 2007, 8:00 a.m.
[Dec. 7] Only because this blog entry is now pushing lengths becoming unwieldy, I'm starting a new one later this morning -- while continuing to "incorporate by reference" the material that remains very much relevant that is here. It's now (10:00 a.m.) available as Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Grassley's the Story," December 7, 2007.
There's a Des Moines Register story yesterday that requires commentary. Like the UI presidential search that I blogged about (rather than creating a Web page for) under the assumption it would, of course, be wound up by the end of December 2005 -- only to experience it extending another six months -- the DOE said it would arrive at a decision in "a couple of days" (i.e., by last Tuesday (this now being Friday)). It now appears that, Senator Grassley's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Earthpark has been granted an "extension." It's outrageous!! [To be continued in the next blog entry later this morning.]
[Dec. 2-6] Earthpark Refuses to Make Public Document Available to Media
How Long? Oh, How Long Must We Wait to Know?
Which Iowa Media Will Be the First to Report Its Contents?
[Dec. 6] State29 has had a couple of blog entries worth noting: State29, "Earthpark: Oh, The Irony," December 5, 2007, and State29, "Blogger Malpractice?" December 5, 2007. He's now added, State29, "Earthpark: Bloggers Doing The Jobs That The Media Won't," December 6, 2007.
"Blogger Malpractice" concludes with a personal challenge of sorts from State29 to me: "I can see it now - Nick Johnson calling up, getting a copy, and scanning the thing into his archive for all to see. Well, I hope he does. I certainly don't expect him to do it."
How could I fail to oblige? My email to Brian J. Quirke went off this morning:
Dear Mr. Quirke:
As you are probably aware, there is a great deal of interest here in Iowa regarding the Earthpark application for the remainder of the $50 million Senator Chuck Grassley has made available to David Oman and his associates.
I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate your response.
1. Who (name and email) has the initial DOE responsibility for a judgment as to whether, or not, the conditions of the match have been met?
2. Who (name and email) has the final sign-off responsibility?
3. Because your indicated title is “Office of the Manager – Communications” are you a part of this decision making process, or are you primarily the public and media relations person for the Chicago office?
4. The local press reported that the application was timely filed by Earthpark (sent November 30, and received on December 1). I am assuming this is correct. Is it? It also quoted you as saying that document, and the DOE decisions regarding it, would be available within “a couple of days.” That would have been sometime between last Monday and Wednesday, depending on what days are counted. What is the current status of the decision making process and when do you now expect your decision will be made public?
5. Given the degree of interest in this matter, it would seem to me both more efficient for DOE, and certainly more efficient for citizens and media, if you would be willing to put the Earthpark document up on the DOE Web site. Agencies, including your own, often do this as you know. While the FOIA enables citizens to file formal requests, and even sue agencies if necessary, to get access to public documents, it certainly does not contemplate that this will be the required process in every case. Question: Are you willing to make the Earthpark application available via the Web (either in the electronic form in which it was provided to the Chicago Office, or if it only came in hard copy, as a scanned document)?
6. Can you refer me to the statutory, or DOE regulatory, or directions from Senator Grassley’s office, or other written standards that will be applied by your office in determining whether whatever Earthpark has or has not provided should be considered to constitute a “match”?
Respectfully,
Nicholas Johnson
If the email is answered I'll share that with readers of this blog. If it is not, I'll share that fact with you a week from now.
Meanwhile, the [Pella] Town Crier News reports:
Mayor Dobernecker speaks briefly about EarthPark
Following a brief news clip on television this morning, we called Mayor Dobernecker for his take on the report that funding for the Earthpark project proposed for Pella had been secured.
The Mayor said he had been informed by David Oman, chairman of the project, that funding had been secured and the necessary paperwork submitted November 30 to the Department of Energy. Some felt it might be a matter of days, some felt a matter of months, before the Department of Energy reviewed the submitted documents and agreed that the funding met Departmental guidelines.
Further, the mayor stated that "The City of Pella has not committed one dime towards this project. The reality is that of course, if the project is to be completed, the City will incur some infrastructure expenses,," but that none of the funding that the project had to match in order to receive for the Department of Energy grant was from the City of Pella.
