Wellmark Seeks Fraud Protection & Updates

July 25, 2007, 6:00, 7:00 a.m.

Wellmark Lobbies to Prevent Policy Holders' Protection from Fraud

The Register's four-day series on insurance abuses winds down today with another four stories and editorials -- one of which notes that, thanks to lobbying by Wellmark (along with others), Iowa remains the only state in the nation that forbids individual consumers to bring lawsuits under the Consumer Fraud Act. Check the Register's Online edition for all four.

Just in case you needed more persuasion than what's provided in the movie "Sicko" as to why America needs to get the overreaching, health-care-denying, profit-maximizing insurance industry out of health care so we can join the rest of the world with a universal, single-payer system -- well, here it is.

Johnson wouldn't think twice about taking on Zieser's case and others like it if Iowa had what's called a "private right of action."

Iowa doesn't.

It's the only state in the country that doesn't allow individual consumers to hire private attorneys and sue under the Consumer Fraud Act.

. . .

This anomaly in state law affects Iowans in a host of situations - if they believe they have been victimized by a door-to-door salesman, by a roofer who didn't complete the job, or, in the case of the Zieser family, by a long-term-care insurance company.

For seven years, the Iowa Attorney General's Office has proposed legislation to create a private right of action for certain consumer-fraud violations. Then Iowans would have the same legal recourse as residents in every other state. Last legislative session, Senate File 520 looked as if it might finally pass.

It didn't.

One only has to look at the "Lobbyist Declarations" on the legislation to see why. Powerful interests, including health insurer Wellmark Inc., Allied Insurance, Principal Financial Group and the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, registered "against."

Editorial, "Give wronged Iowans more legal punch; Every other state allows individuals to sue for consumer fraud," Des Moines Register, July 25, 2007.

These guys don't even want to take responsibility for the consequences of their own fraudulent practices! And they're willing to pay big money to legislators (not bribes, mind you, these are just "campaign contributions") and lobbyists to see to it that they don't have to. Never mind that in the process they make Iowans the shame, the laughing stock, and the least well protected consumers in the nation.

Hey, it's the great American way. Privatization, the marketplace, profit maximization -- "greed is good" is our mantra. So what's a little fraud along the way? Probably just a "bad apple" -- it's certainly not endemic to the system.

And if we can get our name associated with a prestigious College of Public Health, so much the better.

In other University-related news . . .

Cindy Hadish, "University Hospitals: Botched Discharge Probed; Patient Never Made it Back to Nursing Home," The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B1 ("State inspectors are reviewing procedures at University Hospitals . . .. [Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals] spokesperson David Werning said inspectors were asked to conduct the 'full-blown' survey at the request of the [federal] Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services . . .. A worst-case scenario, both Werning and hospital officials said, would be the hospital losing its Medicare certification.")

Although neither University administrators nor City Council members see enough wrong with the very profitable bar industry in Iowa City -- and its very impressive record of ever-increasing the community's national reputation for college students' binge drinking -- to actually do anything meaningful about it, a UI junior has just won an entrepreneural competition for a profit-making business plan to provide non-alcohol venues. Dave DeWitte, "Bar Alternatives Winner Seeks Financing," The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B8 ("I don't know how many times, sitting in a classroom, I've heard, 'If there was something else, I'd do it. But there's not, so I'm going to the bars.'")

Brian Stewart, "UI Police Gun Issue Comes to Fore Again," The Daily Iowan, July 25, 2007

"Regents Seek to Void Part of Union Contract; Board Claims Portion of Agreement Violates Federal Privacy Act," The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B3 (The union in question is an organization of graduate students, who work as teaching assistants and in other jobs at the University. For the union to function for a group that is so constantly changing in membership it obviously needs information that only the University has regarding graduate students' employment -- names and rates of pay. The union's contract provides that it's entitled to it. Now the Regents and University would like to renege on this provision. I know no more about this case than what's in the story, and I have not researched the law.)

