January 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
The Register has done Iowans a favor this morning with its perusal of, and then reporting about, the "newly released state campaign finance disclosure reports for 2007." Jennifer Jacobs, "Democrat McCarthy Raises Most Money at $251,000," Des Moines Regislter, January 24, 2008.
But it has only scratched the surface.
"Knowledge Management" literature (for which the linked document is but the first on Google's list) draws a distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge: and "wisdom."
The disclosure reports, and the Register's reporting, provide the "data" -- or at least some of it.
What we now need is the additional data, and discovery of relationships, that can turn that data into "information" and "knowledge."
(I'll save for the day that happens an exploration of what "wisdom" might be with regard to Iowa's needed campaign finance reform.)
For example, as one reader commented following the Register's online story, "Why is it McCarthy's biggest donors were from out of state? Does this not raise any questions with anyone? What pull, and on what project are these people looking for help on?" ("TheWizard," 1/24/2008 4:36:06 AM).
If the Register is still interested in Pulitzer Prizes (it was once the proud possessor of a collection of them second only to the New York Times) -- not to mention the very substantial community service of cleaning up Iowa politics -- here are some of the questions to which they might want to seek answers.
1. "Follow the money." That was "Deep Throat's" advice to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they investigated and exposed the Watergate scandal ultimately leading to President Nixon's resignation. And it's my first bit of advice to the Register. Who is giving what to whom and what do they do with it? Individual Iowa legislators tell their constituents they need money for re-election campaigns -- even when they're running unopposed. What do they do with it? Much is simply passed through to their party's leaders, or the state Democratic or Republican organizations. Why? What do they, what do their contributors, what do we, get for that money? To what extent is this pass-through procedure used to shield from public disclosure how much is really coming from special interests to party leaders? And, in reverse, what are party leaders (and the special interests they may be representing) gaining by passing out money to other members? Where do the major state parties get the (largely unregulated) money they have and how do they spend it?
2. Who are these donors and what are their interests? A name (of a donor) and amount (of a contribution) is data. "Knowledge" requires that we know the economic or other interests of that donor. Sometimes that's easy, when the donor is a registered lobbyist for a special interest, or the CEO of a corporation, or is known to be a highway contractor or major land owner. At other times it's more difficult, especially if the money is coming through employees (who have been given raises and are then asked for checks, which are bundled, donated and amount to little more than an illegal contribution from a corporation), spouses, children, relatives or friends of that individual.
3. What is being bought? Some special interests are regular donors. They are like the wealthy Texan, asked by the airline ticket agent where he wanted to go, who replied, "It makes no difference; I've got business everywhere." Some of those funding Iowa's campaigns always have some kind of business with the legislature or governor -- or know that they might. Others are primarily focused on a specific bill they want to defeat, or have enacted, or an earmark, tax break, or bit of "corporate welfare" cash they would like from the state's taxpayers. In any case, "knowledge" requires that we know the relationship between who is giving and what they are getting: what bills on their behalf were introduced by party leaders, or individual legislators, who benefited from their contributions? If they gave to the governor, or other executive branch officials, what agency decisions affected their economic interests? (The rule of thumb in Washington is that major contributors get at least a 1000-to-1 return on their money; contribute $1 million and get $1 billion of government largesse in return. For documentation see, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.)
There are lots more questions to ask and trails to follow, but hopefully these few illustrative examples will get our editors and reporters thinking about how their "data mining" these golden nuggets could end up providing some real "knowledge" -- and maybe someday even "wisdom" -- for their readers, and a few extra prizes to hang on the walls of the board room and news room.
# # #
September 12, 2007, 12:10 p.m.
"A TIF-kit's a Basket, With Money for the Askin'"
"Hello, I'm Johnny-with-your-Cash,"
(With credit to, and apologies for mangling, Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues.")
I see that TIF a comin'
Comin' down the track
No one seems to care much
And it ain't turnin' back
That engine looks so funny
We used to feed 'em coal
Now they burn our money
With wealthy on the dole
Their golden rule's a changin'
Our Council thinks we're fools:
"Those that have the gold, boys,
Are those who make our rules"
"So shut up and pay your taxes,
And don't forget to vote.
The rising tide's that's coming,
Will lift our leaking boat"
Yes, folks, it's TIF time in Iowa City once again; a time to sing, dance, drink and celebrate.
TIFs, which our City Council candidates think are one of the best ways to divert what would otherwise be general property taxes for the benefit of all of us into grants to individual wealthy business persons, were originally designed to help the poor, build low income housing, and fix up blighted areas. They didn't make much sense then (if it's a worthy public project let the City own it, as long as the City's paying for it), and they make even less as a "rob the poor and give to the rich" scheme.
The next TIF coming down the railroaded track in Iowa City is designed to help that underpriviledged, economically depressed sub-group in our local population we call medical doctors! Hieu Pham, "City considers TIF for surgical center; If OK'd, would get tax rebates from '01 to '13," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2007, p. A3.
How much? $600,000. The doctors' executive director says, "We're excited about it." Yeah, I expect they are. Wouldn't you be excited if someone would agree to pick up $600,000 of your property, or income, tax bill?
Don't get me wrong. I'm alive because of doctors. I like doctors. "Some of my best friends are doctors." Doctors are brighter than the rest of us, well-traveled, good writers (with the exception of their handwriting on prescriptions), great story tellers, good musicians -- and many really are compassionate conservatives (especially pediatricians).
