August 10, 2007, 9:00, 11:50 a.m.
President Mason Foreshadows Positions on Guns, Naming
One week on the job and our new president -- who has elsewhere said she'll be listening for three to six months before weighing in on current issues -- is serving breakfast to the media at the president's residence and dropping clues as to her positions.
Guns. Although President Mason said, "I am not a fan of guns," here's what else Erin Jordan heard, and reported:University of Iowa President Sally Mason seems to be leaning toward a recommendation that campus police officers be armed.
"I have not been on a campus before where officers aren't armed," said Mason, who was Purdue University provost before coming to the U of I. "Iowa has had shootings on this campus before, so clearly someone is armed."
. . . "Imagine what he (the shooter) [at Virginia Tech] would have done in the 30 minutes it would have taken them (officers) to go back and get their guns," Mason said.
I don't know how you read that, but it sounds to me like the UI campus police are going to get their wish.
Brian Morelli reported,UI President Sally Mason said she found it "curious" that UI police don't carry guns. "I have not been on a campus where campus police had not been armed. That was curious to me," she said.
(President Mason's use of "curious" is somehow reminiscent of Regents President Michael Gartner's use of "interesting" -- a suggestion of disapproval buried in an opportunity for subsequent disavowal.)
There is, of course, another view. A Register letter writer draws upon his own experience at Iowa State in opposing armed campus police. Aaron Hurd, "Arming Campus Police Counterproductive," Des Moines Register, August 7, 2007 ("In fact, the absence of firearms on campus makes DPS more effective; it forces DPS and the students to become partners in keeping campus safe.").
And I've noted in other blog entries the Kent State massacre and Iowa City's Shaw shooting as examples involving armed police and national guard that are consistent with the statistics involving guns in the home. Apparently guns in the home are 16 times more likely to end up causing injury or death to family members than to hostile intruders. What are we to say regarding the deaths of innocent citizens, or students, shot by armed police? Are they, like the tens of thousands of innocent dead and injured civilians in Iraq, just the price we're willing to pay for our "safety and security"?
I've talked at length with police who have unanimously expressed a desire to be armed. Given their occasional need to deal with not very nice people who are (or who may be) armed (drunk and dangerous) the desire for as much security and protection as possible is easily understandable.
Just remember that the answer to this issue is not a slam dunk. There are few instances where having had armed police would have saved lives. (The fact that Virginia Tech's campus police were armed may make the campus community feel more secure, but it didn't make the victims any less dead.) President Mason is right, "Iowa has had shootings on this campus before, so clearly someone is armed." But my belief (I haven't checked the facts) is that had UI police been armed on that occasion it wouldn't have prevented those deaths, either.
Bottom line: (1) The occasions when having armed campus police could actually save lives during the kinds of shootings campuses and schools have witnessed are rare indeed. (2) There is a very real risk that arming campus police will actually increase the likelihood of campus gun deaths (e.g., deliberate and accidental shootings by the police; guns stolen from police during a scuffle and subsequently fired; an increased felt need by those with criminal intent to carry guns to protect themselves from the campus police). (My belief -- again not recently checked against the facts -- is that gun deaths in Great Britain actually increased after the formerly-unarmed police began carrying guns.)
Corporate naming. On the other hand, Brian Morelli reports President Mason sounded a little more open to those opposing the naming of colleges for corporations:On the Wellmark controversy, Mason said UI should not be soliciting gifts where there is a quid pro quo arrangement and said the issue of corporate naming had not been sufficiently vetted before the issue surfaced.
"UI shouldn't be accepting gifts if there is something more expected other than to be good stewards of the gift," she said.
She said it would not be "a good thing" to establish a name that faculty don't like.
She said much of the fuss stems from the emotional attachment to the name "Wellmark" rather than the real issue -- corporate naming. She said those issues need to be separated and the naming policy should be fully discussed.
This sounds like she's open to a policy prohibiting the naming of colleges (and even buildings) for corporations. I have often argued here that we need to separate out the Wellmark controversy and first address the more general issues: university-corporate ties generally, including the naming of anything, from chairs to the university itself. To what extent are the UI's stakeholders willing to assume a role as a subsidiary corporation to the Fortune 500 -- either as a matter of principle ("it's perfectly OK, what we ought to be doing and want to be doing in this corporate, for-profit 21st Century"), or as a matter of "revenue is needed" and principle be damned.