"Of course the City has done some preliminary estimates, but the appropriate time for the City to review and begin planning for what this project might actually mean for the City and what funds to commit where is after we are certain the project is actually taking place, that is, after the Department of Energy rules on the submission from Oman," the Mayor added.
Originally, Earthpark plans included condominiums near a new marina, but the Army Corps of Engineers rejected the marina proposal.
The Des Moines Register's "Dateline Iowa" this morning [Dec. 6] merely said, "Earthpark's fate hinges on donations
Developers of Earthpark, the planned $150 million environmental and educational center near Pella, are waiting for the U.S. Department of Energy to pass judgment on a critical grant for the project.
The project planned for the north shore of Lake Red Rock had until Dec. 1 to come up with $48 million in matching money required for the project to keep a $48 million federal grant. Without the grant, the project would have to be retooled or scrapped.
There was no reference to the inside information Oman provided the Pella mayor, that prompted the Town Crier to report: "The Mayor said he had been informed by David Oman, chairman of the project, that funding had been secured . . .."
While I'm happy to help out with the above email to the DOE, I really think this story is the media's -- primarily the Des Moines Register, The Gazette, Iowa City Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan -- responsibility to (1) demand the document from Oman and the DOE, suing for it under FOIA if necessary, and then (2) question Senator Grassley along the lines I've indicated below.
Let's face it: This has been a major Iowa (and national) story for ten years; it's now come to a head; it's either dead or dying (i.e., it either is flat broke, or it has been granted $47 million toward the $300 million it needs -- with a decade long track record of being unable to raise one dime in cash). In either case it is a big, big story. And while I appreciate the Register at least reporting that it has done nothing, and knows nothing about it -- which is more than the other three papers have bothered to tell us -- that's scarcely what I think we have a right to expect from one of America's largest newspaper chains at a time when they're trying to convince us of the wisdom of permitting them to own TV stations in the same markets they dominate with their newspapers.
_______________
[Dec. 4] A week ago the Associated Press reported that Department of Energy spokesperson "[Brian] Quirke said a decision on the application could come within a couple of days after it's received." Associated Press, "Deadline for Earthpark matching funds is Saturday," wcco.com/Iowa Wire, November 28, 2007.
Given that it was received by DOE last Friday (Nov. 30) or Saturday (Dec. 1) I'd say it's been "a couple of days." But there's no word yet as to how many tons of blue smoke and mirrors it takes to make what Senator Grassley would accept as a match for the $50 million of taxpayers' money.
Meanwhile, as State29 has noted, State29, "Earthpork: Keeping the Boondoggle Boondoggling," December 4, 2007, the Press-Citizen's editorial essay about the project this morning was one of the best pieces of writing to come from the state's largely-Earthpark-cheerleading media during the last five years or so. Read it. Editorial, "Area Did Right Thing With the Earthpark Deal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 4, 2007.
So a big "Hat's Off" to the Press-Citizen for what is an excellent start.
But I ask again: Who will be the first assignment editor to send a reporter out to ask Senator Grassley personally to respond to the questions I've laid out for him below, and then either tell us what he says, or report that he was too embarrassed to respond?
This is not just an "Earthpark story." It's not even just a "Senator Chuck Grassley story" -- although his former chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, and continued efforts to build the illusion he is a fiscal conservative, are certainly a part of the story. As an oft-cited example of one of the worst of Congress' "earmarks" excesses, Earthpark is, during this pre-caucus presidential candidates' season, a major politics and money story: What is the relationship between special interest campaign "contributions" and Congressional action -- or inaction? How is Congress handling our money, and what are these presidential candidates proposing to do about it? It is -- as most signs indicate that the light at the end of the financial tunnel is an oncoming recession -- a useful illustration of why we're in the financial trouble we're in. In short, this unmonitored giveaway is a big and multifaceted story.
For the media to ignore the lessons in this Earthpark disaster is doing no one a favor -- least of all their audience and readers.
[Dec. 2] Earthpark promoters, having built a reputation for themselves over the past decade as a no-transparency, wagons-in-a-circle bunch, have now outdone themselves.