Moreover, I actually like their idea. It has merit. I just think that the risks associated with whether it has economic merit ought to be theirs rather than mine -- especially since they haven't proposed to share the profits with me if it succeeds.
What's next, a taxpayer-funded private dental clinic? The dentists have already trained us to believe that we should put our money where our mouth is. So why not our tax money as well?
You sure can't blame the doctors for trying to get the taxpayers to fund their for-profit company so long as the money is so freely being handed out to others. Shucks, I've even got my application in for a TIF for my backyard tool shed. It sure will cost the taxpayers a lot less than what these doctors want. I haven't heard anything back from the Council yet.
I know a couple guys living under the bridges where I bike who would actually like to use a TIF for its original purpose: building low income housing. They tell me they haven't had any better luck with the Council than I have; not a lot of enthusiasm among the City Council candidates. And the nights are already getting colder.
Oh, well. Now they won't have to walk all the way to Mercy Hospital when they get pneumonia.
At least I assume there will be a "free clinic" at our new, taxpayer-funded "outpatient surgical center." Won't there? Gee, I guess you're right. Hieu didn't really write anything about that. Maybe the editors just cut that part of her story.
# # #
P.S. Normally I don't respond to comments. I like to leave as much opportunity for readers' dialog as possible (within some bounds) -- thoughtful, and not so much, critical and agreement.
But since Irl Tubbs has suggested in his 12:14 p.m. comment that I am lying ("a TIF is not taking tax money from someone else . . . the author believes that if he tells a lie long enough...it will be the truth") I thought a brief reply might be in order.
Does this lighthearted blog entry overly simplify TIFs? Absolutely.
Is it a "lie"? I think that's both inaccurate and unnecessarily harsh.
1. If you save me an expense, that is the financial, the bottom line, equivalent of my (a) paying that expense, but then (b) getting that amount of cash from you. On the other hand, if you cause me an expense that, but for you, I would not have had and that does not benefit me, that is the equivalent of "taking money from" me.
2. Cities can't print money. They depend on tax revenue. That revenue changes from year to year with both tax rates and property values.
3. When a city's revenue declines -- for any reason -- it is presented with two options: (a) increase taxes ("taking tax money from someone else"), or (b) cutting City programs benefiting the entire community (the equivalent of "taking tax money from someone else").
4. Why does a business person want a TIF? Because there is a financial benefit associated with it. It may involve getting land for a price well below market -- up to and including for free. It may involve the City paying for features required by a given business project that, but for the TIF, would not otherwise have been paid for by the City. It may involve paying what the normal taxes would have been on the property and project and then getting an immediate rebate of that tax payment in whole or in part.
5. Whatever the details may be for a given TIFed project, the fact is that the City is, for a given year during the applicability of the TIF, ending up with less property tax income from the TIF-ed property/project for that year than it would have received had the project gone ahead (as a part of the free private enterprise, entrepreneurial, capitalist system) without the TIF (or other government subsidies) having been granted.
6. As in any group project (which a tax-funded community is) if one member of the group does not pull his or her weight, put in their time, do their share of the work, show up on time, has their hand in the till -- or fails to pay their fair share of the expense -- the net effect is that either someone else has to pick up the slack or all will end up getting less out of the project than they thought they would.
7. Given the nature of the above blog entry I didn't want to have to (and did not feel it necessary to) get into this level of detail. Having now done so, hopefully anyone who shares Mr. Tubbs' view can see why, with very little literary license, I don't think it's a "lie" to say that the TIF beneficiary is, in effect, "taking tax money from someone else." Frankly, I don't think I actually said that anyway. But if I had (or did) I think it's a perfectly legitimate simplistic way to communicate what's going on.
# # #
September 7, 2007, 11:30 a.m.
I wasn't going to write this morning. Other things to do. The "let's bring weapons to campus" discussion went about the way I predicted yesterday anyway.
But just came upon an entry from my brother in arms in the "War on TIFs," State29, that should be required reading for any TIF supporters in the Iowa City City Council race -- as well as for anyone who's paying property taxes under the illusion that the money is going for public purposes.
The headline tells the tale, but the blog entry text just gets even better and better. Check it out:
State29, "eServe Gets Corporate Welfare and a Property Tax Break for Moving 11 Miles," September 7, 2007.
Unbelievable!
And don't tell me, "Oh, that's an exception. We wouldn't do anything like that in Iowa City."
Baloney! TIFs are fatally flawed. All of them. Any where, any time, for any purpose. For lots, and lots, and lots of reasons I don't have time to repeat here once again.
Just read State29's take on this one and come join the rational forces for sensible economic development. We call it the free private enterprise marketplace. A radical idea, I know, but it works -- and at a small fraction of the cost to citizen taxpayers of watching their property tax dollars drop to the bottom line of some for-profit corporation of the wealthy.
# # #
August 24, 2007, 1:40 p.m.
"The Marketplace" vs. Public Money, Private Profits
It's no secret to any regular reader of this blog that I find it a little hypocritical, putting it mildly, for those who are ideologically committed to "the marketplace" and the "free private enterprise system" -- those who believe that "government is the problem, not the solution" and that "social programs" are repulsively "socialistic" if not worse -- and yet cannot see anything objectionable about taxing the public in order to further enrich the wealthy and their for-profit enterprises.
