. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Senator Grassley's Pork Keeps on Giving But Will It End His Senate Career? (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The idea of building a $300 million indoor rain forest in an Iowa cornfield was first launched in 1996. Ten years later, it had been unable to raise a dime from Iowans beyond the original pledge of the creator of the idea, Ted Townsend. It went through many names: the Iowa Child project, Coralville Rainforest, Iowa Environmental Project, and finally Earthpark. It was offered to, and turned down by, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grinnell, Iowa City, Riverside, and Tiffin -- ultimately ending up in a tulip bed in Pella, the flowers of which have yet to be disturbed with any construction. It's mission varied from time to time from tourist attraction, to public school, to national research facility, to overnight camp site. After a number of architects had been brought in, the construction budget declined from $300 million to $150 million and the design was also altered.
I was first troubled by, and wrote about, the Iowa Child in January of 2001. "'Iowa Child' Concerns," January 22, 2001. By 2007 my writing on the subject included at least 14 op ed newspaper columns and 15 additional articles.
In February 2004 it was obvious the project was going to be around for awhile, so I created a Web page which still gets an amazing number of hits, considering that the project has been seemingly dead since the end of 2006, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark" -- a Web site that would ultimately print out at well over 100 pages, with links to hundreds more of cartoons, newspaper stories and editorials, and ridicule from everyone from the Speaker of the House to "West Wing."
But despite it all, the project would never seem to die, as this political cartoon from Sharpnack captures:
So while I would have no right to be stunned, I was surprised when a friend pointed out to me that the Earthpark project's Web site now bore a copyright date of 2010. What was going on, I wondered?
I had not visited either the project's site, nor my own Earthpark Web site for so long it took me awhile to find both. And the very next thing I checked was the site that collects the stats on the number of hits that come to this blog and a number of the Web sites that I maintain.
Much to my surprise the numbers were well up above what they usually were on my Earthpark site. So I started digging deeper. Where were these hits coming from?
Texas.
As a University of Texas graduate, with my first law clerkship (U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit) in Houston, I'm familiar with many of the cities in Texas. But my Earthpark site was getting hits from Texas towns I'd never heard of in addition to those I had.
What was going on? What could possibly cause Texans from all over the state to want to learn more about the old Iowa rain forest project?
All I could figure out was that the never-say-die Earthpark promoters had finally found some Texas oil money and a place to build their rain forest dream -- in a climate, not incidentally, a little more consistent with a rain forest than anything an Iowa winter could ever offer.
But as creatively as I was constructing Google searches I could find no news stories about a Texas town that had agreed to build Earthpark.
Until I came upon news of the Republican primary for Texas governor between the incumbant, Governor Perry, and Texas' U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
For it seems that Governor Perry was running against pork, and the commercial he was running throughout the state . . . but rather than my describing it, why don't I just play it for you:
Here's the story:
Last year, the San Antonio Express-News ran a story with the headline "Texas senator is queen of earmarks." Picking up on that theme, the Perry campaign hits her for voting for bills containing earmarks for the World Toilet Summit, fruitfly research in France, a teapot museum in North Carolina, and an indoor rainforest in Iowa.
Hutchison isn't the only teapot enthusiast in the U.S. Senate. The appropriations bill with the earmark for the North Carolina museum passed with unanimous consent. The vote in favor of the bill containing the World Toilet Summit funding was 91-0. The fruitfly vote in question was 76 yeas to 16 nays, and the indoor rainforest vote — the closest of the four mentioned — was 65-28.
The fact that plenty of other senators voted the same way isn't likely to impress the Perry camp. They close the ad by hitting Hutchison for "voting with Washington since 1993.