As State29 reported Friday, State29, "Earthpork Deadline Tomorrow," November 30, 2007, Earthpark's application for Senator Chuck Grassley's generous $50 million of taxpayers' money was yesterday.
Their application was reportedly timely filed and is one day old today. It is, therefore, a public document, legally available to media and public alike -- and, if obstinately withheld, obtainable with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
And yet The Gazette reported yesterday, "Earthpark spokeswoman Kristin Sunde . . . declined to provide The Gazette a copy of the application." "Rain Forest Officials Submit Application," The Gazette, December 1, 2007, p. B7. What on Earth-park is this about? And why aren't The Gazette and the other Iowa media, normally our staunch defenders of public access, screaming bloody murder?
And who do we find pictured on the Des Moines Register's front page this morning? Well, a half-dozen presidential candidates. But I mean at the top of the far right column? None other than Earthpark founder Ted Townsend, featured in what I will call "a flattering feature story." (State29 may well come up with a characterization more befitting that blog's motto: "Keeping Track Of All Those Iowa Scandals While Remaining Insightfully Vulgar." Later: Well, I was wrong, but he does write about it; see State29, "Earthpork: The Day After the Deadline," December 2, 2007. ) Perry Beeman, "Big ideas, passion motivate Ape Trust founder," Des Moines Register, December 2, 2007, p. A1.
Over the past five years or more, I have endeavored to provide helpful suggestions for, as well as criticism of, Earthpark -- with little success at either. Because I've always thought that Townsend's "Great Ape Trust" made a lot more sense than his Iowa rain forest project, one suggestion was that -- so long as Senator Grassley was so stubbornly insistent on giving $50 million of our money to his friends and campaign contributors -- there at least be an effort to redirect the money away from a rain forest doomed to economic and other failures and into Townsend's Great Ape Trust, a science project with enormous potential.
With some tinkering, that might still be possible -- providing additional space for the great apes, a visitor center, or housing and offices for researchers.
Oman doesn't have $50 million cash on hand, and isn't about to get it. To do the rain forest right would require something closer to $300 million than the $150-140 million to which he's now scaled it back. Even if Senator Grassley does decide that Oman's received promises of unspecified, and over-valued "in-kind services" at some undesignated time in the future meet the terms of the required "match" of $50 million (less the $3 million Oman took and spent before he was caught and stopped), given that he has failed to raise a single dime over the past 10 years -- let me repeat that, with a full-bore effort at fund raising over a decade the promoters of this project have been unable to raise a dime -- that means, once he gets the $50 million from taxpayers, he will still only have that $50 million in hand to build what even Oman thinks needs $140-150 million (and I think needs twice that).
So -- even with Grassley's $50 million of taxpayers' money -- where is Oman now suddenly going to be able to come up with the additional $100 million, given the record of no contributions whatsoever over the past ten years?
For more on this failed proposal, see below, and my 200-page Earthpark Web site.
_______________
And in other news: FromDC2Iowa is going to be a running blog entry this week [November 26 until . . .], tracking last rites for Earthpark in this one entry until Senator Grassley finally rules on whether smoke and mirrors constitute his definition of a $50 million "match."
UI Sexual Assault. See, Rekha Basu, "Questions, again, over an alleged U of I sex assault," Des Moines Register, November 28, 2007; Scott Dochterman, "No set timeline for assault investigation," The Gazette, November 28, 2007, p. C1; "Regents staffers checking if UI followed policies," The Gazette, November 29, 2007, p. B1.
Hawkeye football's good news. [Nov. 29] Isn't it about time for some good news from the football program? With 10% of the team having been in trouble with the law, three more under investigation for sexual assault, the December 3 trial of a 2005 player charged with major drug dealing coming up next week, Jennifer Hemmingsen, "Former UI athlete faces six felony drug charges," The Gazette, November 21, 2007, and the trial of one of this season's players one week later (December 10), Rob Daniel, "Football Player Going to Trial," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 30, 2007, p. A1 (theft of credit cards, and subsequently theft of DVDs), and see Lee Hermiston, "Douglas reaches plea deal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 4, 2007, it might be a good time for the program to showcase some of its more outstanding graduates.