Lisa Rossi, "Study questions universities' bid for 2-year grads; A sizable number of those with degrees from Iowa community colleges are heading out of state for their bachelor's degrees," Des Moines Register, July 25, 2007 ("Iowa community college enrollment has risen sharply in recent years. The Des Moines Register reported that a record 85,715 students were attending the state's 15 community colleges last fall, up 3 percent from the previous year and up 25 percent from five years ago." Bottom line: (1) Iowa's community colleges are a big, and usually under-reported, story -- 85,715 students! They represent a low cost alternative to providing freshman and sophomore education at high cost research universities. (2) A couple out-of-state schools are treating our community college transfers better than are our Regents' universities. For the system to work we have to get more competitive, integrated and accommodating.)

Brian Morelli, "Mason Following Naming Debate," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2007, p. A1 (Morelli quotes Mason as saying she wants "what's best for [the University], the College of Public Health and the donors who are so important to our continued success" (emphasis supplied).)

Bob Elliott, "A Black Eye for UI State of Iowa," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2007, p. A11 ("There are dangers attached to accepting enormous financial contributions from individuals such as Marvin Pomerantz, who may then believe they've earned the right to make suggestions as bizarre as firing a college dean because he embarrassed an insurance company").

Sam Osborne, "Naming Opportunities in the Private Sector," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2007, p. A11 (an exploration of the possibilities of selling off the surface of his grandfather's tombstone for advertising).

Don Van Hulzen, "Some Questions for the University," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2007, p. A11.

Huckabee Stories

Christopher Patton, "Huckabee Touts Health Plan; Former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee Describes His Idea on Preventive Health Care and Tax Reform at a North Liberty Event," The Daily Iowan, July 24, 2007, p. 1 (Patton quotes the Governor as saying, "You can have the best classrooms or teachers, but if kids are sitting there with stomach aches, headaches or toothaches, they can't learn").

Erin Jordan, "Don't mirror national polls, Huckabee urges; The Ames straw poll will lose its value if it becomes too predictable, he says," Des Moines Register, July 24, 2007 (Jordan quotes him as saying, "My time in the church world was the best preparation to later become a governor. There's not a social problem that exists in this country that doesn't have a name and a face").

James Q. Lynch, "Huckabee Encouraged by Commitment of Crowds," The Gazette, July 24, 2007, p. B2

# # #

Wellmark, Rape and Murder

July 17, 2007, 6:10, 6:45, 7:45 a.m.

My Fairness Doctrine column in this morning's Gazette, below

Wellmark Naming; Wellmark Reorganization?; Eastern Michigan
The possibility of future, further negotiations with Wellmark is back in the news. The insurance company -- now under attack from the popular movie "Sicko" (along with the "unhealthy insurance industry" generally and Big Pharma) -- wants to buy the name of, and positive association with, the UI College of Public Health. Initially rejected by the faculty, it now appears to be a possible agenda item after President Sally Mason arrives.

(As Michael said in his email this morning, "once you add up what you pay for out-of-pocket in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, overpriced medicines, and treatments that aren't covered . . . we, as Americans, are paying far more than the Canadians or Brits or French are paying in taxes. We just don't call these things taxes, but that's exactly what they are.")

Brian Morelli, "UI Faculty to Rethink Naming; Will Meet Early in the School Year," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2007, p. A1.

Diane Heldt, "Faculty Shifts on Naming Gift," The Gazette, July 17, 2007, p. A1.

Diane Heldt, "Universities Grapple with Corporate Funding," The Gazette, July 17, 2007, p. A1.

Not waiting for Sally is UI vice president for medical affairs Jean Robillard, who is putting in place a total reorganization of the billion-dollar-hospital and related UI units with himself in charge two weeks before she arrives. The Press-Citizen asks: Why now?

Editorial, "Why the Hurry with Hospital Reorganization?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2007, p. A11.

Brian Morelli, "UI Reorganizes Health System," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2007, p. A1.