Before Senator Hutchison voted for the $700 billion Wall Street Bailout TEXT ON SCREEN: Before Senator Hutchison voted for the $700 billion Wall Street Bailout
She voted for billions in taxpayer-funded earmarks TEXT ON SCREEN: She voted for billions in taxpayer-funded earmarks
That’s why a Texas newspaper dubbed her the “Queen of Earmarks” TEXT ON SCREEN: Texas senator is queen of earmarks San Antonio Express-News 10/6/2009
She spent billions on projects like TEXT ON SCREEN: She spent billions on projects like
the World Toilet Summit TEXT ON SCREEN: the World Toilet Summit
Fruitfly research in France TEXT ON SCREEN: Fruitfly research in France
A teapot museum in North Carolina TEXT ON SCREEN: Teapot museum in North Carolina
And $50 million on an indoor rain forest in Iowa TEXT ON SCREEN: $50 million indoor rain forest in Iowa
She kept spending and spending … billions of taxdollars TEXT ON SCREEN: She kept spending and spending … billions of taxdollars
Senator Hutchison voting with Washington since 1993 TEXT ON SCREEN: Senator Hutchison voting WITH Washington since 1993
But when it was all over, curious Texans had found out about the ill-fated Iowa rain forest from Governor Perry's commercials, and my Web site, and he walked away with the Republican nomination for Governor. Associated Press, "Hutchison Concedes to Perry in Texas G.O.P. Race,"New York Times, March 2, 2010.
There's a lesson here for Iowans.
That $50 million in pork was the product of none other than Iowa's own Senator Charles Grassley. In case you haven't yet noticed, he's running for re-election.
His rain forest has now contributed to the election of two governors, one each for Iowa and Texas.
What he may discover this year is that it is also capable of defeating a U.S. Senator from Iowa as well as the U.S. Senator from Texas who just lost her bid to run for Governor.
Earthpark does indeed have a life after death.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Movies Are Getting More Expensive And It's Not Just the Ticket and Popcorn Prices (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Now I don't mean to minimize the outrageous prices we're charged for popcorn at the movies. And if you're curious as to how much profit a movie theater can make from 11 cents worth of popcorn see my earlier analysis in Nicholas Johnson, "From Politics to Popcorn," January 1, 2007.
But it turns out we're spending millions of dollars of our own money making those movies. And since it now turns out some of those millions are going to private cars for the movie makers and iPhones for their kids, questions are being asked about the wisdom and generosity of Iowans paying 50% of the cost of movies made in this state -- by far the most generous program of any U.S. state, even if it all went into movie costs.
Transferring taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit corporations, and the pet projects of wealthy campaign contributors, has never made a lot of sense to me.
My writing on the subject was originally prompted by the ill-fated proposal, widely supported by Iowa's politicians and newspapers alike, that was originally the $300 million "Iowa Child" indoor rain forest and ultimately went through many name and purpose changes, a failure to raise a dime of construction money, a rejection by virtually every Iowa town along I-80, and ended as a proposed $150 million "Earthpark" for a tulip bed somewhere in Pella that has yet to be funded and built. See the lengthy, entire Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark."
Along the way I came to question everything from "TIFs" to mislabeled "jobs programs" to the bailouts of banks and auto manufacturers, that seemed to me an ill-considered waste of taxpayers' money and a total distortion of the separation between "socialist" programs and "marketplace, free private enterprise."
Here's a sample excerpt from one of the early entries in this blog three years ago, representative of the dozens of op ed columns and blog entries since:
What they [governments] spend tends to fall into three categories (with subsets):
(1) clear government functions (e.g., the military and and public schools, libraries and parks) primarily performed by government employees; (2) outsourcing related governmental functions to private contractors, performed by employees of for-profit firms (e.g., defense contractors and road building firms); and (3) simple transfers of public tax revenues to for-profit firms (and individuals).
The latter is problematical for a number of reasons.
(a) Ideologically, how does it square with "capitalism," "free private enterprise," etc.? (b) With one-third of the 800,000 new start-up firms each year out of business four years later, these aren't very good odds for our tax dollars -- especially given that the recipients we choose to enrich are those who couldn't convince investors, venture capitalists or bankers to pick up the tab. (c) The data is somewhere between fuzzy and totally non-persuasive that the public receives anything like fair value for its money. (d) How can we possibly know that a grant of public funds (or tax forgiveness) is actually tipping the scales and making a difference in any given business decision? How do we know the recipient wouldn't have gone ahead anyway with the investment, or that the decisive factors in the decision involved matters other than how much public money they could worm out of the state (e.g., quality of the work force, schools, outdoor recreation, crime control, water supply, transportation networks)? (e) How do we justify providing cash to one business person while denying it to his or her competitors? (f) And isn't a system like this just asking for something between good-old-boy-ism and outright bribery in terms of how the goodies are distributed?