One day later [Nov. 30] I'm pleased to note that both the Press-Citizen ("Klinkenborg, Shada Honored for Grades," p. B1) and The Gazette ("Klinkenborg, Shada Academic All-Americans," p. C1) carry the news this morning that Hawkeye football players Mike Klinkenborg and Adam Shada have been named "academic all-Americans" by the College Sports Information Directors for having earned a 3.95 and 4.00 GPA in elementary education and finance, respectively.
While I think it well worthwhile to document that there are, indeed, at least some players who really are student-athletes, what I was really looking for was something more along the line of what John Barleykorn contributed in a comment (11/29 9:11 a.m.) on this blog entry yesterday -- what football players have done after graduation. I don't mean those who are playing with pro teams; rather, those who are attending (or have graduated from) professional graduate schools, are doing community organizing or otherwise working with non-profits, are serving on school boards or in other elective or appointed positions -- though I don't mean to suggest it should be limited to those options.
How about it? Any more nominations? I think now would be a good time for a little more balance here.
_______________
Earthpark Teeters on Grave's Edge
Staying Alive? "Hmm, maybe if I change the name again & hit it some more"
[See the end of this blog entry for the credits and background on this editorial cartoon, created and copyright by Joe Sharpnack.]
[Nov. 30] Senator Chuck Grassley Has Explaining to Do
Senator Grassley must -- and ultimately will have to -- explain his $50 million earmark to the taxpayers of Iowa and the nation.
Politically, earmarks have come out of the closet and into the sunshine. They are a subject of the rhetoric surrounding the current run up to the 2008 presidential election. They are talked about on the floor of the House and Senate and in the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers.
And as critics look for examples, the "Iowa Rain Forest" has become the poster child of earmarks for many.
It's not going away -- even if Senator Grassley says they haven't met the terms of the grant. But it's really going to blow up if he says they have.
It looks like (see the content following the sub-heading below) Grassley-Ray-Townsend-Oman are gearing up an effort to pass the blame for this giveaway onto the Department of Energy (which was given the clerical job of administering the matching grant).
That dog won't hunt.
The media must get some answers from the Senator. This may have been our $50 million of money, but it was his project, his use of his power as a U.S. Senator on behalf of Ray-Townsend-Oman, his sneaking through an earmark with no debate, that brings us to where we are today.
The basic question for the Senator is: Knowing of the project's inability to raise money, knowing that it does not have $50 million cash on hand, knowing that even if it did it would still need to raise an additional $50 million to go ahead with construction (when it has not been able to raise a dime in 10 years), therefore knowing that even if you give them the $50 million it still won't be enough to insure the project will be built, knowing that its own consultants told the promoters they would need at a minimum a structure more than 50% larger than what they've now scaled their plans down to if they were even to have a problematical prayer of breaking even, knowing that most independent economists believe the project cannot produce sufficient cash flow to sustain itself (thus leaving it to either never get constructed, or having been constructed quickly close, or perpetually draw upon public funds for subsidy), why do you believe, today, that your $50 million earmark of taxpayers' money for this project is a wise use of taxpayers' dollars?
Subsidiary questions are: (1) Do you personally agree with and support the judgment that the project has met the terms of what you had in mind as a "matching grant" -- especially given the facts detailed above? If the project has neither $50 million in cash on hand, or pledges for that amount of cash that can be immediately called, what is the rationale for concluding they have "matched" your grant? You can't buy materials and construct a structure on the basis of promises of some ill-defined "in-kind services" to be provided at some undesignated time in the future. Where do you think the additional $100 million (and preferably more) is going to come from? Do you agree that this judgment call is your responsibility, or are you washing your hands of the decision and taking the position that it is solely up to the Department of Energy? If so, how do you justify that stance?
