Starting and Ending Wars

Questions We Should Have Asked Before Invading Afghanistan;
There weren’t any good ways to leave Afghanistan, just the least-worst way. And we didn’t pick that one.

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 18, 2021, p. A6
[This is how it first appeared Aug. 17 online; hard copy headline: "Think About the Ending Before the Beginning"]

“If we’d thought a bit of the end of it,” Cole Porter laments in his lyrics to “Just One of Those Things.”

It’s a caution wisely applied in both love and war, as Rita Rudner illustrates in her standup: “Whenever I date a guy, I think, 'Is this the man I want my children to spend their weekends with?'”

Now think Afghanistan.

How will we know if we’re ever “successful”? What are our metrics?

Before, rather than after, going to war the best and brightest of our military have “thought a bit of the end of it.” They have a list of questions, set forth below. Among them are, “What will be our exit strategy?” and “After we leave will the people and their country be better off or worse off?” [Photo source: wikimedia.org, public domain]

Among the other questions are: What’s the problem, or challenge? What’s our goal? Is it sufficiently important, clearly defined and understood? Why will military force contribute to, rather than impede, its accomplishment? What more effective non-military alternatives are there?

What are the benefits and costs, gains and losses, risks and rewards? What will it require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure? How long will it take? Are the American people and their Congress supportive? For how long?

Might we be perceived as just the latest invaders? Can we protect innocent civilians? Is the area governed as a country, or as regions ruled by war lords? Are we picking sides in a civil war? Are we sufficiently informed about the territory and people where we’ll be fighting? Do we know their language, culture, history, tribal, political, and social structure? Will we be the only ones identified by uniforms, unable to distinguish friend from foe? [Photo source: wikimedia.org]

How will we know if we’re ever “successful”? What are our metrics?

As U.S. maritime administrator I had some responsibility for sealift to Vietnam and our MARAD representatives there. Before a trip to Saigon I was asked to report my assessment when I returned.

What was my conclusion, after matching the questions above to my observations in Vietnam? “You can’t play basketball on a football field.”

Or, as the computer in the 1983 movie “War Games” concludes, after comparing its countdown to “Global Thermonuclear War” with an unwinnable game of tic-tac-toe, there are times when “The only winning move is not to play.”


[See 1:42-1:46 (1:30-1:35 on original YouTube trailer) for computer's conclusion. The rest of what's provided here gives the context for that conclusion. This is a clip from a trailer for the film, available to the public on YouTube. If anyone connected to the film War Games objects to this use, promoting the film and thus encouraging people to watch the entire movie, give me a brief email to that effect and this will be taken down. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org]

But we no longer have the luxury of deciding whether to play the game. That was decided by others 20 years ago. As the pottery display sign warns, “break it, you own it.” We own Afghanistan.

Paul Simon sang, “There must be 50 ways to leave your lover.” There weren’t any good ways to leave Afghanistan, just the least-worst way. And we didn’t pick that one.

Now America agonizes, like the hospitalized antivaxxer whose refusal to be vaccinated has him infected with COVID, breathing through a ventilator. He’s changed his mind. He begs to be vaccinated, only to be told, “We’re sorry, but it’s too late now.”

If only “we’d thought a bit of the end of it” in 2001 – and 2021.
______________________
Nicholas Johnson, the author of Columns of Democracy, was U.S. maritime administrator during the Vietnam War. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES Lyrics to “Just One of Those Things.” Cole Porter. https://genius.com/Cole-porter-just-one-of-those-things-lyrics “It was just one of those things/Just one of those crazy flings . . . If we’d thought a bit/Of the end of it/When we started painting the town . . . It was great fun/But it was just one of those things.”