Patrick Muller, "Headine Misses Mark on UIHC," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2007, p. A11.

One might also ask, what has been Wellmark's role in this reorganization plan? It is inconceivable that it would not have an interest in the matter. (I earlier reported its involvement in the details of Des Moines hospitals; we've heard what is alleged to have been its role in the departure of Dave Skorton; and we've recently seen its display of petulance and a sense of entitlement regarding the naming of the College of Public Health.) Was it involved? Was there some aspect of the prior organization -- or administrative personnel -- that was not to its liking?

While we're getting answers to the questions posed in the Press-Citizen's editorial we might try to find the answers to some of these questions as well.

Meanwhile, as one president arrives another is fired and departs. The controversy at Eastern Michigan University offers more insight into the vast array of ethical problems confronting President Mason -- and every other president of what was formerly a "public university" -- as America's higher education stumbles down the path to privatization and corporatization.

I earlier blogged at length about the hundreds of examples of ethical dilemmas, and conflicts of interest, that will confront President Sally Mason after her arrival -- in an age in which university presidents, like athletic coaches and deans, must increasingly consider the impact of their decisions on fund raising (including the impact of increases, or decreases, in enrollment on the revenue stream called "tuition"). See Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007, and Nicholas Johnson, "More on 'The Name Game'" in "Name Game & Other Moral Dilemmas," July 4, 2007.

I asked how far the UI should be willing to go in naming buildings, colleges -- indeed the university itself -- for corporations; never knowing at the time we'd soon be confronting such a decision. I also wrote, "How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?" -- never anticipating there would soon be what could be an example of that ethical dilemma at another university.

That may have been precisely the question confronting the recently-fired president of the University of Eastern Michigan. The facts are not totally clear, and it did seem a bit precipitous for the school's board of regents to fire him before he'd even had an opportunity to present his side of the story. But what is alleged is that following what is now apparently conceded to have been a rape and murder of a female student, he and other administrators took the public position, and told the parents, that there had been no foul play.

After all, it does tend to discourage efforts to increase enrollment -- and that tuition revenue stream -- to have it known that parents' daughters risk rape and murder if they choose to attend your university.

Jeff Karoub, "3 E. Mich. Administrators, Including President, Forced Out," Detroit Free Press, July 17, 2007.

And that's why this blog entry is named, "Wellmark, Rape and Murder." The case studies from the University of Iowa and the University of Eastern Michigan are each but sub-sets of a much larger issue: the ethical dilemmas created, and confronting university administrators, as formerly public universities' missions are transformed from (a) promoting students' education and professors' independent research into (b) more formal relationships as the subsidiaries of corporate America and the adoption of its profit-maximizing practices and acceptance of its funding.

Fairness DoctrineNicholas Johnson, "In Media Concentration Age, Fairness Needed More," The Gazette, July 17, 2007, p. A4.

Here is the column as submitted, precisely the 600 words requested, with [bracketed] indications of changes, and additional comments of mine in italics. (Let me make clear that I appreciate The Gazette's willingness to run this response to its attack on the Fairness Doctrine at all, as I also appreciate the little editorial improvements they, or anyone editing any of my writing, provide. But some of the substantive deletions and alterations were such that, in order to clarify what I was trying to say, I thought it useful to present the column as submitted as well as the link to the paper's version.)

Fairness Still NeededThe Gazette has editorially denounced re-introduction of the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” as inappropriate regulation (“Beware of ‘Fair’ in Talk on the Air,” July 10). The paper is nonetheless willing to comply with its spirit by letting this former FCC commissioner say a word on its behalf.

[This entire lead paragraph was deleted. The Gazette substituted the following: "Recent arguments by some political leaders to reintroduce the Federal Communication Commission's Fairness Doctrine are not inappropriate, as some critics claim. As a former FCC commissioner, I offer a word on the doctrine's behalf."