For a Des Moines Register op ed column from three months earlier that expanded on this theme, complete with supporting sources in footnotes in this online version, see Nicholas Johnson, Values Fund May Not Be So Valuable for Taxpayers,"Des Moines Register, April 13, 2006.
The practice of transferring the taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit corporations becomes especially insidious when it involves "tax credits." "Transparency" or not, it becomes somewhere between very, very difficult and impossible for the public or media to track just who is getting how much from where and for what when the funds transfer takes the form of reduced taxes.
It would be no more consistent with the desirable separation of socialism from capitalism, but at least everyone would know what's going on, if the published tax rates applied to every individual and business, and the subsidies took the form of appropriations, cash transfers, above the table, to identified beneficiaries in itemized amounts.
The Iowa City Press-Citizen has long been a champion of open government, public meetings, public records, and transparency, and I admire them for that. Indeed, it is the absence of transparency in some of Iowa's tax credit programs that is the focus of the paper's editorial on the abuses in Iowa's efforts to encourage the making of movies here. Editorial, "Public Has a Right to Know About Tax Credits,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 29, 2009.
I just think the problem of taxpayer grants to for-profit ventures is much bigger, and more destructive of the state's economy, than some tax credits to a movie company. They are just a tiny sub-set of what needs fixing.
State Support of the Arts
In a recent five-part series on the relocation of the University of Iowa's Hancher Auditorium I addressed "Hancher and the University's Academic Mission," a sub-heading in Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part IV," September 17, 2009. Is it consistent with the mission of an academic institution to provide what amounts to public entertainment events -- such as collegiate football, and Broadway shows on tour?
Similar questions need be asked about the use of taxpayers' money to support the arts generally, especially for-profit artistic ventures. But similar answers are also available.
1. "Everybody's doing it." Normally I don't find this a very persuasive argument for transferring my money, against my will, to for profit corporations. But the fact is that most states do exactly what Iowa does for the movie industry. Our 50% may be a little on the generous side compared with their 25% to 30%, but that's kind of a detail. And then there's always the line, "If we don't attract them to Iowa some other state will just attract them elsewhere."
2. "Why not the movie business." Another argument might be that, as long as we're giving away taxpayers' money to for-profit enterprises, why have a bias against the movie business. Clearly my arguments have not been persuasive to those legislators who want to continue favoring some businesses over others in the distribution of my money. That being the case, they might as well include movie makers.
3. "State public relations." Movies made in Iowa, like any other product or service in Iowa, involves local purchases, and employment, benefiting Iowa's economy. But that's the least of their potential benefit to the state. Whether made in Iowa, or merely about Iowa, a film a positive presentation of our state in film or television, or merely a reminder to the public that we exist, can have a positive impact in attracting businesses, professionals, students, and tourists. We can't buy that kind of publicity with print or Internet ads, state magazines and maps, even if we had the money to try. Amazon has a Web page called, "Iowa Connections -- Movies Made in and/or Featuring Iowa" that lists some 20 feature films. And its list doesn't even include "State Fair," "The Music Man," "Cold Turkey" -- a Norman Lear film that paid Iowans in 1969, rather than asking for handouts, as John Carlson reminds us [Photo/poster credit: Des Moines Register] -- or make any mention of the role of Riverside, Iowa, in "Star Trek" or the mention "West Wing" made of Iowa City's Hamburg Inn # 2 (or, alas, Senator Grassley's offer of $50 million of our money for his friends' indoor rain forest).
4. "Legitimate state expenditure." Even if movies were not one of the best public relations bargains going, government support of the arts is more in the tradition of legitimate state expenditures, including those for public schools, parks, libraries and museums. Historically it was kings, and the very wealthiest, who thought it important to support the arts with what was then the equivalent of tax money. Many school boards think it is quite appropriate to provide budgets for student instruction, and extra curricular activities, in the graphic or visual arts, theater, choral groups, dance, bands and orchestras. The state of Iowa is about to invest something on the order of $300 million in the replacement of the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp buildings. Many cities use public money to build local auditoriums and venues. Congress, which seemingly can agree on little else, has over the years agreed to the wisdom of federal support of the arts through such agencies as the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities (now headed by our own Jim Leach), and Corporation for Public Broadcasting, among others.
5. "The Creative Community and Economic Growth." Richard Florida and others make a persuasive case that emphasizing creative communities, with the amenities creative professionals are looking for, can do more for economic growth than handing out taxpayers' money to conventional businesses -- businesses that might have come there anyway, or that came only because of the subsidy and will leave as soon as some other community offers them more.
Have you ever stayed to watch all the credits roll after the movie? It's a listing of an incredible number of professions and skills, most of which we've never before heard of and remain something of a mystery as to what they might involve, and often hundreds of people. When a movie is made in Iowa, a number of those jobs come here -- not just the jobs for a few lucky actors and dozens of paid or unpaid "extras." But again, the greatest significance for our state is not that movie making is some great employment program. It is that it enables us to nurture more of the creative class here in Iowa on a permanent basis, and attract those from the creative class in Los Angeles, New York, and elsewhere that come here for the duration of the project.
That's not to say the state's program for subsidizing the movie industry shouldn't be subjected to the same analysis as any other subsidy program. [Jennifer Jacobs, "Gronstal: I may regret creating film incentives program,"Des Moines Register, October 2, 2009 (“'If it’s all just a great big give-away with no long-term job creation or economic growth in this state or people having full-time employment, then this isn’t a very good deal for the state of Iowa,'” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs").] But it is to say that it may well be able to make a case for taxpayer assistance that other businesses cannot. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Visionary. Bold. Spectacular. . . . We don't enjoy the prospect of giving up on this idea [that] represented the type of forward thinking that the Vision Iowa Program was intended to generate . . . a world-class attraction that would provide a big economic boost to the state . . .. [Notwithstanding the reduction from a $350- to a $140-million project it is] still a grandiose endeavor. . . . [T]he [Senator Grassley $50-million earmark] grant was rescinded in December when the developers missed a deadline to provide matching support. . . . Earthpark's demise in Iowa . . . should be lamented. . . . We'll likely never know if it could have worked here. At the least, we hope . . . entrepreneurial Iowans won't be discouraged about dreaming and putting big ideas on the table again."
Where does one begin with this kind of boosterism, cheer leading "analysis"?
Before I start on that, there's a related matter worthy of comment.
Earthpark's online listing of its board of directors includes "Joe Hladky/Gazette Communications," now identified on The Gazette's editorial page as "Chairman of the Board" of Gazette Communications (having formerly been President and Chief Executive Officer).
To the best of my knowledge this association has never been revealed over the course of the last ten years in any article or editorial praising Earthpark.
Don't get me wrong; I had tremendous regard for this locally-owned newspaper-television media company as an FCC commissioner, and I still do. The civic leadership it offers eastern Iowa in general, and Cedar Rapids in particular, is remarkable -- as is its news coverage, especially for a paper with a subscription base of its size. It's been innovative technologically, as with its online version. KCRG-TV is my TV station of choice, and our family has long subscribed to the hard copy version of The Gazette. Obviously, much-to-all of this can fairly be credited to Mr. Hladky, the other executives, and editors.
But I do think an undisclosed association of a newspaper executive as a board member of a local project being reported on, and editorialized about, is at least mildly troublesome.
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. — Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. — [S]hun . . . service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity. — Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
I'm not going to pass judgment on whether what was done was technically "unethical." I'll leave that to The Gazette's ombudsperson, journalism professors, professionals, and others. Though I rather suspect the paper would not permit a reporter to cover a story about a controversial proposal of an organization while simultaneously serving as a board member of that very organization.
Much of what I've questioned about Earthpark's first ten years is illustrated in the editorial.
* The issue here is not whether something is "visionary. Bold. Spectacular" and "forward thinking." It's not about the desirability of encouraging "entrepreneurial Iowans" to dream and put "big ideas on the table." Of course we need "visionary" ideas -- at least those that can pass "the laugh test" (which the rain forest failed).
* The issue involves the next step: the evaluation of those ideas; are they economically, technologically, environmentally and politically feasible? Is there local support -- for the idea, and the provision of the necessary money? Is that money in hand to complete the project? Is there a clear focus of purpose? Is there a business plan, and if so is it realistic in its projections of a cash flow sufficient to keep the project in operation? Not only did the rain forest fail these tests as well, the cheer leaders and editorial writers (including this morning's) failed to even acknowledge that such issues were relevant. It was sort of, "Damn the torpedoes; it's visionary; full steam ahead; let's do it."
* To say that "the developers missed a deadline" is misleading at best; it sort of suggests that of course they had the $50 million match in the bank, but somehow overlooked filing some paperwork on time. More accurate would be to acknowledge that the developers were unable to find a single Iowan, or Iowa community, willing to contribute a single dime to this project over the course of ten years' of vigorous fund raising efforts (beyond the seed money from the guy with the idea, Ted Townsend).
* Similarly, to characterize this scaled back proposal as "still a grandiose endeavor" is also misleading. It fails to acknowledge that the project's own consultants advised the board that it would need to create "the world's largest" -- requiring about a $350-million structure -- to have a prayer of making a go of it. A $140-million indoor rain forest is virtually doomed to financial failure and is scarcely a "grandiose endeavor."
* Finally, there's the matter of the use of taxpayers' money. If an entertainment/educational venue can't make a go of it with marketplace forces, if owners, investors, venture capitalists and banks' loan officers aren't willing to put money into it, why should taxpayers? But I won't go on about that.
Boosterism and "vision" have their place. So do realism, analysis, detailed business plans, and a close watch over taxpayers' money. The mainstream media and public officials do no one a favor when they concentrate exclusively on the former while ridiculing those who insist on going through the latter.
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.
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.
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.
What took 10 years for a handful of dedicated Iowans -- and then was never completed -- the Australians have accomplished in 24 hours: a rain forest inside, of all places, the Sydney Opera House. I've been there. It's one of the world's great architectural accomplishments -- as well as a great music hall -- and I've got to admit it just would never have occurred to me to take out all the seats and replace them with 1000 trees.
I guess I just don't have the very well developed creative artistic ability to come up with something like that.
French artist Pierre Huyghe having created this work of art in 24 hours, scheduled it for no more than a 24-hour showing. So, sorry, you've already missed it.
Maybe that's what we should have gone for. A 24-hour rain forest. Oh, well, I guess the Aussies beat us to it again. Now we're going to have to settle for "The Stories Project."
Today's Items Relating to Subjects Followed by This Blog
Obama Campaign Barry Massey, "Gov. Richardson Endorsing Obama," Associated Press/Washington Post, March 21, 2008, 6:37 a.m. ("New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.").
Score One for President Mason. Look, I don't know what the arguments were pro and con, it may not be the most important issue confronting the University, and I don't even know if it was actually President Sally Mason's idea or something a staffer came up with. But carving out ambulatory medical services from Carver strikes me, intuitively, as a bit of creative analytical thinking worthy of notice and positive comment. Kathryn Fiegen, "Mason: Ambulatory services at UIHC could move; Would help alleviate traffic near hospital,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A1.
Again, on this next story, I don't know the details, but having played a major role as an FCC commissioner in getting the anti-smoking spots on television, and as a former co-director of Iowa's Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, I was of course interested in this morning's story about the selection of Jim Merchant's replacement as dean of the College of Public Health: Susan J. Curry from the University of Illinois. From all initial descriptions, it looks like a good choice. Diane Heldt, "Healthy Outlook; Illinois-Chicago Educator to Lead Public Health College," The Gazette, March 21, 2008, p. B1.
Public Finance: Murals, Earmarks and Giveaways
Murals. Former Iowa City City Counselor, Bob Elliott, had a little serious fun with his former colleagues in an op ed column this morning. There are all too many examples in public finance (as well as corporate and personal finance) of solutions, or opportunities, that require less money while producing greater benefits. Finding them is a wonderful intellectual challenge that can produces great financial rewards. It seems the City is offering an outfit in Arizona $65,000 to paint a mural on the wall of an indoor swimming pool. Elliot questions whether a mural is an essential element for swimming, but if it is why it wouldn't be both more desirable -- and far cheaper -- to have it done by local artists, including UI and high school students. (There is precedent in the mural done by our alternative high school students under the direction of Hani Elkadi.) Bob Elliott, "Look Locally for Rec Center Art,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A11.