Rita Rudner quote. “Rita Rudner Quote,” citing source as: “As quoted in: Mademoiselle: The Magazine for the Smart Young Woman, Volume 92 (Condé Nast Publications, 1986), p. 174.” https://libquotes.com/rita-rudner/quote/lbe6h0y; also https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rita_rudner_386695

War Games. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/

50 Ways to Leave Your Lover. Paul Simon, “50 Ways to Leave Your Lover,” Genius, https://genius.com/Paul-simon-50-ways-to-leave-your-lover-lyrics

Related (to prior versions of this column; still relevant but not necessary “sources” for this version. (a) When 911 was paid for and carried out by Saudis, why did we attack Afghanistan? (b) Yes, there were terrorists in Afghanistan. But there are well over 100 countries that could, and do, provide safe havens for terrorists. Why make Afghanistan our single major focus? (c) We shouldn't be keeping even 5000 or 10,000 troops in a foreign country. If true, then should we also bring the troops home from the other 150 (give or take) countries where we have even more troops -- Japan 54K, South Korea 26K, Germany 35K, Italy 12K, UK 9K?)

Saudis not Afghanis. Annika Kim Constantino, “U.S. reviews 9/11 documents for possible release after families tell Biden to skip memorial events,”CNBC, Aug. 9, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/09/9/11-attacks-biden-doj-reviews-documents-for-release.html

Terrorists in 134 countries. Global Terrorism Index, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index (last edited Aug. 10, 2021)

100,000 troops in Afghanistan in August 2010. “A timeline of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan since 2001,” AP/Military Times, July 6, 2016, https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/a-timeline-of-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-since-2001/

Troop deployments.

“United States Military Deployments,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments (“The military of the United States is deployed in most countries around the world, with between 150,000 to 200,000 of its active-duty personnel stationed outside the United States and its territories.”)

“US Deployment Facts, How Many US Troops are Overseas?” VetFriends, https://www.vetfriends.com/resources/us_deployments_overseas.cfm (With more than 5000: Japan, Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, Italy, UK)

“Explained: The US military’s global footprint,” TRTWorld, March 15, 2021, https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/explained-the-us-military-s-global-footprint-45029 (“Washington keeps troops numbered around 150,000 to 200,000 abroad across more than 150 countries, according to different sources.” citing DOD data June 30, 2021; Japan 54K, South Korea 26K, Germany 35K, Italy 12K, UK 9K)

# # #

Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job

November 2, 2009, 5:45 a.m.

For Wednesday, November 4, blog entry, see "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime."

Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
This morning's blog entry is a reproduction of an op ed column of mine on school boundary line drawing that appears in this morning's Iowa City Press-Citizen, below.

But first, here are links to entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, among which may be the entries you are looking for:

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD. "School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with links to 11 prior, and related, blog entries).

The UIHC's controversial "contributions from patients" proposal. "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories).

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting. "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries).

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings. "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009.

Positive benefits to brain from Internet searching. "This Blog's Good For Your Brain; Searching the Internet to Find It Even More So," October 26, 2009, 6:00 a.m.

_______________
School Board Has Work to Do
Nicholas Johnson
Guest Opinion

Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20091102/OPINION02/911020313/1020/School-board-has-work-to-do
Asked how he felt after losing the presidency in 1952, Adlai Stevenson quipped, "It hurts too much to laugh, but I'm too old to cry."

Following the tragic farce of our school board's attempt last week to "prioritize its criteria" for school boundaries, apparently this paper's editorial board didn't hurt enough to prevent giving us a laugh Saturday ("Our View: District needs civil dialogue, not clickers" [Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2009]).

I, however, have never been too old to cry, and thought the matter too serious to laugh.

Nor am I too proud not to beg: "Board, please, please reconsider your approach."

Board flexibility

"Local control of schools" means that the board can do virtually anything with our schools not prohibited by federal or state law. It can decide to let some schools sit virtually empty while others are overcrowded.

It can push the disparity between schools' percentages of students in various socio-economic classes up to the limit of the law -- or try to make them more equal than the law requires. They can draw perfect circles around each school as its boundary, or vary them to achieve a variety of goals.

Leadership with metrics

The board simply must, however, go beyond the vague "prioritizing its top criteria," reported in Thursday's Press-Citizen [Josh O'Leary, "Board finalizes priorities; Not all members pleased with process," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2009], and provide metrics. This is the board's, and only the board's, legal, managerial, economic and political responsibility.

Example: Telling a committee of 30 that it should keep in mind the board's "priority of demographic considerations" is equivalent to Congress telling the FCC to regulate broadcasting "in the public interest."

Continuing with the "demographics" example, within the bounds of the law the board can choose from a range of metrics.

It should start by calculating the percentage of "free-and-reduced-lunch" students in the District-wide student population.

It could then say, to state the extremes, that it wants:

• To specify precise percentages to maximize the FRL disparity, within the limits of the law: Some elementaries with a disproportionately high percentage of FRL students, and others disproportionately low (like now).

• To use busing and boundaries to make the FRL percentages equal in all schools.

• To do it so that all schools' FRL percentage disparities are within some fixed percentage points of each other, specifically set by the board (say, 5 percent).

Abdicating leadership

But for the board to delegate its responsibility for boundaries to a committee of unelected citizens in the form of a multiple-variable set of criteria with no algorithm, made up of vague categories with no metrics, is an abdication of its responsibility, a kicking the can down the road, a recipe for chaos and frustration, and an unconscionable imposition on the time, energy, good will and financial resources of 30 dedicated local citizens and the public at large.

Ultimately, these metrics will emerge -- either because they finally have been declared by the board, or because they are evident "de facto" from the numbers that result from what it's done. That being the case, the earlier the board specifies specific numbers for, say, FRL or percentage occupancy of schools, the better.

Obviously, this is not to say that, having done so, the board should be forbidden to ever change its collective mind. Quite the contrary. New data, physical impracticability, political or economic pressures may well call for some rational modifications occasionally.

But at any given point in time, everyone simply must have specific numbers to work with -- numbers not from the administration, a consultant or committees, but from the board.

Having done its job it is then possible, if the board desires, to delegate the task of creating specific, alternative line-drawing possibilities to the superintendent, a consultant or a committee -- but not before.
__________
Former Iowa City School Board member Nicholas Johnson's blog can be found at http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
_______________
* 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
# # #

Board of Regents and School Board's Boundaries

October 29, 2009, 9:15 a.m.

It's Been a Weird Week in Lake Woebegon
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The big news today for many readers of this blog will be whatever comes out of the Board of Regents' meeting in Cedar Falls today regarding budget cuts at the three State universities. Staci Hupp, "Regents, presidents to discuss budget cuts today," Des Moines Register, October 29, 2009; Diane Heldt, "Regents open to large-scale budget cuts," The Gazette, October 29, 2009, p. A1. And see Nicholas Johnson, "TARP Lessons for Iowa's Budget Cutters," October 23, 2009, with links to numerous related blog entries.

With some exceptions, during the school year I've tried to hold the blog entries to Monday, Wednesday and Friday. But this week the Spence break-in revelations, leaked out Tuesday, warranted an immediate report and comment. Nicholas Johnson, "UI Spence Break-in: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27. And now today the Board of Regents' actions will be the story -- but not until this evening (if I can get to it before tomorrow morning). Meanwhile, the Register and Gazette stories, linked above, give some notion of what may be coming.

Meanwhile, we can only plead with our local School Board members to reconsider their approach to the redrawing of elementary school boundaries.

School Board and School Boundaries. I've written enough op ed columns and blog entries about boundaries that a summary statement, plus these links to more, ought to be enough. For some suggestions and analysis of alternative Board approaches see the 11 blog entries linked at the end of "School Board Election: Now Work Begins," Sept. 9, especially "School Boundaries Consultant Folly," Aug. 28, and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3.

1. Substantive results. Obviously, I have my own opinion about the best substantive standards. But those preferences are irrelevant to the point I want to make. I won't even comment about the rather bizarre procedure it, and the consultant, utilized to "poll" Board members rather than voting.

2. School Board flexibility. "Local control of schools" means that the Board can do virtually anything with our schools that is not prohibited by federal or state law. They can decide to let some schools sit virtually empty while others are overcrowded. They can push the disparity between schools with regard to the percentages of students in various socio-economic classes up to the limit of the law -- or try to make them more equal than the law requires. They can draw circles around each school as its boundary, or vary them somewhat to achieve a variety of goals.

3. Board must lead -- and with metrics. The Board simply must, however, go beyond the vague "prioritiz[ing of] its top criteria" reported in this morning's Press-Citizen: Josh O'Leary, "Board finalizes priorities; Not all members pleased with process," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2009, p. A1. This is the Board's legal, managerial, and political responsibility.

For example, telling a committee of 30 that it should keep in mind the Board's "priority" of "demographic considerations" is equivalent to Congress telling the FCC in 1934 that it is to regulate radio (and then television) in "the public interest."

Continuing with the "demographics" example, within the bounds of the law the Board can choose from a range of metrics.

(a) It should start by calculating the percentage of "free-and-reduced-lunch" (FRL) students in the District-wide student population.

(b) It could then say, to state the extremes, that it wants to [1] maximize the disparity, within the limits of the law, resulting in some elementary schools with a disproportionately high percentage of FRL students, and other schools that have a disproportionately low percentage of FRL students (kind of like what we have now), or to [2] draw boundaries and/or bus students so as to make the FRL percentages equal in all schools. [3] Or it could say that all schools' FRL percentages should be within some fixed number of percentage points of each other, say 5% or 10%, or whatever other percentage it wants.

I now express no view as to which of those metrics it should choose.

But for the Board to delegate its responsibility for boundaries to a committee of unelected citizens in the form of a multiple-variable set of criteria with no algorithm, made up of vague categories with no metrics, is an abdication of its responsibility, a kicking the can down the road, a recipe for chaos and frustration, and an unconscionable imposition on the time, energy, good will and financial resources of 30 dedicated local citizens and the public at large.

Ultimately, these metrics will emerge -- either because they have, finally, been declared by the Board, or because they are evident "de facto" from the numbers that have resulted from what they've done. That being the case, the earlier on the Board puts some specific metrics on the table the better off we all will be.

Obviously, this is not to say that, having done so, the Board should be forbidden to ever change its collective mind. Quite the contrary. New data, physical impractibility, political or economic pressures may very well call for some rational modifications in the numbers from time to time.

But at any given point in time, starting now, it is the Board, and only the Board, that should be specifying the specific numbers with regard to the criteria that it, prior Boards, and I, have laid out over the years.

Having done so, it is then possible, if the Board desires, to delegate the task of alternative line-drawing possibilities to the Superintendent, a consultant, or a committee -- but not before.

__________
There has been very little actually done over the last 30 years with regard to meaningful curtailment of alcohol abuse by UI students. There have not even been many proposals that could have a meaningful impact were they to be adopted -- which they seldom if ever are.

This morning's op ed column by Professor Poe (which appeared earlier in the Daily Iowan) is an exception and very much worth reading. It may later call for some commentary on this blog, but not this morning.

Marshall Poe, "Are Drunk Students Kicking Down Your Door?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2009, p. A8.
_______________
* 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
# # #

Mission and Metrics

October 24, 2008, 11:45 a.m.

Of Mission and Metrics:
Iowa Universities Presidents' "Performance Goals"
The presidents of Iowa's Board of Regents and its three universities have announced the "performance goals" for the universities' presidents -- goals that will guide the Regents in evaluating the presidents' annual bonuses for superior performance.

Since I've been advocating this for some years, it's rewarding to see the process started.

But, alas, if I were teaching management instead of law, and these proffered "performance goals" were presented to me by my students as part of a class writing exercise, I fear they would be graded somewhere between a "D" and an "F."

That's OK in one sense; I guess, as the Frenchman explained when asked why he kissed women on the hand, "You have to start somewhere." The effort has begun and I'm grateful for that.

Before explaining the rationale for the low grades, let me candidly acknowledge my limitations. I am not now teaching management, nor have I ever done so. I have a law degree, not an MBA. Most members of the Board of Regents, and many of the universities' administrators, have had much more education, training and day-to-day experience with management and administration than I have. So I cannot, and would not if I could, suggest that my reactions must be accepted because they come from someone with more authority than the authors of these documents.

My reactions must be evaluated on their merits. Either they make sense to you or they don't.

That's not to say I'm totally devoid of experience. As U.S. Maritime Administrator I had responsibility for roughly 100 programs and projects with a couple-billion-dollar impact, thousands of employees, reserve fleet ships, a four-year academic institution (U.S. Merchant Marine Academy), ship building and operating subsidy programs, sea lift to Viet Nam, work with NATO, and so forth. During that time I created the "MARAD Management Information Reporting System" (a description of which was written up and published by the Government Printing Office for the guidance of other government agencies). As a local school board member I studied and led the adoption of the John Carver board-CEO governance model. And occasionally some of the business literature has caught my eye over the years. But all together it's more of a hobby interest these days than the kind of expertise that a College of Business professor, or business executive on the Board of Regents, would bring to bear.

See, e.g., U.S. Department of Commerce Maritime Administration, "The MARAD Management Information Reporting System" (1965); Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice" (2000-2001); John Carver, "Remaking Governance: The creator of 'Policy Governance' challenges school boards to change," American School Board Journal, March 2000, p. 26 (a very useful, summary presentation of the Carver basics for all institutions); Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" April 17, 2007.

So, for what it's worth, from my perspective there are two basic steps to the creation of "performance goals," neither of which would appear to have been applied in this case.

The first is the extraordinarily difficult task of figuring out what the institution -- corporation or university -- is really about. John Carver talks in terms of "ends policies" (developed by boards and executed by CEOs, that, not incidentally, double as the CEO's "job description" and basis for raises and bonuses -- or firing). What's sometimes called a firm's "core competency" is related, as are "mission" statements, or more generally "purposes" or "goals." I used to put it to the school board and superintendent in the form of the question, "How would we know if we'd ever been successful?"

The second is "metrics" -- the creation of a standard capable of precise measurement of the CEO/institution's achievement of its goals/mission/ends policies.

Thinking through the most appropriate expression of mission for any institution, not to mention the metrics for measuring its accomplishment, is very, very tough work.

An example I sometimes use is a mythical non-profit organization (or school board) devoted to reducing teen pregnancy. New board members insist on some measure of the success of their well-intentioned, but not very precisely focused, staff. Two years later the annual report proudly reveals improvements in the number of presentations in schools, condoms and pamphlets distributed, column-inches of newspaper coverage, and drop-in teens who've come by the office. It's well received by the board members -- until one of them notes that the purpose of the organization is not presentations, publications, and publicity; it's the reduction in teen pregnancy. "How can that be measured?" she asks.

Of course, there's all kinds of jargon, and software, that invades this process and may or may not be of help. See, e.g., Wayne W. Eckerson, "See It Coming," February 1, 2006 (Eckerson is the author of Performance Dashboards: Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Your Business (John Wiley & Sons, 2005)); the article is reproduced as Fredericksburg Speakers/The Center for Success, "CEO Goals Implementation Process," undated ("If you don't have a coherent business strategy or haven't translated that strategy into a series of interrelated objectives and metrics, a performance dashboard is going to drive the organization faster, but in the wrong direction.").

Here's an excerpt from a corporate board's agenda item reviewing its CEO's "performance goals."

The current CEO goals were adopted on February 23, 2005 and are attached as Table A. While they cover a lot of topics unfortunately few of the goals are measurable and there are few high level summary goals or outside measures . . ..

A previous Chugach mission statement said:

"Maximize the value customers receive by safely providing competitively priced, reliable energy and services through innovation, leadership and prudent management."

It has been said many times in many forums,

"If it isn't measured, it doesn't get done." [emphasis in original]

In order to monitor our progress in achieving these objectives the BOD, members, and staff need a reporting mechanism that is directly tied to the critical items in the mission statement.

Ray Kreig, "Chugach CEO Goals," prepared as agenda item for August 10, 2005, Chugach Electric Board of Directors Meeting, August 5, 2005.

(As a Procter & Gamble executive and former school board colleague of mine used to express this truism, "You get what you measure.")

Of course, setting CEO performance goals, however essential, is not enough. The CEO must have the capability to, as Larry the Cable Guy puts it, "Get 'er done," as this oft-quoted Fortune article notes:

Of course you have to deliver results, but you're unlikely to do so if you haven't developed performance forecasts for the next eight quarters, not just the usual four. You should have ideas now for changes you may have to make six to eight quarters out. . . .

Every company, even the most successful, has bad news, usually lots of it. If you're not hearing it, are you letting the trouble build? . . .

Effective CEOs use processes to drive decisions, not delay them. They start by focusing on initiatives that are clear, specific, and few, and they don't launch a new one until those in progress are embedded in the company's DNA. . . .

Yes, strategy matters. A good, clear strategy is necessary for success -- but not sufficient for survival. So look again at all those derailed CEOs . . . smart people who worried deeply about a lot of things. They just weren't worrying enough about the right things: execution, decisiveness, follow-through, delivering on commitments.

Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin, "Why CEOs Fail," Fortune Magazine, June 29, 1999, p. 69.

Against this background, let's use as an example UI President Sally Mason's "performance goals." Erin Jordan, "University Presidents' Bonuses Now Linked to Goals," Des Moines Register, October 23, 2008; in this morning's Press-Citizen as Erin Jordan, "Mason's Pay Tied to Performance; President Must Meet Goals to Net $80K," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 24, 2008.

One goal involves new personnel: two vice presidents to replace those she fired, two others (including a new VP for "strategic communications"), and a new head of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (whose term is expiring), and to complete three of the searches by June 30, 2009.

A second involves flood recovery: (1) she will "continue restoration [and] reopening of facilities; [at a] minimum threshold . . . restoring reliabile utility service [from a power plant that sustained $20 million in damage]; and (2) "develop a comprehensive flood mitigation plan" especially "for seven campus buildings."

Third, sexual assaults: (1) "lead UI in developing a new sexual assault policy and investigation process," (2) "continue sexual harassment training for UI employees," with a "minimum threshold [of] (a) putting the sexual assault policy in place and (b) training a portion of faculty, staff and teaching assistants in the next year."

Alcohol, the fourth subject, led to a goal to "form a safety task force focused on reducing alcohol abuse."

Finally, fundraising: "to increase fundraising by the UI Foundation by 5 percent."

There may be more, but that's the full list from this morning's Press-Citizen.

So let's go through them one at a time.

For starters, all of them sound more like a "to-do" list than "goals," but we'll return to that in a minute.

The first, personnel, item at least has a specific deadline: June 30. Though it's not unfair to note that there's no reference to the actual hiring of these replacements, let alone their arrival at Iowa, only the search for them. And eight months seems a generous and easily attainable "goal" for any search. Isn't this a rather routine function, rather than a "goal," a change, or improvement of some sort in the institution's execution of its mission?

The same can be said for the second, the flood recovery effort that is to "continue." There's no offered metric for measuring what is "recovery," how it is to be measured, how much is the targeted goal for the remainder of the academic year, and so forth. As for the "plan," that's not difficult to come up with; the question is whether it's any good. Treasury Secretary Paulson came up with a two-page "plan" for reversing the economic downturn; it ended up being so far off the mark that he and the Congress agreed it needed to be radically changed. What kind of expert/peer review are we going to have of this plan? Is it really something that will reflect the UI president's personal input, or will it, like the Stolar Report, simply be farmed out to a "consultant" -- in which case why should she be paid all or part of an additional $80,000 for doing that?

The new sexual assault policy and investigation process is something the Regents have already asked of the universities and is underway. Some changes have already been put in place. Is coming up with a response to a Regents' command, one that involves and will represent the work product of staff from all three universities, really worthy of being called a "goal" which, if met, entitles a university president to a "bonus"? Moreover, to use "to continue sexual harassment training for UI employees" with a "minimum threshold [of] . . . training a portion of faculty" as the justification for a bonus is to reward the mere "continuation" of a program apparently already underway, without defining its content and change, the metrics for measuring its impact on the actual number and severity of incidents of "sexual harrassment" (presumably its purpose), what level of change would warrant reward, or how large a "portion" of faculty having been trained will meet this "goal."

Alcohol abuse is a serious problem on the UI campus. It is not unrelated to the sexual assault problem mentioned above, as President Mason has herself noted. Yesterday the new Provost, Wallace Loh, firmly spoke out in opposition to alcohol abuse -- certainly better than not speaking to the subject, or coming out in favor of alcohol abuse -- but without, however, proposing anything specific be done about it. But is the creation of "a safety task force focused on reducing alcohol abuse" worthy of financial reward? For starters, we have such a task force now, as I understand it, so any extra cash for this one is kind of a slam dunk. Second, we've kind of always had one for the last 20 years or more. Third, like my "reducing teen pregnancy" example, above, they've never really accomplished much in terms of either measuring or reducing alcohol abuse and its consequences -- aside from spending the grants for the "Stepping Up Project" over the years.

The State of Iowa provides only a small proportion of the University of Iowa's budget. That's sad for a "public" state university initially established to provide essentially free higher education for Iowans. But it's the reality, with the result that one of the major tasks to befall university presidents, including ours, is to raise money. But note how this goal is worded: "to increase fundraising by the UI Foundation." Why should the president -- as distinguished from those who actually did the work that brought about the increased fund raising -- be the one rewarded financially for this accomplishment? It goes on to specify "5 percent." That's commendable and much better than simply "to increase." If a given university president is especially adept at fund raising, and specific gifts and grants can be traced to his or her efforts, some recognition of that might be appropriate. Even in that case, however, should not a "bonus" represent performance above and beyond the expected normal? How much have grants and gifts normally increased from year to year? Would another 5 percent increase be a remarkable accomplishment, or the average expected increase, or even below average?

So even if these "goals" were the most high priority, central, appropriate aspirations for our University, I'm not convinced that they could not be improved with some rethinking and redrafting.

But put those concerns aside. I don't mean to be picky.

The far more fundamental disappointment is what they reflect about the Regents' and presidents' thinking about the purposes, missions, ends policies, and goals of our Regents institutions.

Do these goals reflect why we're here, or the most important things we're trying to accomplish with State higher education for our students and the citizens of Iowa: That we successfully hire replacements for those we peremptorily fire? That we get the water out of flooded buildings, negligently built on flood plains? That we raise more money?

Indeed, in order to raise that money, let alone spend it wisely, don't we first need to know what we're trying to accomplish with the money, and how those expenditures will contribute to the accomplishment of our mission?

What is our mission? (I have some ideas, but I'm not going to extend this by starting that discussion now.) How would we know if we'd ever been successful? What are the metrics by which we might find the answer to that question?

Once we figure that one out, aren't those the bases for coming up with the goals that truly matter, the goals that bring us closer to what we're really all about, the goals when met that might really be a solid reason for providing a bonus and "job well done" to an educational administrator?

# # #