I had used that lead because it involved and illustrated a substantive point, central to the piece, as well as being cute: It's not hard to comply with the Fairness Doctrine, and professional journalists do it as a matter of course -- including those at the Gazette in this instance. The fact that the column was also a response, of sorts, to a Gazette editorial -- and providing a citation to that editorial for the benefit of any interested reader -- also seemed relevant to me.]

When radio was but a toddler in the 1920s broadcasters asked for and received government regulation. They wanted licenses to limit the number of their competitors – and signal interference. Iowa’s Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, held radio conferences that led to the Radio Act of 1927 (later re-enacted as the Communications Act of 1934).

As one 1920s congressman presciently observed, “American thought . . . will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations [and] woe be to those who dare to differ with them.” From these concerns came the “equal opportunity” provisions for political campaigns, and the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine,” ultimately enacted by congress.

Even had there been no industry request, regulation proved to be essential. There are still more people wanting to broadcast than there are frequencies. So station operators aren’t "owners." They’re limited-term licensees with a statutory requirement they serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity." Government involvement in choosing licensees makes their stations a kind of "public forum." As the Supreme Court has said for broadcasters (but not newspapers) the First Amendment requires some provision be made for a range of views. The Fairness Doctrine is one way to do that.

The Fairness Doctrine only required two things professional journalists do anyway: (1) report on controversial issues, and (2) present a range of views. Moreover, controversy builds viewership and increases profits. So what’s the problem? For most broadcasters there wasn’t any.

Procedure was simple. [This sentence was deleted.] Viewers’ serious fairness complaints were forwarded to stations for response. Most were dismissed. Worst “punishment”? Put on additional programming – for which the station picked subjects, formats and spokespersons. No one ever lost a license solely for Fairness Doctrine violations. It wasn’t very intimidating. [This last sentence was deleted.]

No view however outrageous was “censored.” [This sentence was deleted. I thought this point important because critics, including The Gazette in its editorial, argue that the Doctrine has been, and would be, used to "muzzle" or "censor" individuals and views the FCC didn't like. Ironically, not only is this assertion false, but the contrary assertion is true: it is the broadcasters who, according to the Supreme Court, have as a part of their First Amendment right to speak a First Amendment right to censor views they don't like -- limited only, as it once was, by the Fairness Doctrine the Supreme Court approved. ] The Doctrine is not about being “fair.” Neither “balance” nor “equal time” is mentioned. The Supreme Court found it didn’t cause broadcasters to avoid controversy.

The doctrine doesn’t apply to an individual program, like Rush Limbaugh, just licensees. (1) He’s a programmer, not a licensee. (2) Besides, the doctrine doesn’t deal with licensees’ individual programs, only their total, overall programming need comply. The Fairness Doctrine couldn’t touch Rush’s opinions – [let alone cancel his show. -- The Gazette substituted "or his show." Of course, Fairness Doctrine critics argue that the reason advocates want it reinstated is because they want Rush Limbaugh off the air; so I thought reference to the fact the Fairness Doctrine would not enable anyone to "cancel his show" was relevant.]

Are there more information sources today? Yes, but (1) there are far fewer owners, (2) the major networks are still most Americans’ news source, and (3) “the ideas of the marketplace” (advertiser-supported stations) do not make a “marketplace of ideas” or provide much diversity.

[I can express personal views in my blog, and do -- as do millions of others. But 100 times more people will see this column. And millions more will watch a network news program tonight. -- The Gazette deleted this paragraph.]

There are now five or six mega-media firms controlling most of the world’s media. And not just newspapers and television. They also control movies, music, cable, video games and most of the other media in our mediated lives.

Don’t worry, we won’t get a new Fairness Doctrine. Those firms are too politically powerful.

But we should. [There has always been a need for broadcasting’s Fairness Doctrine. But -- This substantive sentence -- albeit my own personal opinion -- was deleted by The Gazette.] with the media concentration in today’s marketplace the need is, if anything, even greater. Without a Fairness Doctrine, as Herbert Hoover and the Congress were wise enough to see 80 years ago, and any observant American can see today, “woe be to us.”
_______________
Former FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and blogs at FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, where his own Fairness Doctrine permits readers' contrary views.