(2) What is your position with regard to the "missing" roughly $3 million? Was it your intention that the initial $50 million grant was to be used for construction, or did you intend it as a gift that Oman could draw on whenever he wanted for whatever he wanted -- even though all signs pointed to a substantial likelihood the project would never be completed as originally proposed (indeed, your original earmark assumed it would be built in Coralville -- one of many Iowa cities that ended up rejecting it)? If it is concluded that the terms of the "match" have not been met will that $3 million be returned to the U.S. Treasury or do you consider it just a $3 million gift to a friend? If you conclude that the terms of the match have been met, do they need to match $50 million (since they will have received that amount: $3 million plus an additional $47 million), or do they only need to match the $47 million and we'll just forget about the $3 million?
Only Iowa's media can put these questions to Senator Grassley and then report his answers -- or his refusal to answer. Let's hope and pray they do this for us.
November 27/28 EXTRA: Oman Claims $50 Million Cash on Hand. David Oman, CEO and and CPO (chief publicity officer) of what State29 persists in calling "Earthpork," announced November 27 that "an array of sources coming together as a confluence" -- like this week's line-up of Saturn, Venus and Mercury -- is going to occur in time to make the deadline for this "very complex project" -- although "He would not provide specifics about where the $48 million matching funds are coming from." (Nor, apparently, would he provide specifics about why a "$50 million match" is satisfied with $48 million -- given that the only reason there is only $47 or 48 million left is because he started to consume the $50 million before the terms of the grant had been met -- and, so far as is known, has no plan (nor demand from Senator Grassley) to pay that money back.) "Earthpark to Meet Funding Deadline," KCCI-TV8, November 27, 2007.
And see, Gregg Hennigan, "Rain forest crunch time; Earthpark, U.S. official optimistic as critical funding deadline nears," The Gazette, November 28, 2007, p. A1 (identifying source "Brian Quirke, a spokesman for the Department of Energy," and noting that the $300 million, $225 million, $180 million, $150 million project is now budgeted at $140 million).
Of course, if he doesn't have $50 million cash on hand, if after you blow away the smoke there's nothing but mirrors, promises, loans, "in-kind future services," already-planned roads, and so forth, Senator Grassley is going to have to come up with an even more imaginative explanation for why he is turning this $50 million sow's ear (mark) into a $100 million silk purse.
It's also necessary to note five other financial details.
1. This was originally a $300 million project. When it was reduced to $225 million, the project's own consultants warned that there were virtually no possibilities of economic viability unless it could market itself as "the world's largest" -- something that could not be accomplished with anything less than a $225 million structure. The plan has subsequently been reduced to a $180 million structure, and now to $150 million.
2. Even at $300 million -- twice the present plan -- there were serious questions raised by independent economists regarding the financial viability of such a project if it was located in a major population center such as Des Moines with easy access to both Interstates 80 and 35. Now it is proposed for the small town of Pella (population under 10,000), located 36 miles away from Des Moines and about as far from Interstate 80.
3. Aside from the original $10 million pledge from Ted Townsend, and the $50 million match from Senator Grassley, so far as is known the project has been unable to raise a single dime over the course of the last 10 years -- notwithstanding the network of contacts made possible by Iowa's present senator, and former Governor Bob Ray, among corporations, foundations and wealthy donors.
4. Thus, even if Oman does come up with $50 million cash on hand, and even with the match, and even if the $300 million project is thought to be acceptable as one-half that size, he will still need to find another $50 million from somewhere -- notwithstanding the extraordinarily failed record of fund raising during the past decade.
5. Finally, as serious as these up-front financing problems may be, they pale by comparison to the future, on-going financial problems in operating such a facility. If -- as many predict -- an adequate revenue stream is not forthcoming, who will pick up the slack, or what would be done with the project once it is closed.
There are, of course, many other categories of problems with Earthpark, but since the focus is on the financials this week, it is useful to keep these five points in mind.
# # #
Is there anyone left in America who is not aware of the decade-long dream of Ted Townsend and David Oman -- with the financial encouragement of a $50-million earmark from grateful federal taxpayers provided by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley -- to build a tropical rain forest under glass on Iowa's otherwise-unused, snow-covered corn fields in winter?
For those of us who have been blogging about, and otherwise following, this public relations spectacular and economic disaster over the past ten years, this is going to be a big week.