The Register's report of the chronology regarding the Wellmark naming offers some new insights. As reported last week, Public Health Dean Jim Merchant had praised the gift, and U of I officials had drafted a news release to announce the $15 million gift in June.
"I had to stop them because the foundation board hadn't taken any official action on the gift yet. Thus, you can see why the later outrage from the faculty and the dean ... let alone editorial writers and bloggers ... is really odd," [Wellmark Foundation Executive Director Cliff] Gold wrote.
"The faculty had actually met and approved the gift, was ready to issue a press release, and it had been blessed by the president's office and vetted with the leadership of the regents. Then ... boom!"
"The outrage or change of heart at the college seems to have been caused by the official action taken from the foundation board of directors, which asked that the name be the Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield College of Public Health 'or something similar' (that's what the actual motion that was approved said) while the dean preferred the Wellmark Foundation College of Public Health or just the Wellmark College of Public Health. The issue was never whether the Wellmark corporate name would be on the college."
Gold said foundation and university officials never had a chance to discuss the "or something similar" before the faculty protested.
David Elbert and Lynn Hicks, "Biz Buzz: Wellmark 'perplexed' by U of I name snafu," Des Moines Register, August 7, 2007.
Dean Merchant. Marvin Pomerantz has called for President Mason to fire College of Public Health Dean Jim Merchant. Morelli reports, Mason said deans report to the provost, and she has no intention of firing Merchant. "It is not on my priority list," she said.
If I were Merchant I'd like the "no intention of firing" comment, but wonder about the "priority list." Was that a jocular, understated bit of humor? Hopefully; otherwise it comes across as, "I might get around to it at some point, but it is not one of the most important things I have to focus on right now" -- which doesn't ring with as much "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" as an official under siege might wish for from a university (or United States) president.
Hero Hogan's Replacement. Diane Heldt reports:Mason . . . said she hopes to appoint an interim provost by Sept. 1. . . . A search committee will be appointed and Mason thinks a provost could be named by early spring. The search will be open and include campus involvement, she said."
UIHC Reorganization and the Athletic Program's Ties to Organized Gambling Industry. There may have been no questions about the UIHC reorganization and the UI partnership with the Riverside gambling casino. There may have been questions but no answers. There may have been questions, but with answers "off the record." Or there may have been answers that were simply not reported by the three papers covering the event. But as of this morning we know no more than we knew yesterday about her views on these equally controversial subjects.
Here are the links to the Jordan, Heldt and Morelli stories:
Erin Jordan, "U of I Leader May Support Arming Police," Des Moines Register, August 10, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Mason: Gunless police is 'curious'; Says she'll stay out of BTN/Mediacom dispute," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 10, 2007, p. A3
Diane Heldt, "Calm discourse urged on corporate naming; New UI president says issue deserves thorough discussion," The Gazette, August 10, 2007, p. A1.
# # #
July 31, 2007, 6:00 a.m.
Corporatizing Education & Other U-News Updates
Our new UI President Sally Mason formally starts tomorrow, Wednesday, August 1. As Diane Heldt reports, she won't have to wait long for issues to arrive.
Diane Heldt, "Full Plate Awaits New President; Mason Takes Office Wednesday at UI," The Gazette, July 30, 2007, p. A1
One of the most recent big UI issues in the news has been the Wellmark naming controversy. This morning's papers report on revealing e-mails among UI officials and faculty. Mason has not yet tipped her hand, aside from saying she's following the issue and that it warrants a full and respectful discussion.
Erin Jordan, "U of I dean: Wellmark offer 'small;' He called it 'not acceptable,' but officials almost approved proposed gift," Des Moines Register, July 31, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Offer 'Embarrassingly Small;' Dean Says Wellmark Gift Would Have Undervalued College," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. B1
Brian Morelli, "E-mails Shed Light on Debate; Wellmark in the Name, Amount of Gift Discussed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 31, 2007, p. A1
As I've often written here -- and as these stories, and the Snell column, immediately below, support -- it will be a shame if this is perceived as merely the "Wellmark-UI College of Public Health Naming Issue" when it is so much bigger and can more usefully be addressed in the larger context of the corporatization of higher education generally, and at the UI in particular. Whatever President Mason's focus turns out to be, it won't be long before we'll get a sense from her statements and decisions as to just how much further the "University of Iowa, Inc." is going to slide into the for-profit sector during her tenure.