# # #

Sally, We Hardly Knew Ye

June 28, 2007, 7:20 a.m.

Today: Newt Gingrich, 11:30, Quality Inn, 2525 North Dodge, Iowa City. Think I'll go see what the policy wonk (and possible Republican candidate) has to say. He's sounding much more thoughtful and less confrontational these days than he used to.

"Sally, We Hardly Knew Ye"

The link is to the title of my former neighbor Kenny O'Donnell's book about Jack Kennedy, drawn from an Irish song's lyrics, neither of which really has any relation to Sally Mason, aside from the fact that before she ultimately retires she may be able to write her own Profiles in Courage and we're only now "Getting to Know You." (The latter song's lyrics are a little more on point, coming as they do from The King and I and containing the lines in the introduction, "if you become a teacher, By your pupils you'll be taught.")

Why am I leading with this? Because there were two stories yesterday that I really wish we'd had -- either from Search Committee II or the media, and not just for President Mason but for all the candidates -- during Interview Week.

Erin Jordan, "New UI leader's goal is 'helping;' She knows how college students with tight finances feel. As an undergraduate, the new U of I president had to struggle to pay for school," Des Moines Register, June 27, 2007

Diane Heldt, "New UI leader raring to go; Mason doing her homework by calling key people, listening," The Gazette, June 27, 2007, p. A1.

Erin Jordan's piece presents essentially the "story" of Mason's life. It's the kind of stuff of which presidential campaign biographies are made. It kind of reminded me of President Clinton's convention video, "A Man From hope." In fact, I was half way through the story before I realized it was about someone who had already been selected as president of the the University of Iowa rather than someone running for president of the United States. (Speaking of which, Mason says she'll stay at Iowa until she retires. With a bio like that, and if things go well for her, I wouldn't be surprised to see her staying on after that as Iowa's Governor.)

From the beginning of this presidential search process I have expressed frustration and concern regarding how little Search Committee II -- and the media -- provided us by way of this kind of background on the candidates. Bear in mind, I'm not talking about anything "confidential," any invasions of privacy, anything to which a candidate could express legitimate objection to having been revealed. I'm talking about public information -- the kind of information one can find on the Internet, the kind of information Erin Jordan and Diane Heldt had in yesterday's stories.

Such feature stories, backgrounders, and revelations of Internet Web sites would have been a real public service, a legitimate news story, in any case. But on this occasion the Search Committee professed to want public evaluations of the candidates. No one is legally required to ask the public what they think about anything. But when we are asked I think that then imposes on whoever is asking at least some obligation to provide more of the public information in its possession than what, in this instance, a candidate for a job provides in his or her resume (c.v.).

I certainly don't see anything wrong with a feature story about a new UI president -- especially after "UI Held Hostage Day 516." It was quite a wait.

But I can't help but be curious about how it came about. Was it all the reporters' idea, or that of their editor? Was it generated by public relations folks at Iowa or Purdue? A call from Mason herself? Or have the Regents gone ahead and hired their own public relations firm, as they were talking about doing? See Nicholas Johnson, "Regents, Governance, PR Firms, Strategic Planning, Presidential Selection, and June 13" in "UI Held Hostage Day 487 - Governance Regents Number One Priority," May 23, 2007. Not that any one of those routes would be unusual or inappropriate. Just curious.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #

Prez Mason & Now What? - Life Goes On

June 23, 2007, 6:30, 7:30, 10:30 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Some topics for a rainy Saturday morning on a screened-in porch: Press-Citizen's writers offer UI Prez Mason welcomes and advice; executives' pay; how many Iowa City police officers does it take to . . .; now it's back to the lesser responsibilities of picking a president of the United States -- and a City Manager for Iowa City.