Why? Because the revised terms of Senator Grassley's generosity require that Oman come up with a matching $50 million grant by December 1, 2007, or lose the taxpayers' contribution. (Left unanswered is whether he will have to repay the two or three million he took from the fund to, in part, pay a generous salary to himself, before Grassley realized the spigot was open and closed it.)
State29, one of the most dedicated followers, bloggers and debunkers of this folly, is also counting the days. State29, "Earthpork: 7 Days Left," November 24, 2007.
And see Chris Woods, "Will Huckabee Support Earthpark?" Political Forecast: Iowa Politics and Beyond, November 27, 2007.
I began writing about this project in January 2001, and started a Web site February 2004 -- variously called, as the location and name of the project changed over the months and years, "Iowa Child," "Iowa Educational/Environmental Project," "Coralville Rain Forest," "Iowa Environmental Project," "The Environmental Project," and "Earthpark." (After having been rejected by over a half-dozen Iowa cities, it's now trying to take root in Pella, Iowa -- best known for tulips and many miles from any Interstate highway.)
Since that time I've published some 14 or more op ed columns along with another 15 lecture texts or other online pieces. The Web site now prints out at over 200 pages, and has links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper articles and other printed resources. It is presumably the most complete collection of material -- pro and con -- available anywhere on the Internet at a single site.
If this thing is new to you, and you're not inclined to research a couple hundred pages of Web site, here's one of those op ed columns, one that briefly mentions at least some of the history and problems associated with the project:
Time to Learn From What Works
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
January 20, 2006
The Press-Citizen thinks "Towns Should Take it Slow with Rain Forest" (Jan. 14). Most Iowans are taking the editorial board's advice.
Rain forest promoters may still make it somehow, somewhere in Iowa. Regardless, Ted Townsend, Bob Ray and David Oman have helped open Iowans' eyes to the possibilities, and pitfalls, of such attractions.
Will we learn from their mistakes? Only if we search the Internet for the formula and details of success stories, for "what works." In Iowa: Dubuque's National Mississippi River Museum & Aquarium, Adventureland, Living History Farms, Ted Townsend's Great Ape Trust. Outside Iowa: Omaha's zoo, Atlanta's aquarium, Colonial Williamsburg, Disneyland.
Focus. Like a business emphasizing its "core competency," successful ventures usually have a focus, like the Great Ape Trust. The rain forest kept shifting focus from tourist attraction to school to research facility. (As blogger State 29 put it, "It's a floor wax. It's a dessert topping. It's whatever they want it to be.")
Community-based. Successful ventures grow bottom up, like Omaha's zoo, the Englert theater renovation, and Dubuque's "Envision 2010," rather than being imposed top down like the rain forest.
Logical location. Aquariums do best near oceans; Colonial Williamsburg in Williamsburg, Va. The Living History Farms, or Dubuque's Mississippi museum on the banks of that great river, gain significance from their location in Iowa. A rain forest does not.
Up-front financing. Home Depot's Bernard Marcus gave $200 million for Atlanta's aquarium. Omaha's zoo and Dubuque's museum are locally funded. Neither uses the debt financing that's caused other projects' downfall. Rain forest promoters went public without money in hand, had none from Iowa City-Coralville donors, and now talk of borrowing their matching grant.
Business plans. Entrepreneurs dream of success and fear failure. Venture capitalists and loan officers avoid losses by demanding details. Even so, one-third of each year's 800,000 new businesses fail within four years. Imagine the risks when promoters play with public money instead of their own. Without rain forest focus there couldn't be business plans. Without plans there couldn't be sufficiently detailed construction and operating budgets. Without details no one could evaluate the project's practicality, and deadlines kept slipping -- for nine years.
Cost overruns. Over-runs are common. Boston's "Big Dig" ran five times budget. So did the Englert ($1 million budget, $5 million cost). The Iraq war may end up 10 times projections ($2 trillion vs. $200 billion). How would rain forest overruns have been financed? Omaha zoo projects are completed ahead of schedule and under budget.
Revenue streams. Construction costs are relatively easy. Operating costs five and ten years later are the problem. Successful Iowa attractions know attendance will range from 65,000 a year (Hoover Library) to 500,000 (Adventureland), and budget realistically. Disneyland may get 10 to 15 million, Colonial Williamsburg almost one million. But such numbers are mostly limited to multi-million-population urban centers. Many failing projects start with overly optimistic attendance projections -- like the rain forest's estimated 1.3 million annual visitors.