Joel Snell, "For Some Companies, UI is an Attractive 'Brand,'" The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Barbara Ankenbrand, "Instead of Naming Rights, Wellmark Could Help Poor," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Nancy McHugh, "Wellmark's Missing Chace for True Philanthropy," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Sam Osborne, "Selling Naming Rights Could be Great Idea," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Another issue, which I'm going to do my darnedest to try to keep on the radar, is the partnership between the UI athletic program and the gambling industry. Interim President Fethke -- to the best of my recollection -- indicated that he would announce the UI position with regard to the football program's partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino, which has been a matter of concern to the NCAA. So far as I know, nothing further was ever said. Now it turns out the athletic program is back in bed with the Iowa Lottery, after supposedly "severing ties" (accomplished, one assumes, by arguing that "Gee, it's not us, it's those awful folks at Iowa State; we can't help it if we play them in football"). And what say you, President Mason?
Rod Boshart, "Lottery to Give Away Hawks-Cyclones Tickets," The Gazette, July 30, 2007, p. B7
A couple of other stories, in other than a higher education context, further illustrate the potential hazards along the road to corporatization.
Clark Kauffman, "Agency takes gifts from those it regulates; The Department of Elder Affairs accepts thousands from senior-care companies," Des Moines Register, July 30, 2007
Editorial, "Get to bottom of consultant's sweet deal; Why did state lower bar to award bonus?" Des Moines Register, July 30, 2007 (A consultant, hired to help the State cut costs and become more efficient, was paid substantially in excess of actual savings achieved -- contrary to the consultant's representations -- including bonus payments for its poor performance. Those are legitimate journalistic topics. But my more general question would be, "Why are we hiring a consultant in the first place?" Executives -- whether in the for-profit or non-profit sectors -- are paid the big bucks because of the skills they supposedly bring to the job. What more appropriate, central and essential skill than the ability to master what it is your institution is doing, and then move it in ways that will cut costs while improving outputs?)
Other items include an encouraging report regarding Regents' universities-community college cooperation and coordination. (In this case, a "2 plus 2" program enabling what I've long advocated: that we encourage Iowa's community college system to provide the freshman and sophomore years' education and then ease the students' transition to a junior and senior year at a Regents institution. The advantages to all are obvious.) Brian Morelli has another nice piece about Fethke's tour of duty, and the Register has an editorial regarding open meetings and public records (both State and federal) -- an issue with the UI and its Board of Regents (see, e.g., "Regents Dismissed from Suit," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. B3).
Editorial, "Community College Degrees Pay Off," The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Brian Morelli, "Colleagues Say Fethke Didn't Let Office Stagnate; Interim Leader's 14 Months Full of Action, Controversy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 31, 2007, p. A1
Editorial, "Speed Up Access to Federal Records," Des Moines Register, July 29, 2007 (including sidebar, "In Iowa Shore Up Meetings, Records Laws")
# # #
July 22, 2007, 7:40, 8:00, 9:20 a.m.
Wellmark Naming, Insurance Abuses, Sicko, Grassley on Athletics Tax Abuses, Media
Wellmark Naming
(As always, the Press-Citizen's skilled graphic artist and editorial cartoonist, Bob Patton, is able to tell the story with a few strokes of his pen. This from the July 21 Press Citizen.)
Letters to the editor of Iowa's papers are now rolling in on the Wellmark naming controversy -- virtually all of them ridiculing the proposal and praising those who are resisting selling off the University's integrity.
Even the Register has turned around; having formerly given the College of Public Health faculty a "thistle" for turning down the money this morning it took some tweezers and removed that thistle and stuck it in Pomerantz instead.
Here are the Register's letters to the editor this morning, July 22:
Keith McKinley, "If they start naming colleges after corporations, what's next, the great Wells Fargo State Capitol?"
Paul J. Kaufmann, "Corporate Sponsorships Endanger Credible Research"
Stu Bassman, "No good deed goes unpunished"
Mike Burkart/Maria Houser Conzemius, "Register thistle aimed at U of I a poke in the eye of integrity"
David Brewbaker, "Wellmark could put its $15 million to better use"
Insurance Industry Abuses
The Register is doing a four-day series of stories and opinion pieces about the inadequacies, and outright abuses, from the "health-claim-denying," profit-maximizing insurance industry. Here are some editorial pieces from today (July 22, 2007):
"Help "Iowans resolve insurance headaches; State funds $300K program, with part sales pitch included"
"Questions and Answers About Long-Term-Care Insurance"
Andie Dominick (editorial), "Diagnosis: Dementia But She Was Denied Coverage"
"'It's Not Giving Us the Help We Thought We Would Get'"
"Consumer's guide to long-term-care insurance; ASSURANCE DENIED: Troubles with long-term-care insurance"
(There are more in the Press-Citizen and Gazette.
Sicko
Looked in for awhile on a theater-full of folks watching "Sicko" last night. Based on their reactions, I'd say they clearly "got it." The political question, of course, is whether the sadness and laughter Michael Moore evokes in his audiences will get translated into citizen demand for the health care accorded those who live in civilized countries -- and, if so, whether it can ever be enough to overcome the millions of dollars from big pharma and the insurance industry that is currently dictating our candidates' "health care" proposals.
Grassley on Athletic Programs' Tax Cheats
Senator Grassley (Senate Finance Committee) isn't letting go of his concern regarding the propriety of funding lavish college coaches' salaries and other expenses with wealthy donors' tax deductions. Scott Dochterman, "Give and Take; College Sports Have Come to Depend on Tax-Exempt Donations; Has This Mutually Beneficial Arrangement Spun Out of Control?; Grassley Questions Whether Exemptions, Education Mix," The Gazette, July 22, 2007, p. A1 (also by Docterman, "Change in Tax Status Deemed Unlikely" and "Grassley Aims to Protect Incentives for Giving and Keep Donors Honest," p. A13).
Some numbers:
"Tax exempt donations have helped increase the University of Iowa's athletics department budget by 42 percent" from $43.5 to $61.5 million
It is now self-sustaining, and during the last two years generated a $21 million surplus; Iowa State's athletic budget jumped 31%, from $28 to $36.8 million, including $3 million in state support, hopes are it can add $5.6 million in contributions (since it had to drop swimming and baseball to help pay for a $19.5 million refurbishing of Jack Trice Stadium)
Tax exempt donations help "pay football coach Kirk Ferentz nearly $3 million annually"
Ohio State's athletic budget will exceed $100 million this year
80% of what's paid for a skybox at Kinnick is considered a charitable, tax exempt contribution
NCAA teams brought in and spent $7.8 billion in 2005 -- of which $275 million is corporate sponsorships, and $845 million is "donations and contributions"
T. Boone Pickens gave $165 million to the University of Oklahoma athletic program
Iowa spent $90 million refurbishing the Kinnick Stadium -- and for what? Six games will be played there this year. Most games run about 3-1/2 hours (and include, I'm told, a total of about 7 to 12 minutes of actual action, with multiples of that time devoted to commercials). At 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year, counting 3-1/2 hours a game, that's 21 hours of use out of 8760 hours a year -- 99.76% of the time sitting empty; 24/100ths of 1% of the time being used. (Even with a 40-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year (with two weeks vacation) 2000-hour year it's but 1%.)
Grassley's just asking -- not declaring, just asking -- what does this multi-billion-dollar industry have to do with charitable, tax deductible contributions for "educational purposes"? Good question.
How the Media Failed Us
The media -- at least the responsible sectors thereof -- has been going through a mea culpa recently over how it failed the American people by serving as cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Here are a couple more in this morning's Register.
Rekha Basu, "Writer Calls Out Peers, President," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007 (Helen Thomas)
Richard Doak, "Media's Failure to Challenge Case for War Stains Industry," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007
# # #
July 19, 2007, 6:30, 7:25, 9:30 a.m.
[Below: Third Parties; Wellmark/Pomerantz; UI Grants; Road to Nowhere]
Opposition to Third Parties and Electoral Reforms
The Third Party “Threat”
While the bickering regarding Wellmark's effort to buy a University of Iowa college continues (see links below), the biggest news this morning involves a baby step away from Iowa's reputation as one of the most third-party-hostile states in the nation. Jason Clayworth, "Iowa Voter Registration Forms to Include Third Party Groups," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007. Editorial, "Letting Us Register for Small Parties Good for Democracy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2007, p. A9. The State had to be sued to finally agree to do the decent thing, but at least the case is now behind us.
Professions of support for "democracy" to the contrary notwithstanding, the two major parties have historically opposed voting -- even for their own candidates -- especially by the poor.
True democracy has almost always been resisted by those in power. Most of those said to be the fathers of our democratic system, those who drafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, agreed with John Jay that, “Those who own the country, should run it.”
It is a view still widely held today by those in power.
Recall that at the beginning of our nation women could not vote. African-Americans could not vote. White males who did not own land could not vote. And no one aged 18, 19 or 20 could vote.
When I was going to college in the South in the 1950s voters were taxed. We had to pay to go to the polls. It was called a “poll tax.” Many community and business leaders profited politically and economically by discouraging the poor and working poor from voting.
None of the expansions of the franchise was freely given. Each had to be fought for with grassroots people’s movements – from marching in the streets to, in one case, a civil war. For one description of the price paid by some of the women requesting women's right to vote, see Connie, Schultz, "A Short History Lesson on the Privilege of Voting; And You Think It's a Pain to Vote," Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 19, 2004.
But ultimately these expansions of our democracy were won. We’ve yet to go so far as Australia and other countries to encourage voting by taxing those who don’t vote, but at least we no longer tax those who do.
As a result of this expanding electorate, today’s establishment has to be much more inventive in devising ways of holding on to power, including coming up with innovative ways of discouraging the poor from voting.
There isn’t much one can say in favor of the poll tax except for its almost total absence of hypocrisy. It made clear upon its face that its purpose was to significantly discourage, if not prevent, voting by those for whom the expenditure of a dollar or two was a matter calling for some considerable deliberation. Since poverty was disproportionately the lot of southern African-Americans the racist motives of poll tax enthusiasts was also not hidden from view.
Since the repeal of the poll tax, “those who own the country,” to quote John Jay once again, have become somewhat less honest in their efforts to limit the franchise to themselves. They simply oppose any and all proposals that might make it easier for the poor and working class to register and vote: leaving the polls open for 24 hours, in fact any effort to extend the hours for voting; a guaranteed right of leave with pay for purposes of voting, or declaring election day a national holiday; making it possible for any citizen to register new voters and help them to vote absentee; more clerks for shorter voter registration lines; early voting at satellite polls in supermarkets and malls; and registration where drivers licenses are issued (“motor voting”).
Discouraging voters from participating in the affairs of the two major parties is one thing. But it is the prevention of the rise of third parties that is an even more serious matter.
As the 19th Century New York City political Boss William Tweed is credited with having said, “I don’t care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating.”
So long as there are only two political parties those who control those parties’ purse strings can maintain their control of the nation by continuing to do the nominating.
The opposition to third parties by “those who own the country” is understandable. For it is third parties that have brought the American people most of the political and social progress we enjoy today – much of which has come at the expense of the wealthy. That kind of progress was fought at every turn by those controlling the two major parties, often with the aid of local police and national guard in ways that left demonstrators dead, injured and bleeding.
Ultimately one or the other of the two parties would adopt the proposal of a third party as its own, but only at the eleventh hour when its failure to do so would have seriously harmed the party’s political power and influence.
Third parties are a proud tradition in America -- and, ironically, especially in Iowa's early history.
After the Civil War the Democratic Party came to be controlled by big business and the wealthy. It didn't do much for poor farmers. Disenchanted Democrats organized the People's Party.
By 1912 many Republicans were disgusted with big business control of their party. Those dissidents formed the Progressive Party.
James B. Weaver of Iowa was a third party nominee for president in 1892.
It turns out that most of the progress in this country has been opposed by both of the major parties. It has come about only when third parties have pushed the agenda and picked up enough popular support that they could no longer be ignored.
That's how we got regulation of banks and railroads, a progressive income tax, the eight-hour workday, direct popular election of U.S. senators, workers' compensation, and limitations on child labor. Yes, it is third parties we must thank for the women’s right to vote, antitrust controls over the worst of corporate abuses, the minimum wage, the fact that we’re not all working weekends, safety in the workplace, workers’ right to organize and bargain with employers, safe foods and medicines, social security, civil rights – the list goes on. (See, e.g., the outline notes of Professor Donald R. Shaffer, University of Northern Colorado.)
So you can see why “those who own the country,” and today control both major political parties, would want to do all they can to prevent this kind of agitation and progress.
Opposition to Third Party Electoral Reforms
Both parties, and those who fund them, oppose at every turn any and all reforms that would permit more third party participation. The so-called Presidential Debates Commission is in fact an exclusive club for Democrats and Republicans, who have for the most part successfully prevented the American people from ever seeing third party alternatives to their nominees. They even oppose proposals that would eliminate the threat to them of what they persist in calling “spoilers.”
(Both parties, with their sense of entitlement to exclude all others from the political process, have the chutzpah to characterize anyone with the nerve to think they can also run for public office -- without the major parties’ permission -- as a “spoiler.”)
“Fusion,” “proportional representation,” and “instant runoff” are just some of those proposals for electoral reform.
Fusion is a system that permits a third party to endorse, as its candidate, the nominee of another party, usually one of the two major parties. New York has this system. Without it President Reagan would not have beaten Jimmy Carter in New York. Carter, as a Democrat, had more votes than Reagan got as a Republican. So how did Reagan carry the state? The Conservative Party in New York had also nominated Reagan. And the votes of the Conservative Party members, when added to the votes of the Republicans, gave Reagan New York.
(Why would a third party want to do this? Because in some states in order to retain legal status as a “party,” with a right to appear on election ballots, it is necessary to receive a certain number, or percentage, of votes in the last election. (This is what the morning news reports has been changed in Iowa. Of course it took a long-dragged-out lawsuit against the State of Iowa by the ACLU to get it -- little as it is.) By nominating the major party candidate that comes closest to the positions of the third party’s members it can attract more votes for “its” candidate than by nominating an (often unknown) member of their own party.)
Proportional representation can take many forms in this country and around the world. But, as the name suggests, it gets rid of the “winner takes all” system. It insures that some proportion of, say, the members of a legislative body will represent minority parties.
With instant runoff the Democrats would have carried Florida in 2000.
Assume it is true, as diehard Democrats contend, that all of Ralph Nader’s voters would have, but for his candidacy, voted for Al Gore. Under the present system they had to choose. Given only one choice, their choice was Nader. With instant runoff they could have voted for both; Ralph Nader as their first choice, and Al Gore as their second choice. When their first choice didn’t win their Nader votes would have been recalculated, using their second choice votes. Al Gore would have won.
For more on democratic, innovative, alternative voting systems see, e.g., the resources of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
(In fact, Florida exit polls indicated that 25% of Nader’s supporters were Republicans, and 37% said that, but for his being on the ballot they wouldn’t have voted at all. Over 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush, multiples more than the 37,000 Democrats (38% of 97,000 total Nader votes) who voted for Nader. Had the corporate-oriented Democratic Leadership Council and its candidate appealed to, and been able to hold, its own party members Gore would have won in a walk. These numbers square with CNN’s exit polling that Nader’s voters included 2% of those registered as Democrats, 1% of those registered as Republicans, and 6% of those designating themselves as independents. But I don't rely on these numbers for a description of "instant runoff" because taking the Democrats false assertions as fact makes a stronger case for the procedure. Whichever numbers are used, there is simply no rational reason for the Democratic party to fight these third party proposals since, often as not, they would enable the Party to win elections it would otherwise lose. Notwithstanding that reality, it opposes them anyway -- on principle, I guess.)
So what’s a voter to do? One of the things you can do is to work for innovative, more democratic, voting systems that increase the choices of voters, enable third parties, and often as not help the major parties as well.
Iowa has now -- though it had to be sued to do it -- taken one small baby step in that direction. Hopefully, it is but the beginning of a walk across the state to a third-party-friendly, innovative, approach to politics and elections of which all Iowans could be proud.
# # #
"And the beating goes on . . ."
Erin Jordan, "Oust Dean for Rejection of Gift Pomerantz Says," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007.
It's sad.
Marvin Pomerantz, a former President of the Iowa Board of Regents, influential businessman, and exceedingly generous benefactor of the University of Iowa as well as many other Iowa institutions, is continuing to behave in ways that are eroding the good name he has built up over the years.
* He was a major player in the idea of naming the UI College of Public Health the "Blue Cross Blue Shield Wellmark College of Public Health" in exchange for a take-it-or-leave-it purchase price of $15 million. (Naming colleges for corporations is virtually unprecedented at American universities, and certainly at the University of Iowa.)
* The "wink-and-nod" procedure in which he was involved was so lacking in transparency and participation by the College's -- and University's and Regents' and Iowa's -- stakeholders as to produce a lengthy analysis of its impropriety by the Governor's chief lawyer.
* When the College's faculty wished to discuss alternatives -- even some that would have involved including "Wellmark" in the College's name -- Pomerantz (and Wellmark CEO Forsyth) in a revealing display of petulance and sense of entitlement said "our way or the highway" and insisted the "gift" was withdrawn.
* When negotiations seemed to open up the possibility of reconsideration after the arrival of the new UI President, Sally Mason, some 10 days from now on August 1, Pomerantz said the University couldn't have that much time. As Erin Jordan reports this morning, "Pomerantz said the gift offer may expire before the semester begins. 'I don't think it will be out there until the fall,' he said Wednesday." (I believe he earlier insisted it should be resolved before President Mason arrives.)
Now his most recent petulant outburst involves a series of ad hominem attacks on the College's Dean Jim Merchant:
"We need to pay him off and get him out of there," Pomerantz said of Jim Merchant, . . ..
"I think the new president will take care of the dean. He needs to go," Pomerantz said Wednesday.
. . .
"He's saying all kinds of crazy things," Pomerantz said Wednesday "It simply isn't true."
Not only is Pomerantz' behavior unseemly and unbecoming someone of his stature, in this case he's really picked the wrong guy for an ad hominem attack. Erin Jordan's story continues,
Faculty members said his record as dean of the fledgling college speaks for itself.
"In a few short years, he's taken a department in the College of Medicine and made it into a college," said Charles Lynch, a U of I epidemiology professor and director of the State Health Registry of Iowa. "He's gotten full accreditation, and he's increased the number of faculty."
The College of Public Health's faculty, staff and graduate students generated $39.7 million in grants and contracts in the fiscal year that ended June 30, which is about 10 percent of the U of I's total $382.2 million in external funding.
John Finnegan Jr., dean of the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health, said Pomerantz's comments about Merchant are "over the top."
"Mr. Pomerantz can disagree with Dr. Merchant all he wants, but trashing Dean Merchant is just ridiculous," Finnegan said Wednesday.
Merchant "is one of the most respected deans of the 40 schools of public health in this country."
Moreover, I wasn't there but based on my past experiences with Jim Merchant it would be my guess that, ironically, he was probably one of the coolest heads caught in the middle of all this, trying to work out something to Pomerantz' satisfaction.
For Marvin Pomerantz' own sake -- not to mention that of the University -- someone close enough to him to "speak truth to power" should let him know the harm he is doing to himself.
# # #
Meanwhile . . .
Erin Jordan, "Grants to U of I, UNI increase from 2006; The USDA's withdrawal of several grant proposals from bills hurt Iowa State," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007.
# # #
Iowa's "Road to Nowhere"
In an effort to outdo the State of Alaska -- which boasts its "bridge to nowhere" -- the Iowa Transportation Commission has set aside $3 million for an Iowa "road to nowhere" -- namely the indoor rain forest that doesn't exist, in Pella or anywhere else.
So Iowans will be able to drive there, even though "there is no there there" at the nonexistent "Earthpark." (Don't you miss State29? I do. Try to imagine what he would have done with this one.)
Darwin Danielson, "DOT Allocates Money for Roads to 'Earthpark,'" Radio Iowa, July 18, 2007.
# # #
July 16, 2007, 6:15, 6:45, 7:45 a.m.
Updates: Sicko, Wellmark, UIHC, Search, Prisons, Bikes
Sicko
Marcy and Ed Rolene, "Thank You to Dean, Faculty," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 16, 2007, p. A9 ("We drove to Cedar Rapids to see 'Sicko.' It confirmed what many Americans already believe. Health insurance companies look out for their bottom line, not for the health of the public.")
"The health of the public?" "Public health?" Hmmm. Could there be a connection here? Has Wellmark been moved to generosity by a Michael Moore movie? Was "The Wellmark College of Public Health" a preemptive strike, designed to associate "health insurance company" with "public health" in a positive way in the public's mind at the same time "Sicko" is being watched by millions of Americans?
"Sicko" very powerfully documents the role of insurance companies in denying Americans health care under our system -- not to mention their lobbying and campaign contributions designed to deny Americans the kind of health care system enjoyed by citizens of countries who are provided the benefits of universal, single-payer systems. Those countries provide their citizens health care for all, free to the recipient, at a lower cost to the society to cover all than we pay to cover some, with better results in terms of public health generally, including longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than we have.
Anyhow, although the Rolenes had to drive to Cedar Rapids to see the film, Iowa City residents -- living as we do in what the Marcus Theaters considers a little, backwater, rural Iowa town -- will actually be able to give the theater chain our money to see "Sicko" locally this Friday, I'm told.
No health care delivery system is perfect -- not ours, not those of other countries. But I challenge anyone to watch that film with an open mind, from start to finish, and then explain to me why they still think the system we have is on balance better than the systems offered the citizens of the rest of the industerialized world. Elected public officials should be forced to watch "Sicko" -- and then report to the world how much money they've taken from the insurance and big pharma industries.
The Wellmark College of Public Health: "Gift" or Shrewd "Advertising Buy"?
Talk about being defensive! The following sounded more like the wild and crazy ranting of a deranged blogger from inside an insurance company board room than something that would come from an editorial board room: "pointless academic principles," "sudden attack of the ethical heebie-jeebies," "drum roll please," "interesting that the college was OK accepting the corporation's lavish gift, but apparently only as long as the outside world was unaware of the source." (Of course, no one ever said "the outside world" should be "unaware of the source" of the gift. Such gifts are always acknowledged with public announcements -- unless the donor wishes for them to be anonymous. That had nothing to do with the issue, which was the possible adverse consequences of an unprecedented naming of a University of Iowa college for a corporation.) I think the "thistle" should have been awarded to the Register, not the University. "Roses & Thistles: Iowa School of Public Hypocrisy," Des Moines Register, July 15, 2007, p. OP 1.
Press-Citizen's Single-Subject Op Ed Page: "Naming Right Draws Passionate Responses," July 14, 2007, p. A 15
Gregs G. Thomopulos, "No Strings Are Attached to Wellmark's UI Gift" [Thomopulos is a Wellmark board member]
Jim Lewers, "How Much is $15 Million? A Lot, But That Doesn't Matter" [So far as I've been able to discover this column is nowhere available on the Press-Citizen's Web site.]
Letters:
Peter Hansen, "Possible to Sell Out the Entire University"
Garry Kuhl, "Time for Wellmark to Return to Origins"
Kembrew McLeod, "A 'Gift' Should Have No Strings Attached"
Mike Woodhouse, "How Does Wellmark Have All That Cash?"
Wendy Luxenburg, "Faculty Decision Was the Right One"
UI Governance, UIHC, Wellmark, President
Brian Morelli, Dean Says UIHC CEO Role Being Stripped; Documents Show Insiders' Concerns," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2007, p. A1
"Gary Fethke E-Mail to James Merchant" [June 5, 2007], Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2007
"Katen-Bahensky Letter to Gary Fethke" [December 5, 2006], Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2007
I have no idea what this is all about -- except that I imagine, as the captain of the Titanic discovered with regard to icebergs, that there is probably a good deal more below the surface than above.
There are some really tough governance and organizational issues here. So I'm left with general observations based on my administrative and managerial experience.
* When everybody is in charge, nobody's in charge. There's a value to having clean lines of responsibility with as few levels of reporting as possible -- up to and including the near-flat organization.
* There's no magic organizational alternative to good rapport among humans who like and respect each other and "play well with others." As much as one would sometimes like to "get the humans out of the loop," as it was phrased in the 1983 movie, War Games, as that film demonstrated we can't do it all with computers -- or with organization charts.
* The devil is in the details -- not in the organization charts. As Maritime Administrator I made a point of interviewing as many of the thousands of employees as possible about the details of their work days. That's the level at which meaningful "re-organization" -- not to mention improvements in morale -- needs to be done. It's a sub-set of MBWA -- management by walking around. When MARAD later became part of a "reorganization" effort the boxes were moved from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Transportation -- by individuals who had never set foot in the agency. The organizational issues I had earlier spotted and resolved -- or not -- were simply moved from one cabinet department to another without ever being addressed in the process. I have no way of knowing, but I would not be stunned to discover that the UIHC and College of Medicine could benefit from the kind of reorganization effort I put in at MARAD -- before addressing the design of the boxes on their organization charts.
UI Presidential Search
Diane Heldt, "Presidential Search to Cost UI $315,000," The Gazette, July 14, 2007, p. A1
Brian Morelli, "Second President Search Cost Over $81 K," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2007
Prisons for Our Mentally Ill
Jennifer Hemmingsen, "Special Needs Unit Unveiled," The Gazette, July 14, 2007, p. B1
Rachel Gallegos, "Oakdale Unit Meets Prison Health Needs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2007, p. A3
Bicycling
Kathryn Fiegen, "Bike Riders Go the Distance and Eat All Along The B-Eat-en Path; Better Bikes Have Cyclists Traveling for a Bite to Eat," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 15, 2007, p. A1
Rachel Galegos, "'Tour de Brew' Rides Across Eastern Iowa; Official Says Event's Attendance has Doubled Over Every Year Held," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 15, 2007, p. A3
# # #