I got so carried away with the "Executive Compensation" discussion, below, that this is going to be it for the day -- unless the entire city of Iowa City washes away with this rain, one of the leading presidential candidates drops out, or there is some equally newsworthy event. Those other topics, above, and promised links, will just have to wait.

The Press-Citizen's education beat goes on. Brian Morelli, who has done a great job covering the presidential search, has the paper's education beat. So the topics shift, but his beat goes on. Today he writes about UI students' reactions to Mason Friday (positive), and her fund raising responsibilities (formidable and time consuming).

The op ed page contains pieces by Russell Scott Valentino (a Press-Citizen presidential search blogger, suggesting that Mason will be, to borrow a phrase, "a uniter and not a divider").

Just to make sure, the hundreds of special interests on the campus are not waiting for President Mason's August arrival to let her know how important they are. And, hey, I don't disagree they are important. And I also agree that getting her head around all of them, and then undergoing -- and worse yet, trying to explain to everyone's satisfaction -- the task of budget allocations among them, may be her second toughest assignment after fund raising.

President's Committee on Athletics member John Solow explains the "great integrity" to be found in the athletic program ("me doth think . . ."); Graduate College Dean John Keller explains the value of Iowa's 104 graduate degree programs.

In spite of Duncan Stewart's base in the UI Libraries, he manages to make it all the way to the end of his column before revealing in his "Dear President Mason" open letter that the libraries are "the real heart of campus." Read it. It's a delightful blend of walking and talking tour suggestions, recollections of his own campus experiences, and humor.

Bob Patton, always incisive with his drawings, captures an issue receiving lesser attention. He pictures Mason at her desk, behind which is an absolutely HUGE painting of David Skorton (one of a number of people Duncan suggests Mason should at least talk to). Not only was he administratively, culturally and intellectually multi-faceted and accomplished, energized, and much beloved, a chart in this morning's Press-Citizen reveals he set new, and yet to be equaled, records in fund raising -- from $154, to $178, to $227 million each successive year. (This past year it dropped back significantly.) Clearly President Sally Mason is off to a good start. Equally clearly and inevitably, many will be judging her (whether fairly or unfairly) against the Skorton standard that Patton represents with that portrait in his editorial cartoon.

Executive Compensation. My mother used to tell the story of the boy who couldn't keep in step with the other members of the marching band. The boy's mother, watching the parade from the reviewing stands, observed to the woman sitting next to her, "Look, everybody's out of step but Johnny."

Far be it from me to suggest I'm the only one marching to the drummer. The Governor, the legislature, the Board of Regents, the Search Committee, and leaders of business all say we "need" to pay university presidents these days in the $500,000 to $1 million range. I'll leave it to them to draw the conclusion that our new UI president is worth that much. Regents President Gartner says she is "a steal at that price." OK.

So these comments aren't represented to be "right." They're just some thoughts of mine.

During the 1960s and 1970s, when I was traveling to Japan fairly regularly, I noticed (initially in the shipping and ship building businesses) that the Japanese executives were paying themselves what seemed to be about five times what the crafts people earned. They told me this was not only perfectly adequate, but was an essential part of their corporations' success. Coupled with the corporations' loyalty to workers, the limited disparity in pay communicated a sense of community and teamwork, a way of showing respect to the workers.

(And I'm now remembering there was a Washington law firm in the 1970s where all agreed everyone would receive the same pay -- secretaries and lawyers alike. It was a high quality outfit that ended up making some very significant law. Needless to say, morale was high.)

In the years since, I've watched the disparity in U.S. CEO pay go from 10-to-1, to 42-to-1 (1982), to 107-to-1 (1990), to a peak of 525-to-1 (2001). In education we see it in the packages paid coaches and presidents -- and school superintendents.

Iowa (my home state, where I am living by choice and of which I am mostly proud) seems to be following policies generated by business people and legislators who think it's somehow possible to "create good paying jobs" while simultaneously preventing every effort of workers to organize into the unions that would enable them to get that "good pay" for the jobs they are doing now. Ultimately, trying to produce "economic growth" by holding down the pay of 80 percent of the work force and then handing over these "savings" in labor costs to the wealthiest 2 percent as "profits" can't last forever.

