July 7, 2007, 7:15, 8:15, 9:30, 10:40, 11:40 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]
Resources for Life Conference Today. You might want to consider attending the Resources for Life Conference, 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., today July 7, Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A. From 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. I'll be speaking and moderating a discussion with those in attendance on what the conference organizer has titled, "Activism: Having a Positive Impact on the World." You can find more details about the conference here.
The way I think about Resources for Life, which primarily exits as a very extensive Web site, is as a non-commercial, non-partisan, non-denominational, free offering of a range of online and other resources dealing with virtually every aspect of living -- as reflected in the links from that opening Web page. It is the production of Gregory Johnson (who works -- and teaches a free course at the Public Library -- as a computer consultant) and is best known in other circles as the president of the Small House Society.
His small house movement has been the subject of features in -- among a great many other media -- the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Australian Broadcasting, Time Magazine, Better Homes and Gardens, National Public Radio, Oprah Winfrey -- and locally in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, and The Gazette, as well as numerous local television stations. He doesn't sell the houses, but will probably be saying something about his house, and approach to simpler living generally, during the conference.
(Full disclosure: Gregory Johnson is my son.)
The Fairness Doctrine Today's a slow enough news day that I can finally turn to State29's request. A week or so ago State29 asked my opinion about what he calls the "unfairness doctrine" of the FCC (State29, "Who Decides What's Fair?" June 27, 2007) ("Considering that Iowa's own Nicholas Johnson was the FCC Commish during part of the Johnson and Nixon years, I'd be interested in reading his current opinion on a possible revival of the Unfairness Doctrine").
I started by Googling "Nicholas Johnson" and "fairness doctrine" just to see what I've written about it over the years. There were 422 hits on things I either didn't know about or had long since forgotten. I only looked at a few before finding what I thought was the best short answer -- though longer than what I'm going to write here this morning. It's contained in Nicholas Johnson, "With Due Regard for the Opinions of Others," California Lawyer, vol. 8, August 1988, pp. 52-55. If State29 is still interested, or there is anyone else reading this who is, I'd suggest starting with that. It's short, and yet pretty thorough.
For the views of U.S. Supreme Court justices in an 8-0 decision invoking an analysis of the issues and law similar to that which I set forth a year earlier, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). It's very readable; take a look at it, you'll see.
Meanwhile, here are some summary points; most are spelled out in that piece.
I believe "with great power goes great responsibility" and that none has greater power in our time than those controlling the mass media. The "great power" I described in Nicholas Johnson, "The Media Barons and the Public Interest: An FCC Commissioner's Warning," The Atlantic, June 1968 (still maintained 40 years later on The Atlantic's Web site, though available only to subscribers) has multiplied many fold since then.
Even if one ignores, or believes no longer applicable, the earlier rational underpinnings of the Fairness Doctrine -- "the public owns the airwaves" (i.e., station "owners" are limited-term licensees, licensed to serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity"); the government's intrusion into the allocation system makes the licensee's station the equivalent of a "public forum" open to all views; the relative shortage of frequencies (there are still more people who would like to broadcast than there are available frequencies) results in a First Amendment requirement that some provision must be made for a range of views -- the requirements of a democratic society, and the moral obligations of those sitting astride a democracy's mass media, still require some equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine requires no more than what a profit-maximizing media owner, or responsible professional journalist, would do anyway. Its requirements are but two: a licensee must make some effort to deal with "controversial issues of local importance" (i.e., it cannot just be "a jukebox with commercials"), and when presenting controversial issues it must make some effort to present a range of views. "Controversy" sells papers and attracts viewers. Presenting a range of views is what creates, or perpetuates, the controversy. It was never much of a problem for responsible broadcasters, and news directors often actually welcomed it as a defense against aggressive sales managers (wanting to preserve advertising revenue by killing stories advertisers wouldn't like).
That the requirements are so minimal is probably a part of the reason that no station ever lost its license solely because of Fairness Doctrine violations. (See California Lawyer article, linked above.)
And what does the Fairness Doctrine prohibit? Essentially nothing.
There are limitations on a broadcaster's speech. They may be subject to a defamation suit. They may violate the copyright laws. They may engage in false and misleading advertising. They may reveal national security secrets. Other agencies and interests may wish to affect broadcasters' speech, but those are not matters for the FCC.
And there are essentially no limitations -- or detailed requirements -- of the Fairness Doctrine. Subject to the non-licensing restrictions mentioned above, a broadcaster can say anything he or she wants; there are no FCC limitations; they can attack others, misrepresent, be outrageously partisan, even be defamatory -- the FCC doesn't care, and the Fairness Doctrine doesn't require anything affecting their speech.
There is no requirement that any given programming be put on the air -- or taken off. There are no requirements as to format. There is not a requirement of "equal time." There is no requirement that each program be balanced; the Fairness Doctrine only addresses the overall programming of the licensee. (To respond to a charge of those opposing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, there are two reasons why Rush Limbaugh would not only not be taken off the air but would not be affected in any way by application of the Fairness Doctrine: (1) he is not a licensee, he is a program supplier, and (2) there is no Fairness Doctrine requirement that his program be balanced.) There is no requirement that a particular contrasting view be aired. The Fairness Doctrine does not trigger a right in any given individual to respond. (The station can use its own personnel if it wishes, or anyone it chooses.)
Essentially the only limitation the Fairness Doctrine did impose was that a licensee could not use the public's airwaves as an unrelieved instrument of propaganda for a single viewpoint while censoring all other views.
Our founders believed a "marketplace of ideas" an essential foundation for a self-governing people. I believe they were right. But as I've often said, "the ideas of the marketplace [i.e., advertising-dependent programming] do not make for a marketplace of ideas." Moreover, the more concentration of control of the mass media we have the greater this problem becomes.
This is only a sampling of things I could say -- and have said -- on the subject. Anyone interested in more please check the links, above.
Wellmark's College Since my prior blog entries here even more have joined the chorus of "What were they thinking?!" regarding UI administrators seriously proposing to rename the UI College of Public Health the "Wellmark Blue Cross-Blue Shield College of Public Health."
Editorial, "Honor People, Not Businesses at UI," The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. A4.
Diane Heldt, "Wellmark naming rejected by faculty; They fear naming college for insurer would affect research," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.
Lenni W. Kangas, "Regents Should Junk Proposal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 6, 2007.
Brenda M. Cruikshank, "Major Ethical Issue in Renaming School," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 7, 2007, p. A13.
State29 now has a follow-up on the subject to his earlier State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007: State29, "Enron Field, Part Deux," July 6, 2007.
On a related topic (though not having to do with naming rights) the Register takes Wellmark to task for a proposal and secret process that is "not how it should work" and "not in the public's best interest." Editorial, "Public still in dark about hospital plans; Building proposals should get state review," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.
And in . . .
. . . Other News One of our boys made it -- deservedly. John Deeth looks good in his raspberry beret on page one of The Gazette. Rod Boshart, "Clogged With Blogs; For Better or for Worse, 1.5 million blogs bring seismic Change to Political Landscape," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.
And, to no one's surprise, The Register has come out flatfooted to acknowledge that it really thinks it would be a cool move to shift taxes from those who own property to those who can't afford it. Editorial, "Vote 'Yes' to this Tax Increase; It's an Investment in Region's Quality of Life," Des Moines Register, July 5, 2007 (there has been a consistent drumbeat of opposition to the Register's stories and opinion supporting this tax shift from wealthy to poor, summed up succinctly in the first comment on the page: "The Register must think its readers are stupid"). And see Jeff Eckhoff, "More than $357,250 was spent on consultants for 'Destiny' project," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.
But by the next day the paper had redeemed itself a bit with an editorial totally consistent with my earlier comments about Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," and much more positive than its headline suggests. Editorial, "Yes, 'Sicko' is Propaganda, but it Shows Need for Reform," Des Moines Register, July 6, 2007;
and, speaking of "Sicko," in response to requests for how someone in Iowa City can see it, a Rapid Response entry reports:
"According to Michael Moore's website www.michaelmoore.com
Cedar Rapids: Now showing
Wehrenberg Galaxy 16 Theatres at 6840 Council Street NE"
# # #
June 29, 2007, 6:15 a.m.
State29 has asked my opinion about what he calls the "unfairness doctrine" of the FCC (State29, "Who Decides What's Fair?" June 27, 2007), repealed by the agency but gaining renewed congressional interest -- and Republican opposition. I'm going to get to that the first slow news day that comes along. Meanwhile, . . .
Will Newt be the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas?
No, I've not been mesmerized by Newt Gingrich. And I don't even want to get into a discussion of the three specific proposals in the "American Solutions" sheet that was handed out. ("First, . . . English must be the language of government" and "every American must have the right to say 'one nation under God' . . .. Second, . . . move government from a fossilized unionized 1965 model [so as to create] space for more tax cuts. Third, . . . we have an obligation . . . to defeat our enemies. . . .")
Here's some of my reaction. If you want a virtual transcript of the event (11:30-1:30, June 28, Quality Inn, Iowa City), as usual see the John Deeth Blog, "Newt Gingrich Live in Iowa City," June 28, 2007.
My own photos of the event are on my Picasa site.
The morning newspapers' coverage includes Rachel Gallegos, "Gingrich Urges Moving Beyond Party Lines in Iowa City Visit," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 29, 2007; James Q. Lynch, "Gingrich Unveils Plan for American Solutions; Ex-House Speaker Urges Bipartisan Effort," The Gazette, June 29, 2007, p. B5; and Christopher Patton, "Newt Touts New Way," The Daily Iowan, June 29, 2007.
Gingrich wasn't going for applause lines and didn't have many. Most of the applause provided by his predominantly Republican audience (the event was organized by the Johnson County Republicans after all) followed the occasional references to keeping immigrants out, winning wars and tax cuts.
And I guess I was wondering why, if you really want to organize a bi-partisan, tri-partisan, or non-partisan movement, you would have meetings organized by a single political party. Why not issue invitations to the leadership of all political parties -- and other related organizations -- in the area where workshops are held? Why not include some of those 511,000 elected public officials he talks about? As it is, American Solutions comes across as what might be interpreted as simply a way to expand the base of the present Republican Party, to attract more supporters of its platforms and proposals. But, hey, I guess you start where you are.
His rhetoric of process is encouraging. There are not "red states" and "blue states," he says, just "red, white and blue states." (I don't think he would have stolen that from Barack Obama, but he has a similar line.) Gingrich says he is involving all the presidential candidates in American Solutions; that these are challenges we need to work on as Americans, not as Democrats and Republicans.
So putting aside the substance that's likely to come out of his effort, and the possible presidential campaign (or Republican Party membership building) that's behind it, I think the model, the proposed process, is something that every American should find at least intriguing -- if not actually something worth their participation.
There were at least five Democrats present. We agreed the Republicans really know how to organize these things. For one thing, they feed you. Broccoli, no less. Healthy food. And they have a staffer to print your name and coordinates, to make sure they are legible on their list and your name tag (so Newt can call you by name).
As I commented to one Democrat, "You know, we talk about feeding the poor, but you have to come to a Republican event to get free food." He responded, "Hey, I'm going to get fed at a Democratic affair tonight actually." He paused a beat, reflected, and then added, "Of course, I have to bring the food. It's a pot luck."
I decided to get into the spirit of the thing and go the whole nine yards. One of the opening highlights of the event was the opportunity to get photographed with The Speaker and entered into the organization's data base. It reminded me of the receiving lines at the White House when President and Mrs. Johnson would patiently shake hands with each guest at a dinner or bill signing. So I said to him, "Mr. Speaker, is this the way we're going to be doing it at the White House?" And he said . . . no, I guess it wouldn't be right of me to reveal that. He probably deserves to pick his own time and place for any announcement.
During his presentation the analysis went somethng like this. There's "the world that works" and "the world that fails." The world that works is, of course, the marketplace. And "the world that fails"? That's right, the government. (And no, I didn't ask him how Haliburton fits into that model.)
As one example of his stories and illustrations, he asks how many people have ever tracked a package on UPS. Most hands go up. (I was tracking two at the time myself.) He points out that UPS and FedEx can track the exact location of millions of packages in real time -- while they are moving.
And then the contrast -- meanwhile, the government can't even locate immigrants who are not in motion. They're sitting still. "How can there be such a gap between the methods and technological applications in the private sector and the government?" he asks. "Should we perhaps just send each immigrant a package?"
He speaks of the need for "metrics" in our schools (what John Carver calls "ends policies," and most folks would call "measurable goals") without mentioning "No Child Left Behind." It kind of reminded me of the question I used to put to my school board colleagues: "How would we know if we'd ever been successful?" So I couldn't disagree with him on that one.
What can we do? We need to take the best of Drucker, Demming and Toyota and apply it to government.
Government needs to offer its "customers" what entrepreneurs have to: more choice, cheaper prices, and greater convenience.
He points out that much more than the presidency is involved. There are, he says, 511,000 elected officials in the United States, counting everyone from school board members to members of Congress. All areas of government can do better, and all need to be involved in his process.
And to make sure they are, he wants to create advisory committees for each unit of government, at least half the members of each to come from professions, businesses or other organizations that are actually applying the most efficient and innovative techniques, models and best practices.
And what all of us, together, should be looking for are, as he's named the organization, "American Solutions." To involve the American people most broadly, American Solution utilizes a Web site and the Internet, workshops, house parties, live and streaming video, and so forth. He's thinking of using the Wikipedia model to create a "SolutionsWiki" to which everyone can enter their suggestions.
Hey, look, after what I wrote about "The Question" that I put to presidential candidates ("Gov. Richardson & 'The Question'"), how can I disagree with that? Speaker Gingrich is actually not just providing a sort of answer to my question, he's actually organizing an effort to demonstrate what that answer might look like. I think the more public involvement the better. It's a variation on creating what Ralph Nader refers to as "the public citizen."
At a minimum, you might want to check out americansolutions.com. And then? You're own your own; assumption of risk.
# # #
[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.]
# # #
June 6, 2007, 7:05 a.m., 8:50 a.m., 1:40 p.m.
UI Presidential Search Saga Continues
Following the University of Iowa presidential search saga? Curious to know just what the hell is going on?
1. Read the June 5 blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Deeply Disappointed But Not Stunned," in "UI Held Hostage Day 500 -- "Whaaa?" June 5, 2007.
2. Even more significant in some ways, read the Comments readers have attached to that blog entry (use the direct link, above, and scroll down to the bottom of the entry). There are 19 comments as of 7:00 a.m. this morning. Some reflect either (a) a prize-winning storyteller's imagination to rival that of a John Grisham, or (b) information from some very knowledgeable inside sources. Why the media has not followed up on some of the allegations these comments contain baffles me. If even half of what is alleged is true, there is more than one Pulitzer Prize embedded there, just waiting to be investigated and written up.
3. Like to have even more background, and know the 500+ day history of this saga? Look for the links provided under the heading, in bold: "[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . . (They will lead you, ultimately, to links to many of the basic documents and news stories.)
4. I'll have a little more to say later in the day, but those are the leads to your basic sources as of now.
_______________
Today's stories include:
Erin Jordan, "U of I Provost Hogan Not a Finalist; Interviews Planned with 5 Contenders for Presidency," Des Moines Register, June 6, 2007.
Brian Morelli, "Regent Interview Sessions to be Open," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 6, 2007, p. 1A.
Ashton Shurson, "Regents to Interview Finalists Next Week," The Daily Iowan, June 6, 2007.
Gregg Hennigan, "Prior Commitments Affected Schedule for UI Interviews," The Gazette, June 6, 2007, p. B3. [During June 6 go to the online newspaper, and use dropdown menu to go to page B3. In future days, use dropdown menu to go to the June 6 issue.]
A Letter to the Editor from Regents President Gartner, with some interesting implications (to be addressed later today) is short enough to reproduce in full:
There is one vote to each regent
Aw, c'mon! Your story says, "Gartner has said" the finalists from the first search for president of the University of Iowa were rejected because they "lacked sufficient health-care experience, which he said would be necessary to oversee University Hospitals." And then you add, "However, many disputed that reason, saying in fact Gartner nixed the search when his preferred candidate, former Syracuse University provost Deborah Freund, did not make the list of finalists."
As you noted, the vote to reject the finalists was 6 to 2, and as you didn't note, all four regents on the Search Committee were among the six "no" votes. As your reporters well know, each regent has one vote; no regent has the power to "nix" anything.
Michael Gartner
president
Iowa state Board of Regents
Michael Gartner, "There is One Vote to Each Regent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 6, 2007.
# # #
Erin Jordan has done sufficient investigation to contribute the most by what of who is, and is not, among the finalists. She reports that, "Purdue University Provost Sally Mason apparently is one of those finalists," and "mentioned in academic circles in connection with the U of I search are Nancy Zimpher, president of the University of Cincinnati, and Larry Penley, president of Colorado State University." By checking with other possible candidates she has managed to exclude "Richard Lariviere, provost at the University of Kansas. Other provosts who said Tuesday they are not U of I candidates are Rodney Erickson of Penn State University; Linda Katehi, University of Illinois; E. Thomas Sullivan, University of Minnesota; and M. Duane Nellis, Kansas State University."
Gregg Hennigan reports on the scheduling. "Regents Executive Director Gary Steinke said . . . three of the nine regents had unbreakable personal commitments on the preferred meeting dates of June 16 and 17, . . . 'And because this is one of the most important decisions that the regents will make, all regents wanted to be, and certainly should be, present during the interviews.'"
So if "the regents’ interviews . . . will begin the afternoon of Tuesday, June 12, and continue through the next day," but "Steinke said the regents will not make any decisions before the on-campus visits are finished and the search committee has submitted its report," and (as Morelli reports) "the committee plans to hand off that report on the morning of June 16," and the Regents can't meet on the 16th or 17th, just when are they going to meet to make their decision?
"He [Steinke] said the regents would meet 'very soon' after the campus visits to discuss candidate qualifications, though he did not know when."
And just when might that be? How much improvement can we expect to find in the Regents' schedules during the, say, two weeks following the interviews next week? For this information we have to turn to Ashton Shurson's story this morning. She reports, "Gary Steinke, the executive director of the regents, said June 12 and 13 are the only consecutive days the regents can meet until the end of July."
Commentary
1. June 13th. I have to take some responsibility for this June 13th interview session. In discussing the Regents' desperate need to focus on a governance model, I noted, among other things, Michael Gartner's unilateral announcement to the Regents that its agenda for the previously scheduled June 13th meeting was to be "strategic planning." I politely reminded the Regents that they had a decision to make before July 1 regarding the next president of the University of Iowa, and that unless they had a lot of other meeting days blocked out during the end of June that they might want to give a little attention to that agenda item as well. 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.
In fairness (to myself), when I wrote that I simply assumed that Search Committee II, knowing of the Regents' scheduled meeting, would have its finalists selected by May 25 -- or June 1 at the latest -- in order that the campus visits (if they were to be held) could be scheduled for this week (June 4-8), the Committee's report could be prepared over the weekend (so as to process campus input), presented to the Regents on Monday, the Regents interviews could be held Tuesday and Wednesday (June 12 and 13 -- as, indeed, they are to be), and the Regents' selection could be known that Wednesday evening after their meeting.
So now I am left with some questions.
2. Why was there not more coordination between Search Committee II and the Regents? Following my May 23 blog entry at 11:55 a.m. suggesting the Regents best give some attention to their schedules, Gary Steinke emailed the Board members at 1:58 p.m. Presumably they answered him relatively promptly. Was that information not immediately shared with Search Committee II? What integration of scheduling was undertaken at that point? Why are we in this unprecedented mess after 500 days of searching for a president?
3. When, precisely, do the Regents plan to make this decision -- for the past six months scheduled to be completed by July 1? Since it is not to be made by the weekend of June 16-17, but it has to be scheduled for sometime, what is the rush about crashing Search Committee II's party next week? What is the necessity for destroying the carefully negotiated procedure? Why not have the Regents interview such candidates as they wish during a day or so prior to whatever meeting they schedule for making the decision?
Consider the discussion in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search: Campus Visits Details," in "UI Held Hostage Day 487 - Search Schedule," June 2, 2007, regarding the candidates' needs not only for pre-visit secrecy but for extremely short visits. I don't buy it, but responsible folks tell me it's true. So let's take it as a given for this discussion.
The candidates' names are going to be known next week. Indeed, with the Regents crashing the party, their names will be known before they arrive on campus, and for a longer period thereafter. But even if the Regents hadn't come next week, all the names would have been known by Thursday night.
My point is, the names will continue to be known -- the candidates and their home institutions will continue to be kept in limbo -- until such time as the Regents make their final choice. That being the case, what conceivable benefit is it to the candidates (aside from the avoidance of one additional trip -- which they had probably assumed was in the cards anyway) that they see the Regents next week rather than at a subsequent, less chaotic interview prior to the Regents' decision?
In other words, in benefit-cost terms, I understand the downside, the cost, the negative impact of the Regents' crashing the party. What I don't understand is the "benefit" of their doing so.
4. "How does this mess things up? Let me count the ways." I have never been a big fan of Search Committee II's approach to secrecy, or its withholding the names until the night before the candidate arrives, or the five times in succession 24-hour campus visits. But the point is, it was an integrated plan. It had been thought through. It served purposes thought by committee members to be important. And it is a plan totally disrupted by the Regents' presence. Candidates whose names would not have been revealed until Wednesday or Thursday night will be known earlier in the week. Those scheduled to participate in small closed meetings with the candidates whose campus visits were scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday -- or who had planned on attending their open, public sessions during the afternoon -- will now need to choose between attending the Regents' interviews of all candidates and what they'd originally intended to do. What will be the impact -- from the standpoint of both the Tuesday and Wednesday candidates and the campus community -- of these conflicts? At a minimum there will be less time for members of the University community to prepare and submit their input.
5. Responsibility and technology. In the nature of things, the kinds of people appointed to the Board of Regents are the kinds of people with very full schedules. In addition to their jobs, it's highly unlikely service on the Regents is the only contribution of their time to community service. It is a job, as I used to describe my service on the local school board, that "may not pay anything, but at least you get a lot of grief." So I am both really grateful for Regents' willingness to service, and I'm somewhat understanding of the pressures they confront.
But . . .
(a) If one is going to take on this additional time consuming burden, I think that carries the responsibility to make the time, to cancel other commitments if necessary, such that one can attend meetings. Especially is this so at the beginning of one's term, and with regard to one of the most significant tasks the job entails. And doubly is this so when this is "UI Held Hostage Day 501." This is not just another boring agenda item. This is the primary, major effort to regain some of the prestige and respect formerly accorded the State of Iowa and its universities. I am disappointed.
(b) Driving across the state is a drag. I don't look forward to driving to Des Moines, and for me it is a straight shot down Interstate 80. And I know it's tough to find dates when 9 busy people can get together. We had a similar problem when President Carter appointed me as a White House Advisor to help put on the White House Conference on Libraries and Information Sciences in 1979. That group of White House Advisors ended up getting a bunch of early portable computers with built-in printers, the TI-765s, and keeping in touch by email. If we could do that 28 years ago members of the Iowa Board of Regents ought to be able to use the much more sophisticated telecommunications technology available to them today. Video conferencing is cheap and easy today. It's widely used in corporate America for interviews, and increasingly in the judicial system for, among other things, depositions. Shy of that, the Regents have used conference calling for meetings before. Sure, it's not as satisfactory as being physically present. But it's a lot more satisfactory than busting up a well planned and scheduled week of campus interviews, or further postponing the selection of a University of Iowa president -- a decision that is already a year overdue.
_______________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
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 contains links to the full text of virtually all known 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.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
# # #
May 3, 2007, 7:30 a.m.
Shhh, It's a Secret
I'd tell you who UI's next president is going to be -- but then I'd have to kill you.*
You see, we have to keep it a secret. Brian Morelli, "Regents Debate Possibility of 'Hybrid' Open Interview Process," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 3, 2007. (And what might a "hybrid open process" be? Talk about "a little bit pregnant"!)
In fact, there's even a rumor going around that the draft contract contains a provision that the new president need not reveal his or her identity, or even come to Iowa City, throughout the first full academic year of their presidency. Apparently early negotiations with Vice President Cheney's office look good for working out a deal whereby the UI president can share Cheney's bunker during that time, emailing decisions back to Iowa City over a secure broadband network, with an Attorney General's ruling from Alberto Gonzales that national security considerations preempt the Iowa public records law, thereby preventing Iowa newspapers from being able to obtain copies.
What a sweet deal, eh? (Of course, I can't confirm this rumor. Terms of the contract are also highly classified.)
There's something that's always troubled me about the UI Presidential Search Committee II's seeming willingness to yield to candidates' demands that their names be kept secret.
I first became a part of the University of Iowa at age two, a guinea pig in the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station at 9 East Market Street. Notwithstanding my years in Washington, D.C., I've never been all that far from universities -- and their administrators. A handful have been among the finest people I've ever known -- a group into which I would place David Skorton.
(Skorton is the former UI president who was run off by lesser mortals, landed rather nicely on his feet at Cornell University at three times the income, thereby marking the beginning of what is, as of today, "UI Held Hostage Day 476." Since his "equal" is simply not to be found, we have had to spend quite a bit of time with our search for second best.)
On the other hand, I have also had experience dealing with educational administrators who have met the definition of "a mouse learning to be a rat."
Among the qualities of those for whom I've had little fondness is secrecy -- a quality that often takes the form of hypocrisy, duplicity, passing the buck, an extraordinary facility at "CYA," stonewalling, lack of loyalty and personal integrity, and blowing with the wind.
The advantages of campus interviews are well known. But abandoning them is not -- at this moment -- my focus.
(Those advantages include the benefits of the "campus community" feeling (however irrationally) that it has actually been included in the process; a positive foundation for individuals' first meetings with the president (rather than on-the-job first meetings that can involve unpleasant decisions); an opportunity for candidates to get a fuller sense of the multi-billion-dollar programs and tens of thousands of people who are "the University of Iowa;" and a chance for other stakeholders to feel included (e.g., legislators and other elected officials, Hawkeye fans, local business people, and the state's journalists).)
No, my focus is not on the loss of those benefits, it is: "Why on earth would you want to have a university president who is so seeped in secrecy as his or her basic method of operations that they won't even reveal their names and come to the campus before being hired?" Isn't that, as they say in Hollywood, "starting off backing up"?
Consider this analogy: A single woman has an adulterous affair with a married man, and ultimately marries him. Should she really be all that surprised when her marriage ends in his next adulterous affair?
If one of our candidates for president is sneaking around at night, refusing to tell colleagues who have a need to know where they are going and whom they are seeing, why do we think they would ever promote the cause of transparency and honesty from Jessup Hall? Especially if we hire them away with a significant raise in pay, why do we think they will not sneak around on us as well, and take the next best even bigger pay package?
Just think about it.
The Gazette has. Here are a couple items from this morning's (May 3) paper, copyright by The Gazette and reproduced here for commentary and educational fair use purposes only.
First, the editorial: Search in public
Is there no end to the secrecy surrounding the hiring of a new University of Iowa president?
After a botched search steeped in secrecy last year, the regents seem bent on keeping the public in the dark again.
Signs of more secrecy surfaced Tuesday when David Johnsen, chairman of the ad-hoc UI presidential search committee, told the Board of Regents that the Iowa Attorney General’s Office was being asked to decide if the committee needs to announce when job semifinalists will be interviewed.
The concern is that if the public knows the committee is meeting with a candidate, somehow the public will deduce who’s being interviewed. Then some top candidates may withdraw from the search for fear their current employers will find out.
Meanwhile, the search committee, apparently with the regents’ blessing, refuses to commit to holding public on-campus interviews for finalists.
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that public boards can make job applications confidential, but it’s good public policy to introduce presidential finalists to the UI faculty and community as a part of the selection process. More especially, it’s required by law that the 13-member search committee give notice of time, date and place of each meeting, as well as a tentative agenda.
The regents and the committee need to abandon this course of secrecy, and keep as much of the search as possible in the public.
The best — and only — advice from the Attorney General’s Office should be to tell the committee to follow the law.
And then there's this from Mike Deupree:Thinking about the continuing vacancy in the president’s office at the University of Iowa, I was struck by a possibility that hasn’t been mentioned, at least as far as I know. What if instead of difficulty finding someone qualified for the job, the problem is finding somebody willing to take it?
This could be a variation on the old Groucho Marx line about not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member. Would you want to be the product of a process that has lasted more than a year, cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars and produced nothing except juvenile squabbling between the Board of Regents and the faculty? It’s like being chosen to serve as hall monitor in a school for kids with ego management problems.
Put this in perspective: In the time it has taken to narrow the field to 30, the state replaced the men’s basketball coaches at all three state universities, the football coach at one of them, the governor and two members of Congress. No wonder the presidential search committee doesn’t want anybody to know how it’s conducting its business. I’d be embarrassed, too.
The search eventually will end, and the new president no doubt will be highly qualified. Let’s just hope the searchers don’t insult our intelligence further by saying he or she was their first choice from the start.
Oh, by the way, that editorial and column are supposed to be secret, too. So don't tell anyone about them. But since my old friend Daniel Ellsberg got away with publishing "The Pentagon Papers" I figured it was worth taking the chance.
And no, of course I don't have the phone number for Cheney's bunker, Silly. It's unlisted.
_______________
* Would you like some serious information about possible names? One of many adverse consequences of this being "UI Held Hostage Day 467" is that during those 467 days a goodly number of possible UI presidents have by now long since accepted positions elsewhere; specifically, Harvard, Indiana, New Mexico, Rochester Institute of Technology and West Virginia. Meawhile, those that know enough about this business to speculate about possible names offer six. For both lists, see Erin Jordan, "Favorites emerging for U of I post?; Experts suggest potential candidates for the presidency of the university," Des Moines Register, April 21, 2007.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
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 contains links to the full text of virtually all known 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.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search,
Nicholas Johnson,
FromDC2Iowa_______________Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
March 23, 9:30 a.m.
Democracy in General and . . .
Anyone who gets caught up in the political process (both in the sense of partisan politics or non-partisan policy issues in general), as I do, tends to focus on the issue at hand rather than the principles and processes that make the activity possible. For some reason, my thoughts for the last couple of days have turned to democracy in general. And today's blog entry will have a lot of examples of our democratic glass being half full. Here's the first:
. . . the UICCU in Particular
The Gazette reports this morning on the UICCU's membership meeting last Wednesday evening, March 21: Dave DeWitte, "Incumbents Win Credit Union Vote," The Gazette, March 23, 2007, p. 7B. But this story -- from my perspective -- is not about what happened October 4 or February 28 regarding members' reaction to "Optiva."
Nor is the story that the incumbents won re-election March 21.
Few if any expected that a credit union member, nominated from the floor for a Board position, at a poorly attended membership meeting, for which there had been no postcard notice to members, no advance notice to members of her nomination, and no access to a membership list for campaigning, could "win." At least as I understood it (my teaching a class that evening precluded my attendance, and I have not talked with the nominated candidate), while no one runs for anything with the desire or intention of losing, one of the primary purposes of nominating her was simply to establish the democratic principle that members should have some alternative in an "election" to simply rubber stamping the Board's closed-meeting nomination of three of its own members for re-election to three positions. There should be a choice. And that point was made, that purpose accomplished.
The story, in short, is about what has happened since February 28. Not only did the Board permit this nomination from the floor, there seems to be an increasing focus generally by the CEO and Board, as well as the membership, on "process," on democratizing what Congress calls credit unions: "democratically operated organizations."
There are now bios of the Board members, with an email address for each, posted on the UICCU Web site. Although there is no easy link to it, the Web site now offers the credit union's bylaws, some annual reports, and minutes from the October 4, 2006, and February 28, 2007, membership meetings. The direct link is: http://www.uiccu.org/asp/services/service_3_2.asp.
The Gazette reports CEO Jeff Disterhoft says "The board has begun exploring steps to make its electoral process more open [including] mail-in ballots [for elections to the board and] to become more proactive in notifying credit union members about their eligibility to be nominated for board positions."
Once the Board, CEO and interested members really get into the swing of this, and put their minds to it in a spirit of creative cooperation, the UICCU could actually become known as one of the nation's preeminent "democratically operated organizations" among credit unions -- in addition to being one of the best run in terms of financial returns to members. Wouldn't that be another feather in our fully-feathered cap of Iowa City brags!
Thinking Back . . .
. . . over the past few months I was kind of stunned to recall the number of times the democratic process played a significant role.
Now don't get me wrong. Democracy is messy. The democratic process can be manipulated. There's lots of apathy. (Recall the poll question: "What's the worst problem in our community, ignorance or apathy?" and the modal answer: "I don't know and I don't care.") Half the eligible voters don't bother to vote even for president. And in a school board, or city council, election that percentage may go as high as 90 or 95 percent.
Winston Churchill is credited with a number of observations about democracy: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." And, "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."
So I would not argue that the results of the democratic process are always the best. But I would share Churchill's view that on average, over time, they will be better than any alternative design for decisions. Moreover, the process can contribute to an individual's self-actualization, and sense of empowerment, and that is humanizing and good for the soul.
I think back to the November election. Not because "the Democrats won" in both Washington and Des Moines -- I have as much problem with the Democrats as I do with the Republicans -- but because it represented a citizen response, involvement, organization, action -- and results.
I think of the Regents' actions a couple of weeks later -- not because of their conduct in general, and the mess they made of the UI presidential search in particular -- but because of what happened next. Every group on campus took the unprecedented action of voting "no confidence" in the Regents. A new search committee was created that has operated with dignity and openness. And the new governor has now appointed four new Regents.
I suddenly realized that the Iowa rainforest project, which I have been writing about for four years or more, has not been heard from for a matter of months. If it fails (it has to raise a $50 million match by the end of this year to get the $50 million from Senator Grassley toward the $200 million it needs and for which it has not raised a dime in 10 years) it will be in no small measure because of the public opinion of Iowans who cared enough to inform themselves about it.
My concern about the UI ties with the gambling industry have been addressed by the UI's Faculty Council and Faculty Senate.
There was the rather unprecedented turnout and vote of the UICCU membership at the February 28 meeting regarding "Optiva" with -- so far as I am aware -- virtually no organized effort, aside from the postcard notice sent to members by the Board.
Yesterday I found myself chatting with some representatives of the carpenters union, standing with a banner on the sidewalk in front of the Pentacrest. I reflected later on this tangible example of one of the forms of free speech that our democracy both requires, and makes possible.
Another fundamental form of democracy's free speech is citizen participation in media -- letters to the editor in our local papers, calling in to radio talk shows, challenging stations' license renewals, creating programs for cable's public access channels, and of course blogging.
Maybe my reflection about the carpenters' banner was because I had just come from a recording studio where I was narrating a half-hour program for Pacifica Radio about the RadioForPeople.org project. This is a coalition of community radio groups trying to bring national attention to what is believed to be a forthcoming FCC opening up of a window for applications for community radio stations. They want to inform interested citizens throughout the country of this opportunity, and encourage them to get ready to apply.
I often keep the radio on around the house, tuned to NPR -- and especially when our local station is rebroadcasting from the world's best news organization, the BBC. So when I got home from work I caught the tag end of an NPR piece about some blog that is promoting citizen journalism. If I got the story right, it is helping to organize 100 or more citizens to divide up, read, and comment on some 3000 Department of Justice documents (perhaps, I don't know, relating to the fired U.S. Attorneys).
Next on my agenda was a local gathering prompted by a national organization, freepress. It's an example of the impact of the Internet on local and national politics and citizen action that was dramatized in the Dean campaign. Freepress sends out the emails, makes the materials available, and before you know it there are gatherings in thousands of living rooms across the country, listening to a live, Internet distributed discussion between Phil Donahue, Robert McChesney and Josh Silver. Following that, a DVD distributed to our host by the organization enabled us to watch presentations from the organization's last national gathering (in Memphis this year) a couple of months ago. (It includes a hilarious interview between the real Helen Thomas and a George W. Bush look-alike and impersonator.) Freepress, around for only four years, pulls as many as 4000 participant activists to its national conventions.
Afterwards, we discussed among other things the forthcoming community, full-power FM stations that RadioForPeople is promoting, a TV license challenge some in the group had filed, and the Iowa legislature's vote to cut back on citizen access to television by way of the public access channels on cable.
This morning, as I came downstairs to make coffee, I got the tag end of a BBC report about the value of blogs from Iraq for the mainstream media.
Democracy in This Morning's Newspapers
Once I turned to the morning papers, with my mind on this democracy theme, I noticed . . .
Mesquakies to Vote on Casino Alcohol Sales
Since 1857, when the Mesquakie Indians discovered that the white man had this crazy notion that land could be "owned" (rather than shared), they have bought up the land on which they live -- which is why 1500 of them live outside of Tama on a "settlement" rather than a "reservation." On their settlement they have had the good judgment to have created, and maintained, a prohibition on the sale of alcohol for the past 150 years. They also operate what I characterize as the Native Americans' Non-Violent Revenge: a gambling casino. But theirs is a casino that does not serve alcohol. In an increasingly competitive gambling market in Iowa that policy doesn't help the casino's bottom line. Not only do you lose the revenue from the very profitable sale of alcohol, you also lose the increase in gambling losses patrons suffer when drunk. How are the Mesquaki going to resolve this difficult choice? They're going to vote. Orian Love, "Should Tribe Sell Alcohol at Casino? Meskwakis Divided Over Plan to Reverse Long-Standing Tradition," The Gazette, March 23, 2007, p. 1A.
Cedar Rapids Citizens' Input
The City of Cedar Rapids, as well as The Gazette, seem to sponsor quite a few citizen input sessions. That's another form of, or consequence of, democracy. Anyhow, they did it again last night at the first of two "Enhance Our Neighborhoods" gatherings. They're trying to come up with ideas for the city's "core neighborhoods." Rick Smith, "C.R. Gets Input From Residents; Levee, Bad Landlords and Tenants Among Main Concerns," The Gazette, March 23, 2007, p. 1B.
Non-Political Politicians
Those who have held public office -- or who could probably win, were they to choose that path -- often opt to focus their democratic contribution on activities other than capital-P "Politics." The Gazette quotes Senator Tom Harkin speaking of former Vice President Al Gore, and his campaign regarding global warming, "Maybe he is better able to [make a difference] now than as a candidate running for president." E. Michael Myers, "Harkin Meets With Gore; But No Talk of Gore Presidential Run," The Gazette, March 23, 2007, p. 5B. This was certainly Ralph Nader's judgment when, during the 1970s, he was probably responsible for more progressive legislation passed by the U.S. Senate than any elected senator.
Response to Loss of Public Access Cable Channels
Our elected legislative representatives in Des Moines have yielded to the pressures (and campaign contributions?) of phone companies that want a piece of the cable television pie -- but don't want to give back what cable companies have given as a result of local franchises. Public access channels, franchise fees, and a requirement that all neighborhoods be wired will become a thing of the past. But city council members and officials, as a result of knowledgeable local critics of the legislation, are beginning to fight back. Hieu Pham, "Franchise Bill Worries Some City Leaders; Fear Losing Local Control of Cable Deal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 23, 2007, p. 1A. In fact, this is one of the subjects discussed at that local gathering of media activists last night.
Retention of Basketball Coaches
Given America's, and Iowans', sports mania, the news that UI basketball coach Steve Alford is leaving for New Mexico is all over the states' papers this morning. (E.g., Susan Harman, "Done Deal; Alford Resigns to Take New Mexico Job; Lobos Set to Make Announcement Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 23, 2007, p. 1A. While not the result of a "vote" of any kind, as the Press-Citizen's editorial points out, "Over the years . . . it has become readily apparent that Iowa has been as terrible a fit for Alford as it has been a perfect fit for Ferentz." Editorial, "Move to UNM Good for UI, Good for Alford," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 23, 2007, p. 13A. The unilateral decision by a UI Athletic Director as to who will be the University's basketball coach is a pretty far cry from a "democratic election." And yet, even in that context, it is those who live in the community whose emerging consensus regarding coaches determines who does, and does not, "fit" here.
# # #
I'll have to remember to bookmark this blog entry and re-read it from time to time when things aren't going as well as I'd hoped. The fact is, democracy really is a precious and valuable thing, something worth extending throughout all our institutions, well beyond conventional "Politics." And in spite of all its faults, and the reluctance of many of Americans to truly embrace it (consider the current opposition to same-day voter registration), it's working pretty well for us. There are examples everywhere in a civic society, if only we will take note and appreciate.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
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 contains links to the full text of virtually all known 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.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
March 21, 7:30 a.m.
[Note: See below for UICCU Chair Dean Borg's response to yesterday's "Open Letter;" my response to a couple readers' critical comments about the "Open Letter;" and Jeff Cox' statement regarding this evening's meeting and his nomination of Caroline Dieterle as a Board member.]
"Open Letter": Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions
Every once in awhile I have the delightful experience of discovering that some idea that I have come to instinctively turns out to be virtually identical to the position of those who really are experts on the subject. This has been one of those occasions. (Of course, my more common experience is the discovery that my instinct turns out to be closer to what Stephen Colbert calls "truthiness.")
Yesterday this blog's entry was an "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007.
I advocated, among other things, that we -- Board and membership -- continue to explore the issues of member participation in governance, the "process" questions that seemed to lie at the heart of the "Optiva" controversy and that were resolved in a membership revolt the evening of February 28. I identified three categories of focus: "Board Elections and Membership Meetings," "Ongoing Membership Involvement," and "Membership Outreach and Marketing."
I contrasted our relatively closed process for electing (or re-electing) board members with the much more welcoming and open process of our next door neighbor, the Linn Area Credit Union. I suggested ways we might have more rotation among board members.
Ongoing involvement of members could be encouraged by holding open, rather than closed, board meetings, and publishing on the Web (rather than keeping secret) the minutes of those meetings. I mentioned the possibility of members' committees, online discussion groups and polling of members before controversial board decisions, and creating an ombudsperson position.
Under membership outreach and marketing I mentioned counseling and classes on financial management, videos on public access television and DVDs, social events, "friends inviting friends," and advertising the fact that credit union membership is open to all.
Late in the day, only after I'd written all this, off the top of my head, in a relatively short time, drawing on nothing but what seemed to me to be common sense and my own experience with organizations and boards over the years, I came upon the Web site of the "World Council of Credit Unions" -- http://www.woccu.org -- and its basic confirmation of virtually everything I'd said earlier in the day.
It's true that there are "credit unions in 92 countries [serving] more than 157 million people." But lest an organization representing them sound a little too other worldly for applicability in Iowa, let me reassure you that one of the organization's two main offices is right next door, in Madison, Wisconsin. (The other is in Washington, D.C.)
As you might imagine, the organization provides a range of services for credit unions. (Its Web site has headings, or drop-down menus, for "News," "Development," "Advocacy," "Events and Education," "Development Finance," "Best Practices," and "Publications.")
One of its areas of focus is "governance." See, for example, the publication from which I will be quoting: Karen Cak Niederkohr and John Ikeda, "Credit Union Governance," World Council of Credit Unions White Paper (2005).
In part, credit union governance involves many of the same models and principles of any system of board governance. I worked to apply the John Carver model of board governance for the School Board of the Iowa City Community School District, and have described the Carver theory and the School Board's application of it in Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice" (2001) . It includes setting measurable goals (Carver's "ends policies"), and articulating the relationships between the board and CEO, among other things. And the authors of the World Council white paper were obviously familiar with Carver.
But, as they acknowledge, credit unions and their boards are not like other organizations. Their "customers" are "members" and "owners" of what Congress has described as "democratically operated organizations." That necessarily affects "best practices" when it comes to board-member relations -- which was the focus of my "open letter."
What follows are some of the more relevant quotes from the World Council's "Credit Union Governance" paper.
I keep emphasizing democratic control of credit unions by members. The World Council says, "[C]redit unions are democratic institutions, where a single member receives a single vote, regardless of financial stake in the organization."
* * *
I commented on the extent to which there was inadequate communication from the Board and CEO to the membership, and proposed that there be more member access to Board meetings and minutes. The World Council has a good deal to say about this:
"Transparency
"Transparency requires the actions of the board of directors to be visible to the credit union members . . .. To be transparent, credit unions should commit to regular honest communication of their activities . . . in the spirit of full disclosure.
* * *
"The board and management of the credit union should engage in regular, honest communication to explain the actions of the organization to anyone who may be affected by them. This disclosure should include the objectives of the credit union . . .. By ensuring that its decisions are made in the light of day, members have the ability to oversee the actions of the board that represents them.
* * *
"The board or management should then convey the disclosure through communication methods, including but not limited to member meetings, postings, online interaction or newsletters. The communication must occur at regular intervals to members and must provide honest, unvarnished facts.
* * *
"[C]redit unions should make available to members and the public financial statements that are . . . provided in a timely manner to . . . especially credit union members. [p. 3]
* * *
I noted the advantages to the credit union of something in the nature of term limits and rotation in membership on the board, and that the UICCU might seek to emulate the more welcoming and open board election process of the Linn Area Credit Union. The World Council says,
"Structure
"World Council recommends the board be composed of an odd number of members, no less than five and no greater than nine. The purpose of this structure is to prevent tied votes. . . . [M]ore than nine members may make consensus achieving difficult and may increase logistical problems.
"World Council recommends that consideration should be given to the rotation of directors. A rotation approach can encourage fresh viewpoints to enter the boardroom without the potential loss of organizational knowledge. . . .
"[I]nterested credit union members . . . should be allowed to stand for the nominating process. . . . [T]he democratic nature of credit unions requires that general members be allowed . . . on the board. The opening of the process to general members helps regulate the power of the board . . ..
I also noted the UICCU's failure to provide individual members notice of the Wednesday night membership meeting. The World Council says,
"The annual general meeting . . . should be adequately promoted to ensure sufficient member participation. This meeting is the backbone of the internal governance system and is the highest decision making body in the credit union. By providing a forum for . . . members to interact with the board, the annual general meeting of members serves as a check on the power of the board and management. However, the meeting cannot provide this check if members are not aware of it.
"The annual general meeting should also be an opportunity for the directors to receive feedback and guidance from their fellow members. The board should encourage dialogue with general members at the annual general meeting, because it is the ultimate duty of the board to represent the wishes of the . . . members." [p. 5]
* * *
There are other comments in the World Council report I thought worth repeating:
"Balance
"Unlike for-profit institutions, credit unions should strive for a board that responds to the demands of the general membership. By creating a board in this manner, members are more likely to feel that they have a voice on the board and are more likely to feel a stronger connection with the credit union. As a result, a greater likelihood exists that members will continue their membership with the credit union.
"The composition of the board should aim to reflect the demographic makeup of its members . . .. By creating a board that reflects the age, gender and ethnic background of the credit union, the desires of the [members] can more easily be developed by directors.
* * *
"Accountability
"[T]he board, first and foremost, has a duty to the [members]. As the ultimate owners of the credit union, the members . . . delegate the board directors to function on their behalf. The [members] then [have] the ability to question the actions of the board and to hold the board accountable. . . .
"[T]he board must . . . follow up with management regularly to chart its progress against predefined measures of success. . . . Since both the board of directors and credit union management are held accountable . . . the ultimate goal of serving the members becomes obtainable. [p. 7]
* * *
"To fully understand and complete their responsibilities, individual [board] members should have . . . a member-focused viewpoint. [p. 9]
_______________
Now the mere fact that the World Council advocates many of the same things I was writing about yesterday does not mean that either of us is correct. Hopefully, however, this level of agreement may at least be taken as some evidence that I am not advocating some radical, bonkers, off-the-wall set of proposals that no one who knows anything about credit unions would ever try to advance.
_______________
For the record, and in fairness to the Board, here is the response Board Chair Dean Borg promptly provided by email to my "Open Letter" yesterday. I think it speaks for itself without comment from me:
"I greatly appreciate the time and thought you have given to the document you provided to us.
"I also greatly value your compliments for the Board's overall intent and pursuit of excellence, without ulterior motives. You are correct in intimating that this is a highly motivated, very hardworking group of women and men representing a cross-section of the greater Iowa City community.
"We are actively--and currently--pursuing use of absentee balloting, although the Iowa Code does specify restrictions with which we must comply. This is not the first time we have explored the absentee option.
"Your suggestion about involving members in social events is a part of our culture and practice. Our Prime Club members meet regularly, and social events are structured for that age group.
"Even our annual meeting is historically a social event, with entertainment, gifts for all members, and valuable door prizes. Many people attend the annual meeting just for the social component.
"Again, thanks Nick."
_______________
There were two essentially critical comments from readers attached to yesterday's blog entry from "John Barleykorn" and "Anonymous." They argue, basically, that (a) no one really cares about credit union management and "process," and (b) in effect, we can be grateful this is the case, as chaos would reign if various groups of members were actually permitted to micromanage the daily operation of the credit union in ways contrary to the best judgment of the Board (I am "arguing for mob rule of the credit union").
I can't really disagree with either point. I expressly noted that roughly half the electorate won't even bother to vote for president of the United States 18 months from now -- but that their disinterest is no reason to cancel the election for those who do take it seriously. And I suggest the same principle is applicable to what Congress has described as those "democratically operated organizations" called credit unions. ("Democracy within credit unions is not just a good idea, it's the law.") And as I have now discovered, the World Council of Credit Unions apparently agrees with me.
And, of course, I'm not advocating the straw man that "John Barleykorn" builds and then destroys. I can't imagine that anyone would advocate that. But I think anyone who reads through the World Council quotes, above, will see a consistent theme that seems to run through all of them regarding the responsibility of a board member of membership organizations in general, and credit unions in particular, to ascertain and then effectuate the desires of the membership.
_______________
Meanwhile, Jeff Cox issued the following statement yesterday regarding his proposed nomination of Caroline Dieterle for a UICCU Board position at the membership meeting this evening:
"The UICCU Credit Union annual members' meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 7 p.m., at the Quality Inn & Suites Highlander Conference Center, 2525 N. Dodge Street. Credit Union Board members are elected at the membership meeting. The Credit Union Board's nominating committee has nominated three board incumbents for re-election to the three open positions. In the past, the board has from time to time nominated more candidates than positions in order to guarantee a contested election, but this year they have decided upon an uncontested election.
"Candidates can be nominated from the floor at the meeting, and I intend to nominate Caroline Dieterle. She has long experience as a member of the board of the New Pioneer Cooperative, which has grown to 16,000 members while maintaining, and even strengthening, its democratic character.
"I hope we can have some discussion at the Members' Meeting of the need for future Credit Union boards to promote (1) contested elections each year, (2) open and transparent board meetings, (3) mail ballots for board elections, and (4) credit union literature that lists among the "benefits of membership" the rights and obligations that members have to participate in a democratic, member-owned cooperative.
"I hope you can find time to attend the membership meeting, and vote for Caroline.
"jeffcox@inavia.net"
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
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 contains links to the full text of virtually all known 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.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