Realistic evaluation. The rain forest's fundamental problems have been obvious for four years. So why did so many public officials and mass media continue to emphasize "the 'Wow!' and the wonderful," virtually ignoring risks and realism? A skeptical venture capitalist asks questions and is called "a smart businessperson." Why, when citizens ask the same questions about the rain forest, are they called "naysayers" who "lack vision"?
Iowa has plenty of successful attractions throughout the state. There's no reason it can't have many more. But only if we remember the lesson of the Laser Center: "build it and they will come" only works in the movies. Only if we build solid financial foundations under our dreams. Only if we give more attention to revenue streams and operating costs than construction costs.
Iowa needs bold vision. Naysaying doesn't help; but rational analysis does. And when "the emperor has no clothes" we ignore the difference at our peril.
Hopefully, a week from today at least some of the evaporated $2-3 million will have been repaid, this project will be behind us, and the lessons it has provided will be put to good use by those with realistic plans for Iowa's future economic development.
Or . . . Will Oman be able to pull a $50 million rabbit from his dilapidated hat during Earthpark's last week on death row?
Watch this space and see.
# # #
Joe Sharpnack editorial cartoon credits and background.
The following is excerpted from my entry in my Rain Forest Web site from the time when the project's public relations efforts warranted weekly Web site entries. This one is for "The Week Prior to May 15 [2006]."
The Week Prior to May 15 . . .
was an opportunity for David Oman to demonstrate, once again, the true public relations genius that he has brought to the rain forest project from the beginning. He managed to get newspapers to make front page news -- literally page one, column one, above the fold -- out of the name of the project.
There are much more serious challenges confronting the project. Moreover, it has gone through numerous name changes during the nine years of its existence, seemingly without the ability of its board and management to settle on one: Iowa Child, Iowa Environmental/Education Project, Iowa Environmental Project and the Environmental Project. Thus, the following news story would have involved questionable news judgment even if the announcement had involved the long-awaited "permanent name."
But it did not. The "news" was that, like a UFO siting, Oman had discovered "names rolling around [and] floating through the air." However, none of these have even been passed upon by the board, and only one was revealed at this time: "Earth Park."
"We've always said the Environmental Project is a placeholder, pending decisions such as financing and selecting a site," project director David Oman said Monday. "It has always been our intention to brand the project with a permanent name." Oman said a decision on a permanent name hasn't been made yet, but the name Earth Park has surfaced among officials whose communities are in the running for the project. "There are several names that people have suggested, and they are being tested," Oman said. "There are scientific ways of testing and less formal ways."
Board member Richard Johnson of Sheldahl said the Earth Park name was "put forward" within the past six months. "But the board hasn't gone forward with it yet," he said. . . . The board of directors will select a final site in mid-May or June, depending on when a meeting can be arranged, Oman said.
"We are working on a (few) major fronts: a site front, financing front and name front. It would be helpful to pull these fronts together at some point," he said. He did not say if a name would be announced when the site was selected. "There are names rolling around. There are names floating through the air. There are some very interesting ones. We are looking how to best package this up," Oman said.
Joe Sharpnack, http://www.sharptoons.com, who holds the copyright on this editorial cartoon, captured the significance of the "floating" alternative name with his usual sharp wit and insight. The cartoon appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on May 11, 2006.
For it was only in the last sentence of the story that we were to learn, "The project remains contingent on selecting a site and financing." Given the project's current three-front challenge -- what Oman calls "a site front, financing front and name front" -- it would seem that "the greatest of these" (to borrow a Biblical triage) remains, as it has been for the past nine years, the "financing front." Brian Morelli, "Yet Another New Name? Earth Park Floating Around," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 9, 2006. (As the reader can tell from these excerpts, Morelli is a skilled, professional reporter who cannot be held responsible for either the assignments he receives, or the content of the interviews and handouts he has to turn into journalism. And yet he manages -- at least for the careful reader -- to get the story told.)
# # #