[As I wrote last month:
"I've had it with the Iowa City City Council and TIFs. I'm going to do my best to see to it that anyone running for council who persists in continuing to take Iowa City taxpayers' money and give it to wealthy, supposedly "free private enterprise" for-profit corporations -- while denying it to their competitors, not to mention needed social programs -- is prevented from serving on the City Council." Nicholas Johnson, "They're Back: The Terrible TIFs" in "The Terrible TIFs," July 26, 2007.]
The ways in which "corporate welfare" can be done -- TIFs, subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, use of public property, among others -- are limited only by the imagination of the beneficiaries' lawyers and accountants.
All too often, the press ends up on the side of those beneficiaries who, if not advertisers, are at least "pillars of the community."
So that's why I want to award a "Hat's Off" to the Register for not only its position, but the analysis and rhetoric represented in its editorial yesterday (August 23). Editorial, "Let a Developer Pay for Convention Hotel; Marketplace Will Say When Hotel Needed," Des Moines Register, August 23, 2007. Here are some samples:
Polk County and Des Moines . . . are no closer to getting a convention hotel . . .. It's to the point where local leaders need to listen to the marketplace rather than consultants.
A study by a Chicago consultant released Monday concluded that market demand is growing for another hotel downtown, which would boost events and attendance at the Iowa Events Center . . . [and] throw off $39 million in economic benefits to the community.
The catch: For that to happen now, taxpayers would be expected to kick in a substantial subsidy. That is something city and county officials should firmly resist.
There is cause for optimism that downtown Des Moines will eventually support a new convention hotel. But that should happen when the market is ready for one without a public subsidy. . . .
Other local hotel owners, whose occupancy rates according to the study are below 60 percent, could be forgiven for wondering whether they, too, will be eligible for government handouts.
. . .
City and county officials will know the time is right when developers start lining up to build the hotel - without expecting government subsidies.
What would it take to get Iowa's legislators and city officials to start thinking that way? Enough of this "free private enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich."
I can give you as long a list as anyone of market failures, corporate abuses, the inequity and other evils of "the marketplace." And I have an equally long list of things I'd like to see government doing. Unlike many who oppose government programs, and want nothing more than to "cut taxes," I have less problem with paying my fair share for rational, efficient, and needed government programs.
But when it comes to setting priorities for the allocation of economic resources among all the potentially competing for-profit projects, the marketplace is like democracy. It's the worst possible way to do it -- except for all the other alternatives.
It's when we try to combine the two -- transfers of taxpayers' money to for-profit enterprises -- that we really get the worst of all possible worlds. (For example, talk about "a level playing field," as marketplace advocates are wont to do! When we throw public money onto the bottom line of one business person, while denying it to all their competitors, we have really tilted our economy.)
This morning's Gazette editorialized along a consistent line this morning. Editorial, "Don't Focus on the Rankings," The Gazette, August 24, 2007, p. A4.
How does Iowa’s business climate compare to other states?
If you look for the answer among the numerous rankings compiled by various business magazines and think tanks, prepare to be more confused than enlightened. It’s best not to rely on these lists to judge our state, or others, for that matter.
. . .
Peter Fisher, University of Iowa professor and research director for the Iowa Policy Project, a non-profit public policy organization, determined the indexes were produced by ideological organizations that advocated mostly lower taxes and less government regulation. He concluded that their validity thus was diminished.
. . .
Peeling back the layers on taxes, for example, shows that Iowa’s overall business tax burden is lower than in border states Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois.
Business climate isn’t easy to define. However, a favorable environment for long-term growth must be based on more than tax rates. A skilled work force attracted by good schools and other quality-of-life measures is certainly just as important. Access to markets and materials is another.
Much of Iowa, including the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City corridor, can offer those things. But a looming worker shortage as the baby boomers retire poses a major challenge to this state.
Iowa’s focus should be on making sure our children are well-educated and well-informed about career opportunities here. That will do more to keep good companies here and help attract new business than a think tank’s lofty rating.
In short, the emphasis on "taxes," and the necessity of corporate welfare is often bogus.
In terms of the quality of life for those already living there, not all "development" and new or expanded businesses are a net plus.
Speaking of rankings, Iowa City, for example, is constantly being well ranked by those publications evaluating best places for college students, retired couples, entrepreneurs, and other categories. It's an attractive community -- attracting citizens and corporations alike. Additional growth is no longer our number one need, if it ever was. That's not to say we should put a fence around the town and forbid any growth. It is to say that it makes it much more difficult to make a case for handing out taxpayers' money to for-profit enterprises to encourage even more and faster growth.
# # #
July 26, 2007, 6:30, 7:30, 8:15, 10:30 a.m.
They're Back: The Terrible TIFs
Hieu Pham, "Company seeks tax rebate for expansion; Alpla of Iowa Inc. would create 25 new jobs in return," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 26, 2007, p. A1
Nicholas Johnson, "Taxes: Categories of Inquiry" in "UI Held Hostage Day 490 - Search & Taxes," May 26, 2007 (including link to, excerpts from, and discussion of Peter S. Fisher, "No Tax Relief Until We See TIF Reform," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 26, 2008, p. A11)
Nicholas Johnson, "It's Not About 'Taxes,'" October 24, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "More on Corporate Welfare from 'Hat's Off' Winner," October 22, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "Call the Cops: $3.755 Million Robbery in Progress," October 18, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "Understanding TIFs (Revised 10/6/06)," October 5, 2007
Nicholas Johnson, "Why Do They Hate America?" October 4, 2006
I've had it with the Iowa City City Council and TIFs. I'm going to do my best to see to it that anyone running for council who persists in continuing to take Iowa City taxpayers' money and give it to wealthy, supposedly "free private enterprise" for-profit corporations -- while denying it to their competitors, not to mention needed social programs -- is prevented from serving on the City Council.