Earmarks. Eliminating earmarks and special interest funding of our Representatives and Senators are among the top priorities of virtually all public interest reformers. Having replaced Congressman Jim Leach with former Cornell College professor Dave Loebsack, we now have a representative who votes with the Congressional Democrats -- but who also takes PAC and lobbyist money, and in this morning's Press-Citizen is defending earmarks. Pamela Brogan, "Loebsack defends earmarks; Says they should go to education, public safety,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A3.
They are unfunded. They enable office holders, at no cost to themselves, to appear to be servicing their district or state by funding special projects, that we're paying for by borrowing from the Chinese today and leaving to our great-grandchildren to pay back tomorrow.
They are not properly vetted. There's a reason Congress creates administrative agencies. Gathering data and doing analysis takes time and expertise Congress doesn't have. To let individual officials envision and create earmarks in the dead of night under a rock is not a very rational approach to comparative project evaluation. Senator Grassley's $50 million for an ill-considered indoor rain forest is one example right here at home. The "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska is another.
They are open to the most rampant corruption and paybacks to campaign contributors.
If Congress is to engage in such project-by-project authorization it should be done through the regular process of bills, sub-committee and committee staff consideration, hearings, reports, ultimate floor debate, passage in both houses, and presidential approval.
But Congress shouldn't be mired in such petty details regardless of the process. Most of these earmarks involve relatively minor (in a three-trillion-dollar budget) items more appropriate for consideration by state legislatures, county boards of supervisors, city councils, local businesses and philanthropists. To the extent they do involve local illustrations of what are, in fact, nationwide needs they should become a part of national programs.
It's not necessary to play the earmarks game "because 'everybody's doing it.'" Everybody's not doing it. There are members of the Senate and House who don't play the game; members who are leading the charge against earmarks. Congressman Loebsack simply chooses not to be among them.
Giveaways. Meanwhile, the state giveaways continue unabated -- $155 million-plus to the likes of Hamlet Protein of Denmark, Hormel, and John Deere. Nor is this all for businesses new to Iowa, or new construction. "Federal Mogul" (now there's a name) would like to buy some equipment to make a new Champion spark plug at its "existing spark plug plant in Burlington"! In addition to the direct cash outlays from grateful Iowa taxpayers to the bottom line of these for-profit corporations (from such funds as the "Community Economic Betterment Account" and "High Quality Jobs Creation Program") there are always the hidden benefits the legislature refuses to reveal to the media and public in detail involving taxes the firms are told they won't have to pay, or the costs of infrastructure support they would otherwise have to pay for themselves that is picked up by the taxpayers. David DeWitte, "Wind-Power Factory to Open in Oelwein," The Gazette, March 21, 2008, p. B8; Associated Press, "State Gives $155M to Business Projects," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A9.
As yet one more example of the human penchant for secrecy, the full collection of documents filed by Earthpark with the Chicago Office of the U.S. Department of Energy -- although "public records" all -- has never been made available online (so far as I know) by either Earthpark or the DOE. I was unable to find a link to them from the GazetteOnline page.
However, Brad Franzwa, a concerned citizen to whom we all owe a vote of thanks, has made them available to me, and I have made them available to you here. Be forewarned that this is a 10 MB pdf file, so it may take awhile to download, depending on your connection speed and network traffic.
(Don't you, too, find it a little disgraceful that individual American citizens -- and newspapers such as The Gazette -- need to threaten suit against their government (and the wealthy) to get them to comply with laws they should obey as a matter of course? Whatever the current crop of presidential candidates may mean by their new-found affection for "change," greater governmental openness would hopefully be a part of their definition.)
The full citation for the collection is "Application for Continuation of Existing Grant DE-FG02-04CH11230, Submitted to The United States Department of Energy by Earthpark: A National Center for Science Literacy and the Environment," November 30, 2007, 176 pp.
For a full (perhaps too full :>) !) history and commentary about this project see my "Iowa Child/Environmental Project/Earthpark" Web site -- as well as even more recent blog entries here.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.]
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 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).
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.