Compare the gaps in pay between the UI's presidents, and its graduate student teaching assistants over time. Or the gaps between school superintendents and associates -- or even starting teachers. Not just the differences in percentage increases, but the actual dollar gaps. It's not a pretty picture.

Why are we playing this game of escalation? Is it really necessary? David Skorton didn't seem to think so.

In an interview last week, he [David Skorton] said that when he was hired, he asked the regents not to increase the pay from what the previous president had made.

"The average salary of the faculty at the University of Iowa is among the lowest when compared to peer institutions. At the time (2003), tuitions were being raised because of budget cuts," he said. "It wouldn't have been right" to accept a higher salary.

"When the median family income in Iowa is around $45,000 and I make over $300,000, it's hard to argue that is not a lot of money. It's very generous."

See Nicholas Johnson, "Pricey Presidents' Added Cost," The Daily Iowan, March 7, 2006, and its accompanying reproduction of the full text of sources. This quotation from Kathy A. Bolten, "The Rising Price of a President" (available from the link, above) continues, "In addition to his salary, Skorton receives an automobile allowance of $7,200, which he puts in a scholarship fund for U of I students."

"It wouldn't have been right to accept a higher salary" in 2003. Was he wrong then? Have times changed so much in four years? Or have our values?

It's as difficult to calculate the total cost of a UI president as it is for the president of the United States. We know the "salary" of $450,000. We know of the $60,000 a year extra for merely staying on the job -- if she stays five years ($300,000). Then there's the $50,000-a-year "bonus" (guaranteed the first year) if she not only stays on the job but actually does the job the Regents think she ought to be doing. But this is only the beginning. I'm assuming the "salary" figure does not include the TIAA-CREF retirement benefits. Let's assume they are 25% of her salary, and that the salary is "only" $450,000 for these purposes. That's at least another $100,000 a year. There's health insurance, and life insurance. Let's assume the University's contribution to those is at least $30-40,000. Don't forget the house. What would rental be worth in Iowa City? Certainly no less than $3000 a month ($36,000; and since it's a requirement of her contract it may well not be taxable income). The University has put millions into that house over the years. And it will continue to; it doesn't have to pay property taxes (there are none on state property) but it will continue to pay for maintenance, utilities, and presumably some staff. The president is given an automobile the University pays for (of unspecified value).

There's another aspect of "compensation" that is even harder to calculate because there is such an interweaving of the "personal" and "business-related" aspects of her job. Conventions, speaking engagements and meetings are often held at lovely resort locations. Contacts with wealthy donors (I used to be in the fund raising business) can be in very pleasant surroundings. It's not necessary to pay out of your own pocket for many meals. I'm not for a moment suggesting any abuse by those who, in effect, set their own travel and other schedules and draft their own job descriptions (as I used to). All I'm saying is that even with the most legitimate business travel there can be at least some brief moments of what most of us would call a "holiday" -- perhaps even grabbing an extra day or two at such a location for some much needed rest (and possibly an additional fund raising visit or two).

Clearly, the costs of offices and staff in Jessup Hall are business related. But, again, there is such an interweaving of the personal with the job that at least some of what supporting staff will be doing are things that, but for her holding the position and having access to them, she would be doing for herself or paying someone else to do.

Moreover, there will certainly be occasions when it will be an appropriate "business expense" for her to be accompanied by her husband to some of these places. He has indicated that he intends to help her with fund raising, among other things. On the other hand, there is also a personal pleasure (at least for me) in sharing such experiences with my wife when possible.