As the links above indicate, I've been writing about the issues of corporate welfare in this blog for nearly a year.
I'm not going to repeat all the arguments from Iowa's best economists, along with my own. If you're interested, they're laid out clearly in those blog entries.
But I have yet to have any member of the City Council -- or anyone else for that matter -- respond to each of those arguments, rationally, with data, one at a time.
TIFs are worse than the proposed indoor Iowa rain forest project.
While I'm not going to repeat all the arguments and data that demolish the utility and propriety of TIFs -- indeed, I'm not even going to try to summarize them -- I will offer a sampling:
TIFs are not necessary for Iowa City and surrounding communities. We're not exactly going through a depression, with store fronts boarded up, unemployment around 40%, or other justifications for early New Deal-type programs.
Their "opportunity costs" are enormous for local property taxpayers and local governments. County Supervisor Rod Sullivan estimates they are currently taking some $700 million worth of business property off the tax rolls. That means both more taxes for the rest of us and cuts in needed programs.
TIFs tilt the playing field, are unfair to business, and cause imbalance in the free market. Why the business community doesn't rise up in righteous wrath over TIFs has always amazed me. It's tough enough out there in that free market jungle, what with competition from the likes of Wal-Mart and comparably advantaged businesses, government regulations that sometimes seem a wee bit irrational, and the unforeseeable challenges. It just seems so fundamentally unfair that, on top of all that, a business person should have to compete with someone who is handed the kind of competitive advantage represented by a TIF or other government subsidy. Talk about a "level playing field"! TIFs really upset a smoothly working free market -- and to no one's real advantage except for the lucky recipient of the taxpayers' largess.
There's no evidence that Iowa City's economy and development won't continue to expand at a satisfactory rate driven by nothing more than the forces of the marketplace -- entrepreneurs, investors, venture capitalists, banks and other loaning institutions.
TIFs (and other shifts of taxpayers' money to for-profit enterprises) don't work. Governor Vilsack offered Maytag $100 million in taxpayers' money not to leave Newton. It went to Michigan anyway. Should he have offered $200 million? I don't think so.
Business comes to an area for other reasons than TIFs: available skilled workforce, transportation, communications, and other infrastructure elements -- plus "quality of life" assets such as schools, parks, libraries, theaters, trails, entertainment venues, restaurants, and natural settings such as mountains, beaches, woods, rivers and lakes. (A business that came to an Iowa Mississippi River town recently explained that it didn't choose the location because of state subsidies, it chose the location because it needed access to barge transportation on the river.)
Transferring taxpayers' money to for-profit ventures in the name of "free private enterprise" carries so much hypocrisy that City Councilors who talk that way ought to hide in the shadows with their shame. Where's the ideological purity of these "greed is good," privatization, "let the marketplace do it all" pro-business advocates when they're holding out (or filling) a tin cup? Business proposals that make sense have no trouble getting funding; owners, investors, venture capitalists, and creditors are looking for places to put their money and will respond to well-crafted business plans. Free private enterprise ventures can make sense for a community. So can socialist ventures such as roads, schools, libraries and parks. However, the more they are kept distinct the better it is for both.
If free private enterprise can't fund a project with private sector money, that just might be a sign that it's not a very good place to be putting the public's money either.
How can one possibly judge with accuracy whether, if the TIF were not available, the project would not go ahead? When free public money is available to a for-profit venture the temptation to become a tough negotiator, and to just slightly misrepresent the facts, is overwhelming. And there's virtually no way to test the blackmail.
The TIF-granters' record ain't great. For the most part, the public officials handing out our tax dollars to the wealthy are more professionally skilled at keeping constituents (and campaign contributors) happy, getting re-elected, and moving up to higher office, than they are at evaluating business proposals. There is a long list of TIFed (or otherwise publicly subsidized) private projects that have gone belly up, or failed to meet their promised construction schedules, or goals for new employees at designated pay levels.
Will we lose some businesses if we don't offer TIFs? Maybe. Let other towns give away their taxpayers' money. We don't need to play their game. As one of the top-rated towns in the nation by any one of a number of measures we'll get our share of new businesses without offering TIFs. Have a little self-confidence. Vilsack's $100 million couldn't keep Maytag here. A firm that likes San Diego's climate, or port access to the Pacific Ocean, probably isn't going to come to Iowa City for a TIF. A firm that believes it needs a location giving it rapid access to the O'Hare airport in Chicago (whether for moving persons or cargo) probably can't be talked into using the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids "Eastern Iowa Airport" no matter how big the TIF.
Step up to the plate councilors and business community. If City Council members, or members of the business community, think we need more economic growth and development than the marketplace can provide on its own there's nothing to stop them taking up a collection or offering personal economic incentives to new businesses. Iowa City's banks could offer new businesses, or proposals for business expansion, reduced-rate loans. The business community could create its own venture capital fund to invest in, or loan to, business developments they thought worthy. And I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accept every dollar from a City councilor who would like to help out.
I don't hold out lots of hope for electing a taxpayer-friendly City Council. Not many eligible voters get involved in city council elections regardless of the issue. Of those who do, there's widespread apathy, or lack of focus regarding TIFs. Of those who've followed the issue, many have bought the sales pitch of the TIF beneficiaries and their benefactors.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
"Just Say No to TIFs!"
Campus Crowd Control? Hey, How About More Guns?
Editorial, "Armed Campus Cops Would Make UI Safer," The Daily Iowan, July 26, 2007.
The Daily Iowan is absolutely right that guns can help in controlling student "misbehavior" -- as it is viewed by the government, or university administrators. But it doesn't necessarily follow that more guns on campus would necessarily "Make UI Safer."
Read a little history:
The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[1]
Some of the students who were shot were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot were merely walking nearby or observing the protest at a distance. [2][3]
There was a significant national response to the shootings: hundreds of universities, colleges, high schools, and even middle schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country along political lines.
"Kent State Shootings," Wikipedia.
So you see, you're right: on that occasion the deaths did slow down "student misbehavior" on one campus for one day. You're right about that. And except for the students who were shot or rendered paralyzed the guns on campus did make the campus safer following the slaughter. But then the campus was pretty safe before the slaughter, too. And as it turned out, shooting students didn't really end up doing much to reduce the nation-wide protests of Nixon's war policies in the long run either -- it just increased them.
Maybe this is just another example of another line from that Southeast Asian war: "We had to burn down the village to save it." Maybe it will take a few dead students to "Make UI Safer." If that's the price we have to pay for safety I guess it's worth it.
UIHC Inspection
The Gazette broke this story yesterday; see prior day's blog entry. Stories today include:
Brian Morelli, "Discharge Flap Puts UIHC Under Scrutiny," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 26, 2007, p. A1
Clara Hogan, "UIHC Undergoes Inspection," The Daily Iowan, July 26, 2007
# # #
July 4, 2007, 6:00, 7:00 a.m. [addition of links and excerpt from "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"], 8:35 a.m. [addition of "Other News" links], 3:10 p.m. [addition of links to photos of Coralville 4th of July parade (in "Other News" section)]
More on "The Name Game"
Yesterday morning, on reading the Press-Citizen's page one story that the University of Iowa was seriously considering the unprecedented step of naming one of its colleges after a corporation, I made an effort to think through some of the issues this raised in my mind. The blog entry on the subject ended up with 11 categories of issues involved in "The Name Game" surrounding the naming rights to universities, their colleges and buildings. Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark's College of Public Health" in "The Corporate College of . . .," July 3, 2007.
By this morning it was obvious that I was not the only one who was concerned. Governor Culver, Board of Regents member Bob Downer, and numerous others were raising some of the same points that I had blogged about yesterday, reported in page one stories in the local press. E.g., Brian Morelli, "Possible Naming Raises Concerns; Some Fear Conflict of Interest with Wellmark, College," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
State29, apparently blogging on these issues about the same time that I was, came up with a similar analysis -- although, as always, expressed in much more colorful language. State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007.
What's happening, as I see it, is but a tiny sub-set of a much larger, looming challenge that I wrote about in an earlier blog entry. Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007.
Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.
Faculties, funded by grateful legislatures and protected by tenure, used to debate issues such as whether it was still necessary to require all Ph.D. candidates to exhibit some fluency in Latin and Greek. Most professors probably did not know -- and would have seen little reason why they should -- anything about their university's taxpayer-funded budget (aside from their own salary).
Today, an ever increasing number of faculty are (a) employed without thenure, and (b) required to personally raise part or all of their own salary and supporting expenses. There's not much talk about Greek and Latin requirements in that environment.
But these are changes for which many faculty -- and those among them functioning as deans -- are ill prepared. Not only do they not have experience, or hold degrees in, "business," they (like the public-policy-driven aspiring young politician) probably did not spend their early years honing a passion to become, and then spend a significant portion of their lives as, a major fund raiser.
We are familiar with the "conflicts, cover-ups and corruption" in business. When State29 headlines his blog entry about the Welmark College of Public Health "Enron Field" it's a shorthand we all immediately understand.
Indeed, there are some who would suggest that "business ethics" is an oxymoron. Notwithstanding our business schools' courses in the subject the scandals continue to fill the pages of our newspapers, the reports of our congressional hearings, and provide grist for feature films. (Michael Moore's "Sicko" is only the latest in a long line.) See, Nicholas Johnson, "'The Corporation' and the Search for Agreement," October 1, 2004 (reflections and suggestions following a UI College of Business viewing, and discussion, of the film "The Corporation").
But the business community has some awareness of the inherent conflict of interest it confronts on an hourly and daily basis. The recent reports regarding products from China -- from pet food, to human medicine, to children's toys to automobile tires -- are reminiscent of our own history of business (not all of it ancient history). Off-shore tax havens, outsourcing manufacturing, reducing quantities while increasing prices, pumping up stock prices with "creative accounting," raiding pension funds, cartels and price fixing among competitors -- the examples are endless.
It is said, "You get what you measure." And when all you measure is what falls to the bottom line (and bounces back in the form of ever-increasing stock prices) there is a great temptation to let moral and ethical values fall as well.
Unlike the business community -- and ironically in some ways -- the academy is much less experienced, sophisticated or reflective about such moral dilemmas. Moreover, we're handicapped -- as are the clergy and many politicians -- with the genuine belief that, because we, our mission and goals are so pure of mind and spirit and set apart from worldly matters, anything we do is of necessity equally pure and commendable. Those in business, by contrast, are aware of the moral and ethical pitfalls. They may choose to ignore ethical issues and focus only on maximizing ever-increasing profits, but at least they are aware of what they are doing. They know what the ethical standards are; they know what they're doing.
Academics often do not.
To help explain, let me repeat some of what I wrote in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption." At the time, of course, I had no idea the University of Iowa would ever actually consider selling off the name of a college, or building, to a corporation. I was merely writing about the kinds of potential conflicts of interest, and tough ethical and moral dilemmas our new President, Sally Mason, will necessarily find herself having to address. The discussion helps to set "The Name Game" in the context of a range of ethical dilemmas. Here's an excerpt:
The story illustrates another problem with greed. Once money becomes the sole coin of the realm, and the need for profits is replaced with ever-increasing pressure for ever-increasing profits, conflicts of interest become ever more difficult to resolve ethically.
Years ago magazines aimed at women said little to nothing about the fact that the number of women dying from lung cancer was increasing, ultimately surpassing the number dying from breast cancer. Editors knew the story, they knew lung cancer's relationship to increased cigarette consumption by women, they knew manufacturers were targeting women -- and doing so in significant measure with the ads the companies were running in their magazines. But they needed the advertising revenue and, well, "women probably aren't interested in reading those stories anyway."
The NCAA wants to distance itself from sports gambling, and the gambling industry generally, in every way possible. It expressly forbids association with gambling casinos at NCAA events or in its advertising. It highly recommends that NCAA schools follow the same practice. It has written the UI athletic program with regard to its partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. And yet our football program tries to rationalize the gambling partnership while refusing to do anything about it.
This morning's Daily Iowan reports, Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together," The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007, that our new president has paid proper respect to the athletics program and its director. The story quotes Interim President Fethke as saying, "You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person."
Fethke's "respect" was so substantial that he's never (so far as I know) said anything critical in public regarding the NCAA's slap in our face about our gambling partnership with the Riverside Casino. Will the leadership that Mason brings include the ethical, moral and legal issues this relationship raises -- or will she continue the deafening silence from Jessup Hall on the issue because, after all, the athletic program is increasingly responsible for raising its own money, they have to get it where they can, and a university president must show "respect" to the athletic director?
Universities are not immune from the pressures that in corporate American can produce an Enron, or the political pressures that produce a U.S. Congress that simply can't "afford" to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Mason has been advised that as much as one-third of her time should be spent in fund raising. Clearly it's a major part of what she has been hired to do, a major part of the "performance" that can produce an extra $50,000 a year under her contract.
As such, she -- like every other big university's president -- will be subjected to similar pressures as the editor who must decide whether s/he can "afford" to run an essential story that will cause a loss of advertising revenue, an athletic director who must weigh the advice (and standards) of the NCAA against the revenue that can come from the gambling industry, or a politician in need of campaign contributions deciding how to vote on a measure that will clearly help her constituents but cause a special interest group to cut off her funding.
How will she decide whether to accept a major contribution from a donor who wants a faculty member fired (or hired), or a program established that is antithetical to the university's mission?
We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University"? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.
What about a corporation that is willing to underwrite a multi-million-dollar research program -- so long as it gets a disproportionate share of the benefits from what it produces?
How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?
The question is not whether she will confront such conflicts. Of course she will. It goes with the territory in an age in which what used to be educational institutions with public support have developed more in common with for-profit corporations. The question is how she will respond to them. These conflicts often involve shades of gray. The more profitable choice can often be rationalized in some way -- as Barta tries to do with gambling money.
How many bars are there within walking distance of the campus -- 40? They are so profitable -- and therefore so politically powerful -- that the City Council seems incapable of doing anything meaningful to curb students' binge drinking. Well, who are these customers anyway? They are students. The University's students. Our students. At a time when the University is in need of every source of income it can find, when it issues lucrative monopoly contracts to Coca Cola (so it can raise its prices) notwithstanding the product's health impact on students, why just wink at the profits from binge drinking when the University could be sharing in them? With a little ingenuity I think the University could be pulling in the lion's share of that money with its own entertainment venues. Something to think about.
I imagine that even President Mason cannot now imagine the choices -- the potential conflicts, cover-ups and corruption -- she will have to confront or how she will resolve them.
This morning's Register story illustrates how "just a little harmless doctoring of the promotional literature" is not only morally wrong, but can backfire. If those putting comments on that Register story represent the majority they may be, that may just be "all she wrote" on the sales tax for the wealthy.
The University's story? That's yet to be written.
Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007.
# # #
Other News:
Pictures of the Coralville Fourth of July Parade, with emphasis on presidential candidates (listed alphabetically by last name, Democrats and then Republicans) and other elected officials, separated by shots of other floats and scenes.
Note: As always, The Gazette's stories can be found at its main Web site.)
The Fourth of July: Speaking Truth to Power
Leonard Pitts, Jr., "America is at War With Itself," The Gazette, July 4, 2007 ("it seems to me it is not the people who make America great, but America that has made the people great -- [the idea of America] the idea of American exceptionalism")
And thanks to The Gazette for reminding us, today, of the full text of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A7 -- the ultimate speaking of truth to power that made possible the birth of our nation.
Senator Biden's and Clinton's Visit
Here are the photos on my Picasa Web site for the Senator Biden event July 2, and Senator Clinton event July 3.
As always, John Deeth is the best (most thorough) source for political events. See John Deeth, "Biden Time on the Ped Mall," July 2, 2007, and "Clinton and Clinton Live at U Iowa," July 3, 2007 (with photos -- better than mine).
Rachel Gallegos, "Clintons visit Iowa City; Hillary Clinton talks health care, education in campaign stop," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007
James Q. Lynch, "Former First Lady Ready to Lead, Clintons Tell I.C.," The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
Thomas Beaumont, "Clinton Says Her Campaign Has Recovered from Slow Start," Des Moines Register, July 4, 2007.
Wellmark College of Public Health
Brian Morelli, "Possible Naming Raises Concerns; Some Fear Conflict of Interest with Wellmark, College," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
Diane Heldt, "Wellmark College at the UI?; Plan to put corporate name on school in exchange for gift prompts concern," The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
Greg Thompson, "Some New Names for Other UI Departments," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007.
State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007.
Our "Destiny"? Shifting Taxes From the Wealthy to the Backs of the Poor
Melissa Walker, "'Destiny' to hurt poor the most, economist says; Those living on fixed incomes spend more of their money on taxable goods, they say," Des Moines Register, July 4, 2007.
# # #
[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 26, 2007, 7:40 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]
I'm going to try to attend Governor Bill "What Makes You Think You Can Be President?" Richardson's event this morning (10:30, Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A), and if blogger John Deeth is not there to cover it (in which case he will leave nothing more to be said about it) provide you a little commentary. He stopped by the Register's editorial board yesterday and received for his efforts what I would consider a very upbeat, favorable column. See, Andie Dominick, "Richardson packs jokes, thick resumé," Des Moines Register, June 26, 2007
Meanwhile . . .
Greed, Conflicts, Cover-ups and Corruption Yesterday I used a movie line in describing the central Iowa campaign to increase the sales tax -- and use the revenue to lower the property taxes of businesses and other property owners: "Greed is good." Nicholas Johnson, "'Greed Is Good' - Poverty? 'Yes, It's Your Destiny,'" June 25, 2007. It was a commentary addressing, I guess one would have to say, the morality of the wealthy using their economic and political power to shift the cost of government services (many of which benefit them disproportionately anyway, e.g., infrastructure, TIFs, tax forgiveness and other incentives) from themselves onto the backs of those least able to pay. Note, not incidentally, that an increase in sales taxes from 6 cents to 7 cents is not a "one penny" increase; it's a nearly 17% increase -- being advocated by the very folks who are usually supporting candidates who campaign on "cutting taxes" (by cutting programs not benefiting the wealthy).
Yesterday the comments on the Register's story included those complaining that the paper had become an advocate for the tax hike and that its "news" stories ought to be on the opinion page. No one will be saying that today. [There are 12 comments as of 8:00 a.m. One of the better, earlier comments, has for some reason been removed. None supports the tax-hike-shift proposal.] See, Jeff Eckhoff, "Woman denies she touted 'Destiny'; I don't even pay property taxes, Urbandale senior asserts," Des Moines Register, June 26, 2007. The story details efforts of the tax-hike-and-shift backers to misrepresent the proposal (mentioning that it will cut property taxes without mentioning it will increase sales taxes), and in the main story in the piece, using the photo of an 82-year-old woman who has long lived in apartments and pays no property taxes, along with a "quote" she never uttered, to advance their campaign.
(Wondering what State29 thinks about all of this? I'll be you can guess. State29, "The Project Destiny Scam," June 26, 2007.)
The story illustrates another problem with greed. Once money becomes the sole coin of the realm, and the need for profits is replaced with ever-increasing pressure for ever-increasing profits, conflicts of interest become ever more difficult to resolve ethically.
Years ago magazines aimed at women said little to nothing about the fact that the number of women dying from lung cancer was increasing, ultimately surpassing the number dying from breast cancer. Editors knew the story, they knew lung cancer's relationship to increased cigarette consumption by women, they knew manufacturers were targeting women -- and doing so in significant measure with the ads the companies were running in their magazines. But they needed the advertising revenue and, well, "women probably aren't interested in reading those stories anyway."
The NCAA wants to distance itself from sports gambling, and the gambling industry generally, in every way possible. It expressly forbids association with gambling casinos at NCAA events or in its advertising. It highly recommends that NCAA schools follow the same practice. It has written the UI athletic program with regard to its partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. And yet our football program tries to rationalize the gambling partnership while refusing to do anything about it.
This morning's Daily Iowan reports, Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together," The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007, that our new president has paid proper respect to the athletics program and its director. The story quotes Interim President Fethke as saying, "You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person."
Fethke's "respect" was so substantial that he's never (so far as I know) said anything critical in public regarding the NCAA's slap in our face about our gambling partnership with the Riverside Casino. Will the leadership that Mason brings include the ethical, moral and legal issues this relationship raises -- or will she continue the deafening silence from Jessup Hall on the issue because, after all, the athletic program is increasingly responsible for raising its own money, they have to get it where they can, and a university president must show "respect" to the athletic director?
Universities are not immune from the pressures that in corporate American can produce an Enron, or the political pressures that produce a U.S. Congress that simply can't "afford" to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Mason has been advised that as much as one-third of her time should be spent in fund raising. Clearly it's a major part of what she has been hired to do, a major part of the "performance" that can produce an extra $50,000 a year under her contract.
As such, she -- like every other big university's president -- will be subjected to similar pressures as the editor who must decide whether s/he can "afford" to run an essential story that will cause a loss of advertising revenue, an athletic director who must weigh the advice (and standards) of the NCAA against the revenue that can come from the gambling industry, or a politician in need of campaign contributions deciding how to vote on a measure that will clearly help her constituents but cause a special interest group to cut off her funding.
How will she decide whether to accept a major contribution from a donor who wants a faculty member fired (or hired), or a program established that is antithetical to the university's mission?
We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University"? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.
What about a corporation that is willing to underwrite a multi-million-dollar research program -- so long as it gets a disproportionate share of the benefits from what it produces?
How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?
The question is not whether she will confront such conflicts. Of course she will. It goes with the territory in an age in which what used to be educational institutions with public support have developed more in common with for-profit corporations. The question is how she will respond to them. These conflicts often involve shades of gray. The more profitable choice can often be rationalized in some way -- as Barta tries to do with gambling money.
How many bars are there within walking distance of the campus -- 40? They are so profitable -- and therefore so politically powerful -- that the City Council seems incapable of doing anything meaningful to curb students binge drinking. Well, who are these customers anyway? They are students. The University's students. Our students. At a time when the University is in need of every source of income it can find, when it issues lucrative monopoly contracts to Coca Cola (so it can raise its prices) notwithstanding the product's health impact on students, why just wink at the profits from binge drinking when the University could be sharing in them? With a little ingenuity I think the University could be pulling in the lion's share of that money with its own entertainment venues. Something to think about.
I imagine that even President Mason cannot now imagine the choices -- the potential conflicts, cover-ups and corruption -- she will have to confront or how she will resolve them.
This morning's Register story illustrates how "just a little harmless doctoring of the promotional literature" is not only morally wrong, but can backfire. If those putting comments on that Register story represent the majority they may be, that may just be "all she wrote" on the sales tax for the wealthy.
The University's story? That's yet to be written.
# # #
[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 25, 2007, 7:15, 9:00 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]
Three items this morning:
Here's the latest in our "corporatized government" effort to "rob from the poor and give to the rich" -- the central Iowa "Yes to Destiny" campaign. I guess that means, "Yes, suck it up and accept it; your destiny is to continue to make us richer." All you can give the backers credit for is their lack of hypocrisy. There's no pretense of the "SILO" suggestion that "we're doing it for the kids." The stated purpose of the proposed sales tax (aside from some spare change) is to transfer local taxes from those who own property to those who can't afford to; a sales tax the purpose of which is to reduce property taxes. No duplicity here; they tell you, straight out, as Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko put it in the 1987 movie "Wall Street," "Greed is good." Before you read the story, read the comments (three as of this morning [now 14 by 11:50 a.m.]). Those writers are "right on." You'll find their comments at the bottom of the screen for Donnelle Eller, "Venues approach 'Destiny' plan as lifeblood," Des Moines Register, June 24, 2007.
More on indoor rain forests, attractions and economic development. John Carlson had a column yesterday about the Iowa Speedway in Newton and the "Iowa Corn Indy." John Carlson, "Iowa Corn Indy 250 revs up town that's seen tough times," Des Moines Register, June 24, 2007. Auto racing is one of the fastest growing attractions in the country, and it brought 35,000 people to Newton. I suspect the town would rather see a replacement for the 2000 Maytag jobs it's lost than 35,000 one-day tourists. But it's a real accomplishment, and congratulations to Newton!
It's another example of some of the economic realities regarding attractions as revenue-generating tourist attractions in Iowa. Gambling, auto racing, rock concerts, and football (and not necessarily in that order) are what bring out the crowds. Newton had roughly the same number of visitors in one day as the Old Capitol, Iowa Hall, or Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and birthplace have in an entire year.
Quasi-educational attractions serve a real purpose (including school children's tours), need and deserve our support -- private and public. But according to the best economists (and experience of other Iowa attractions) something like the proposed Pella indoor rain forest, a quasi-educational attraction at best, will never generate the fans that a winning Hawkeye football team can -- let alone the 1.5 million visitors yearly the promoters have sometimes predicted. (That's a number that would require every man, woman and child in Iowa, from new born babes to the terminally ill, to visit the place and pay the full admission fee every two years for the entirety of their lives. It's just not likely to happen -- especially once located a long drive off of Interstate 80.)
Finally, face it, Iowa is not a "tourist destination" for most Americans. That's not to say we shouldn't create more parks, trails and greenbelts. We should. For our own benefit if nothing else. (Costa Rica devotes more of its land area, 25%, to parks than any other country on earth. For Iowa, that would be the entirety of nearly 25 of our 99 counties. Instead, Iowa is one of, if not the, bottom states in the U.S. for percentage of land in parks and forests.) But our beautiful (to me) farms and prairie grass preserves will never compete for tourists with the national parks, skiing and mountain climbing in the Rockies; the beaches of the East and West coast states; Caribbean cruises; the urban attractions of New York, San Francisco and Las Vegas; or foreign travel.
Fortunately, they don't need to. To our agricultural and manufacturing base, the new ideas and start up corporations from our Regents' universities and entrepreneurial centers, we are now adding the alternative energy sources of biomass, wind and hydro. The 35,000 good paying, full time jobs they are capable of creating will, in the long run, do far more for Iowa's economic development than 35,000 racing fans sitting in bleachers in Newton for one day -- "not that there's anything wrong with that."
UI Prez Search and Executive Compensation. The Des Moines Register runs as an Associate Press Story this morning, "Mason's pay bump at U of I may affect her state peers," Des Moines Register, June 25, 2007. And see in that connection, Nicholas Johnson, "Executive Compensation" in "Prez Mason & Now What? - Life Goes On," June 23, 2007.
# # #
[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.]
# # #