Clearly, her husband is holding a legitimate job with the University, and is as deserving of being paid for it as any other faculty or university employee. At the same time, at the time of appointment Skorton, and one of our candidates, were not married. There was (or would have been) no additional cost to the University for their spouse. But for Sally Mason being hired her husband would not have been -- not because he wouldn't meet our standards (I'm assuming he would) but simply because the two of them wouldn't be in Iowa City. He will be useful to the University, no question. But if they're like other married couples they think in terms of "family income." It is their joint incomes on which they pay taxes and from which they derive daily pleasure. The Masons are a package deal. And thus, under the "but for" test, it is not inappropriate to give at least some weight to what the University is paying him as a part of calculating the cost of getting her.

And she may be able to generate even be more income from corporate board memberships, speaking and writing. I can't know, so I'm not even considering that. (Clearly such "extras" are a significant part of our coaches' salaries -- and again under the "but for" test, most of that kind of income is a result of holding the position, not the person.)

Lest I haven't made it clear, let me repeat that I do not fault the Regents for offering, or President Mason for accepting, a compensation package that puts Iowa third in the Big Ten for presidential pay. No one can say that being in third place makes it way out of line -- and certainly not when compared with corporate CEO pay.

My points:

1. We should think of the total compensation package -- whether measured in terms of the cost to the University or the benefits to President Mason and her family -- as much closer to $1 million a year than the $450,000 "salary" it has been represented to be.

2. I concede that level of compensation is "in line" with what university presidents -- and certainly corporate CEOs -- are being paid these days.

3. But I can't believe there are not individuals of quality and experience who would love to lead an institution like Iowa, are not in it for the money, and would be contented to do so for a salary David Skorton characterized as "quite generous," and that the University of Wisconsin president is now paid ($333,000) for a university system that is not considered too shabby compared with Iowa.

4. Molly Ivins' observation is right. We've entered an age in which we're all coming to accept that "more is better and too much is not enough." These salaries are not a response to the needs of university presidents to be able to afford "more stuff." They have all the stuff they need -- and most of it is provided to them by their institutions for their exclusive use. It's about status, prestige and bragging rights -- for them and their institutions. It's based on an assumption that quality -- even with regard to something as non-commercial as education (or what education used to be) -- can be measured in dollars. It's an "educational system" that undergraduates attend in hopes of getting a higher paying job rather than merely asking customers, "Do you want fries with that?" It is an "educational system" that competes with others over how many start up corporations it has spun off.

5. I don't think I'm just living in the past, or refusing to change President Mason's light bulb. I've spent a lifetime alienating people by pushing for changes -- data driven "best practices" -- that they didn't want to know about, let alone accept. If I were involved in the Regents' "strategic planning" process I'd be asking about even more radical options than Michael Gartner (and President Mason) have posed. There are a lot of things I'd like to change about higher education.

But I do think we've lost something in K-12 as well as higher education as we've bought into our culture's (and, yes, television's) emphasis on hedonistic, materialistic, self-indulgent consumption as the path to happiness and self-worth.

Education used to provide an alternative, a buffer to knowing "the price of everything and the value of nothing." I'm not so sure it does anymore. We need that buffer, that ability to think creatively and critically -- ironically, not only for human happiness and the creation of "social capital," but for the creation of more conventional capital as well.

And I think if we are to bring back a balance in our students' thinking -- challenging their corporate values -- it needs to start at the top, with our university presidents' pay packages. I think we need more who say, with David Skorton, "When the median family income in Iowa is around $45,000 and I make over $300,000, it's hard to argue that is not a lot of money. It's very generous" -- and then create a scholarship fund with their automobile allowance.

In the 1970s there was a young man responsible for more consumer legislation than any United States Senator, much of which still benefits each of us today. He lived a spartan existence. Polls revealed he was the most respected American among college students. The nation's top law graduates rejected lucrative job offers from Wall Street in favor of working for him -- at a small fraction of the salary.

Those days are gone -- hopefully not forever. We can't expect our students to follow the example of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and others who have spent their lives putting service to others above profit to self. But it would at least be nice if our students knew their names, had some notion of what they did, and didn't think them fools for not profiting from their celebrity.

Our students are watching and learning. The problem is that they may be learning more from what we value and reward than from what we say in the classroom.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #