Feb. 7, 8:10 a.m.
Big News: UICCU members are petitioning management for reconsideration of challenged vote approving "Optiva." See linked, below, press release, membership petition, State's ruling. (Although I'm neither an organizer, nor even a signer of the petition, the move is consistent with what I've written on the issue, most recently, for example, Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 62 - Revisiting Optiva," January 17, 2007.)
Other news: Regents designate and approve Search Committee II tasks, hear reports and express interest regarding minority students retention rates, faculty exodus, and auditors continue to probe UIHC computer security.
Stories linked below.
# # #
[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. And 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
"Credit Union Members Petition for New Election on Name Change," Press Release, February 6, 2007
The Membership Petition (Petition to Conduct an New Election on the Name of the "University of Iowa Community Credit Union")
Iowa Division of Credit Unions Report (Letter from James E. Forney, Superintendent, Iowa Division of Credit Unions, to Ms. IngridHill, et al., January 8, 2007, Re: UICCU Changing Credit Union Name)
Terry McCoy, "Regents: Minority graduation rates still falling shy of goal," The Daily Iowan, February 7, 2007
Diane Heldt, "UI president search committee promises undergraduate input," The Gazette, February 7, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Minority Graduation Rates Stationary At State Colleges," The Gazette, February 7, 2007
Diane Heldt, "UI Officials: Low Pay Causing Faculty Exodus," The Gazette, February 7, 2007
"State Auditor Collecting Data on Hospital's Computer Access," The Gazette, February 7, 2007
Kathryn Fiegen, "Schools to investigate grad rates; Regents concerned about gap between minorities, non-minorities," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 7, 2007
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Feb. 6, 12:10 p.m.
Never did get back to commentary yesterday. Sorry. It's amazing how often blogging can be interrupted by "life" and "work" some days.
So I'll have at it this morning.
Yesterday's items were:
Terry McCoy, "Undergrad on search panel unlikely," The Daily Iowan, February 5, 2007
"Ups and Downs; Here's the Balance Sheet on School Infrastructure Sales Taxes," The Gazette, February 5, 2007
Nothing wrong with UI/Lottery TV commercials," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2007
I then said of them: "This morning's papers bring more insight to the exclusion of undergraduates from the UI Presidential Search Committee II that would be truly hilarious if it were not so sad and serious (Daily Iowan), The Gazette's "pro and con" on the SILO 20% sales tax hike adds little to this blog's discussion yesterday (especially with its weak "pros") but is a useful summary anyway, and a bizarre editorial in the usually analytically sound editorial page of the Press-Citizen about gambling and intercollegiate athletics at Iowa. They're all linked below." Here goes:
1. Excluding Undergraduates From Search Committee II. So what was the "so sad and serious" item that would otherwise have been hilarious? An anonymous comment from "tdhcheri" following yesterday's blog entry captured it without any assistance from me: "Linda Maxon's comment as reported by Terry McCoy in the DI of February 5 is one the most amusing things I've read in the 21st Century. Imagine. A liberal arts dean consorting with undergraduates. Talk about earning your money."
The opening five grafs in McCoy's story read:
"The lone voice on the second UI presidential-search committee calling for undergraduate representation on the panel belonged to its only student.
"'Certainly, it would be better for there to be a graduate and undergraduate on the list,' Sarah Vigmostad, a UI graduate student, said on Feb. 2. 'They each have unique concerns.'
"But just as quickly as she decried the exclusion of undergraduate representation and the committee's general lack of contact with that group of students, other panel officials explained their opposition to her request.
"Committee member Linda Maxson, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said she frequently associates with undergraduates, and roughly half of the panel members raised their hands to demonstrate that they, too, interact with them.
"Panel head David Johnsen said he is not against adding an undergraduate student, but the state Board of Regents has the final say. The regents had set a maximum of 12 committee members before the panel was assembled, but they allowed 13 to sit, he noted."
What's wrong with this picture? As Elizabeth Barrett Browning might have answered that question, "Let me count the ways."
(1) Of all the stakeholder groups in the UI community undergraduates are, in number, second only to alumni. They are multiples of the faculty. Multiples of the staff. Many multiples of the deans and other administrators. As I've earlier noted in passing, in a lengthy discussion of this issue ("Search Committee: No Undergrads, Few Applicants, Lots of Confidentiality/Undergraduate representation" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 279 - Feb. 4," February 4, 2007), the Constitution provided that even slaves were to be counted in the census as 3/5ths of a person each. By what rationale can undergraduates be stiff-armed by the Regents-Search Committee II to the point of being excluded entirely, thereby relegating them, in the academic caste system, to something well below the dignity accorded slaves in 1789?
(2) It makes such a poignant picture: the sole voice on the Committee for undergraduate representation is a lone graduate student, aligned against every single "adult"! Do we have to start singing "when will they ever learn" again?
(3) And what is one to make of the defensive assertions from the "adults" that the Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean "frequently associates with undergraduates, and roughly half of the panel members raised their hands to demonstrate that they, too, interact with them." Isn't that too close to a reminiscence of "Some of my best friends are . . ." or "We're not prejudiced, we've just never had a qualified one apply" to actually be uttered in public in 2007? The anonymous tdhcheri got it right in that comment, quoted above.
(4) And then there's McCoy's report of Committee Chair Johnsen's explanation: "he is not against adding an undergraduate student, but the state Board of Regents has the final say. The regents had set a maximum of 12 committee members before the panel was assembled, but they allowed 13 to sit." (a) "He is not against adding an undergraduate student"? It seems to me this is one of those binary decisions. If he's done nothing to add one, votes not to do so, and goes along with the other adults in opposing the suggestion of the sole graduate student I'd say that qualifies as being "against adding an undergraduate." (b) "The state Board of Regents has the final say"? Is he suggesting that he asked the Regents if he could add an undergraduate and Michael Gartner said (or the entire Board voted), "No"? If not, what does that mean? (c) "The regents had set a maximum of 12 . . . but they allowed 13 to sit." "Allowed" suggests that Dean Johnsen did go to the Regents for "permission" to go to 13 (for a graduate student); something he was unprepared to do for an undergraduate representative (but that, based on the increase to 13, might have been approved had he asked). (d) Does this suggest that the Regents are even more open to student representation than Search Committee II and its chair? That is, did the Committee accept the Regents' "committee of 12" standard and fill the slots with other than students because their initial instinct, or preference, was to exclude all students, graduate and undergraduate?
I'm not going to prolong this analysis. I just think the treatment of undergraduates in this process is very unseemly for an institution that represents that it offers a four-year undergraduate education -- albeit one that takes six years -- in exchange for an ever-increasing tuition it is as pleased to accept from the one-third who never graduate as from the two-thirds who do.
2. SILO Pro's and Con's. The Gazette has made its skepticism about the 20% sales tax increase pretty clear (Editorial, "School Sales Tax Too Long," The Gazette, February 4, 2007). But it also recognizes its journalistic obligation to present a range of views. In this spirit it put a summary of pro's and con's on its front page ("Ups and Downs; Here's the Balance Sheet on School Infrastructure Sales Taxes," The Gazette, February 5, 2007). But the paper's not willing to make up stuff, so here was its best effort at finding something good to say about this tax hike:
•• Local-option sales taxes, especially in retail-rich counties like Linn and Johnson, bring in revenue from people living outside the trade center.
•• That ‘‘pull factor’’ in the Iowa City/ Coralville metro area is 3.1 — meaning for every sales tax dollar generated by city residents, an additional $2.10 is collected from non-residents.
•• The Cedar Rapids/Marion metro area pull factor is 1.97. For every dollar paid by city residents, another 97 cents comes from people outside the cities.
•• The sales tax is a lucrative and predictable tax, allowing schools to budget accordingly. It is easy to administer and costs little to collect.
•• The more affluent pay more in sales tax annually, making it somewhat progressive.
•• Sales tax is not collected on groceries or medicine, which represent major expenses for people on fixed incomes. It is collected on retail items, like clothing and furniture, where some buyer discretion is possible.
(a) The first three deal with "pull." This is another word for "greed." Soak the neighbors. "I've got mine, Jack." The reason Johnson and Linn counties have a positive "pull factor" is that residents of neighboring counties must come there to shop in major malls. SILO will enable us to tax them with the 20% sales tax increase, so that they can help pay for our schools while their schools go without. Now that's a revenue system to be proud of!
(b) No one questions that the 20% increase is "lucrative." Darn right. The questions, put by The Gazette's editorial, and by others, are whether the plans for spending that lucrative windfall have been well thought out, and whether alternative approaches to education (producing better results at less cost) have been explored and tried.
(c) "Somewhat progressive"? I don't think so. In the context of taxing schemes that's an odd use of the word "progressive." Of course, the more income you earn the more income tax you pay. (Actually, this is not always true because of the deductions available to the rich that are irrelevant for the poor.) The more expensive your house the greater the property tax you'll pay. The more you spend on things that are subject to the sales tax the more sales tax you'll pay. But these increases in the amount of tax are not "progressive," they're linear. "Progressive" in the context of taxation refers to the percentage (not the total amount) of your income that goes to the tax in question.
And the reason a 20% increase in the sales tax is called "regressive" rather than "progressive" is that the poorer you are the larger a percentage bite this 20% hike will take out of your total income; the richer you are the smaller will be the impact -- in terms of the additional percentage of your total income that will go to sales taxes. This is because the poor must spend a larger overall percentage of their total income on things subject to sales tax.
(d) It's great in this connection that "sales tax is not collected on groceries or medicine" but that scarcely does away with the regressive impact of shifting what would otherwise be property taxes charged businesses and home owners onto the sales taxes that fall disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor.
(There's a letter to the editor this morning that I've linked below regarding the tax vote: Ron Moore, "Look at all options before making a decision on tax," The Gazette, February 6, 2007. Mr. Moore is a former school board member and president. It's not totally clear whether he's advocating a vote for the tax (because the innovations he's advocating are on the brink of being adopted, but will require additional money to do), or against (because school board members and administrators don't show a lot of interest in such innovations). But it's worth a read in any event.)
3. The analytically bizarre editorial about athletics and gambling. I understand that the 11th Commandment of Journalism is "thou shalt not speak critically of professional or intercollegiate athletics." And I know that the Press-Citizen has done a great job of encouraging attendance in general, and of students in particular, at the Riverside Gambling Casino. So I'm not re-plowing that ground. But even accepting those positions, I just didn't think that the content of Monday's editorial supported its conclusion ("Nothing wrong with UI/Lottery TV commercials," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2007).
(a) It begins by noting that "the University of Iowa Presidential Committee on Athletics plans to discuss the university's involvement with the Iowa Lottery" at a meeting that will be occurring "at the same time that Sen. Chuck Grassley is urging Congress to re-evaluate whether quid pro quo donations to university athletic departments should be considered tax deductible." So far so good, except for the lack of any relationship. The former has to do with the propriety of partnerships between intercollegiate athletic programs and the gambling industry -- whether the Hawkeyes' partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino or the Iowa Lottery. The latter has to do with the propriety of the tax code treating as a "charitable" contribution to "education" the payments to the football program that fans must make in order to qualify for the privilege of then buying tickets.
(b) It twice seems to suggest that a significant reason why this University partnership with gambling is perfectly acceptable is that it has been going on for some time: "Although UI has a longstanding relationship with the Iowa Lottery . . ." and "the partnership between UI and the Lottery is hardly new." I don't think this is a very persuasive argument. Nor did the Press-Citizen itself when it editorialized about John Colloton: Editorial, "Celebrate the Colloton era, but don't return to it," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007. "Colloton thrived in a very different period than our own," the editorial began. It concluded, "in the 21st century, we immediately become suspicious of anyone acting with such profound conflicts of interest or such monopolistic results. Someone -- including us -- should have said something long ago about the inappropriateness of such dual positions. Everyone -- including us -- should be doing everything possible to ensure that such conflicts are a thing of the past. We celebrate the Colloton era, but it's not a time we want to return to."
Why is it that the Athletic Department's partnerships with the gambling industry are perfectly acceptable because they've been going on so long, but what is alleged to be Colloton's "conflict of interest" is unacceptable notwithstanding the fact it went on for so long?
(c) There's what appears to be an unbecoming effort to ridicule those who question these practices: "Some fans and university alumni are shocked that UI would allow the Iowa Lottery to use treasured icons of UI sports." In the context of an editorial trivializing the problem this use of "shocked" seems (at least to me) an effort to suggest that "shock" (or, indeed, any objection at all) is simply unsupportable.
(d) And there's a more serious conflating of two arguments in the line, "Those critical of the Lottery as an institution obviously have their own concerns about the relationship." (1) Admittedly, those opposed to all gambling are presumably opposed to Bingo in church basements, the Riverside Casino and the Iowa Lottery -- and therefore also opposed to any partnership between the University and the gambling industry. (2) But the issue before the "Presidential Committee on Athletics," and the subject of the editorial, is the propriety -- not of gambling in general or the Iowa Lottery in particular -- it is the propriety of partnerships between the University's athletics program and the Iowa Lottery (which, when I was clerking on the federal courts, was prosecuted as "the numbers racket" run by the Mafia).
(e) Then there's the argument that this is nothing more than "two state institutions working together for each others' benefit," and presumably whenever that occurs it's OK, regardless of what those two institutions are. No one questions that both the University and the Iowa Lottery are two "state institutions" -- though I would hope they would not be considered to be equivalents as the Press-"Citizen's phrasing seems to suggest. Clearly the partnership benefits the Lottery. Clearly it brings money to the athletic program. The question is not whether money is a "benefit," the question is whether that benefit outweighs the costs in image and bad publicity. Is the implicit message, that gambling is an alternative to education as a road to riches, consistent with the University's mission and self-image? With the NCAA's concerns about (indeed, prohibition of) sports betting by college players and coaches? Or is it like the monopoly given to Coca Cola for soft drinks on campus: as long as it makes money, who cares what the impact may be on students' health and values?
(f) The only real argument for the position advanced by the editorial is little more than an ipsa dixit: "there is nothing unseemly about" partnerships between intercollegiate athletic programs and the gambling industry. No effort to offer an argument as to why there's "nothing unseemly" about it. Just the straight out declaration, like a child responding to "Why?" with "Just because." Because the Press-Citizen says so, academics, athletics and gambling do mix.
Oh, now I see.
(But the Press-Citizen, as always, is entitled to a lot of credit for honorably presenting a range of views on the issues it addresses -- and not only printing, but seemingly welcoming, letters and columns that differ from its editorial positions. I've linked to one from yesterday that seems to share my perspective that the paper ran alongside its editorial: Tucker Kline, "Don't gamble with the UI image," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 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. And 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
Ron Moore, "Look at all options before making a decision on tax," The Gazette, February 6, 2007
Nile J. Williamson, "Colloton's actions were appropriate," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 6, 2007
Tucker Kline, "Don't gamble with the UI image," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2007
Blogs
State29, "I'm Shocked SHOCKED To Find That Estimates Were Too Low For The New Polk County Jail," February 5, 2007
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Feb. 5, 11:00 a.m.; 4:30 p.m.
This morning's papers bring more insight to the exclusion of undergraduates from the UI Presidential Search Committee II that would be truly hilarious if it were not so sad and serious (Daily Iowan), The Gazette's "pro and con" on the SILO 20% sales tax hike adds little to this blog's discussion yesterday (especially with its weak "pros") but is a useful summary anyway, and a bizarre editorial in the usually analytically sound editorial page of the Press-Citizen about gambling and intercollegiate athletics at Iowa. They're all linked below.
There is also a correction, or at least expansion and clarification, regarding "Search Committee II and Confidentiality," sub-headlined below.
There will be more commentary later in the day (maybe this evening). Meanwhile, you can read the originals and speculate as to how you (now) and I (later) will react to what you're reading.
Search Committee II and Confidentiality
It is true that Iowa Code Sec. 21.5 (1)(i) does require a finding of impending “irreparable injury to [an] individual’s reputation” to an justify a governmental body closing a meeting otherwise required to be an “open meeting.”
However, there are an additional number of provisions that must be considered.
Section 21.5(1)(a) authorizes a closed session “To review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential . . ..”
In the case of state law, this requires a reference to the Iowa “public records” law in Chapter 22.
Section 22.1(3) defines “public records” as “all records . . . of or belonging to this state . . ..” Candidates' applications would presumably be "records of or belonging to this state."
Section 22.7 deals with “confidential records” and says “The following public records shall be kept confidential . . . (11) Personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies . . ..”
Subsection (18) is the more problematical and needs to be set forth in full, for it provides that also "confidental" are:
“Communications not required by law, rule, procedure, or contract that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them . . . if they were available for general public examination. . . . ‘[P]ersons outside of government’ does not include persons . . . who are communicating with respect to a consulting or contractual relationship . . . or who are communicating with a government body with whom an arrangement for compensation exists. a. The communication is a public record to the extent that the person . . . consents to its treatment as a public record. b. Information . . . is a public record [if] it can be disclosed without . . . indicating the identity of the person . . ..”
I would agree that these provisions add confusion to the issue. However, I do not believe that they must be interpreted to authorize Search Committee II to hold closed meetings to discuss, for starters, (1) the number of potential candidates under consideration, or (2) the names of those candidates. (The contrary argument, with regard to names, might be that, (a) to the extent the names have been extracted from “confidential” communications (if such they be), then (b) they are, by extension, as “confidential” as the documents from which they were obtained.)
At the outset, Section 21.5(1)(a) only applies if Search Committee II is going “To review or discuss records . . . kept confidential . . ..” Thus, if the Committee is discussing nothing more than the number of candidates before them, or the names of those candidates (especially if the names were obtained from sources other than candidate communications, but perhaps possibly even if not), Section 21.5(1)(a) is simply inapplicable (because the Committee’s discussion is not “to review or discuss records”). The number of “confidential records” the Committee may or may not have is irrelevant if they are not even discussed. (And to drag them into the discussion for purposes of closing an otherwise open meeting would seem to be an evasion of the law.)
What’s the effect of Section 22.7 (11) (“personnel records”)? As I read it, it’s inapplicable, insofar as an applicant for a job is not “personnel” until actually hired.
Section 22.7(18) is inapplicable if the communications are required by “law, rule, procedure or contract.”
The Committee’s Presidential Search Web site provides:
“Apply or Submit Nominations
Letters of application, nominations, and inquiries may be sent to the search committee at this address:
University of Iowa Presidential Search Committee
David Johnsen, Chair
N308 DSB
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242-1010
Applications should include a curriculum vitae and a letter of interest.”
Thus, this notice strikes me as something that results in such communications as the Committee may receive qualifying as, at least, “required by rule [or] procedure.” As such, Section 22.7(18) is simply inapplicable to these communications; thus, they are not “confidential,” and therefore they do not permit closed meeting discussions of them under the terms of Section 21.5(1)(a).
(The contrary argument might be that the phrase “required by law, rule [or] procedure” refers to a “communication” that must be filed whether the sender wishes to file it or not, such as a tax return. By this interpretation, a job application procedure is something in which an individual may or may not choose to participate. It is a procedure “required” only of those who choose to apply.)
We are then left with the Section 22.7(18) language that the communications are confidential “to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them . . . if they were available for general public examination.”
This language sounds to me more like an effort to encourage whistle blowers and those citizens reporting public employee malfeasance than it does language designed to protect the identities of those applying for public jobs. (A contrary argument might be that the language, on its face, would cover job applicants if it is otherwise applicable to them.)
As always what publlc policy considerations would suggest should be the practice is another matter. Past UI search procedure has been to hold the full list of potential candidates confidential, but then reveal the names of the four to six "finalists" at the end of that process -- preferably with on-campus interviews. That is, at a minimum, an illustration of one pragmatic approach -- and perhaps the best one. But, again as always, what the law should be and what the law is are often two different things.
# # #
[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. And 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
Terry McCoy, "Undergrad on search panel unlikely," The Daily Iowan, February 5, 2007
"Ups and Downs; Here's the Balance Sheet on School Infrastructure Sales Taxes," The Gazette, February 5, 2007
Nothing wrong with UI/Lottery TV commercials," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2007
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Feb. 4, 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m.
Today there's news and comment about the UI Search Committee and "The SILO Sales Tax for K-12 Schools."
Search Committee: No Undergrads, Few Applicants, Lots of Confidentiality
"The bad news is that there remains concern that the 13-member committee is not broad enough to represent all the facets of the university -- specifically that the committee does not include anyone representing the UI undergraduate population."
-- "President Search II," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 4, 2007
Undergraduate representation. My instinct about the absence of undergraduates on Search Committee II (which I characterized yesterday as a disrespectful disdain the equivalent of a "poke in the eye with a sharp stick") was confirmed in a comment yesterday tacked onto the blog entry containing my Press-Citizen column about college football.
The author, who commented under the name "John Barleykorn," wrote in part:
"As an alum, I would much rather give funds to the sports programs that give me enjoyment and pride rather than the academic programs, many of which treated the majority of students like chunks of meat processing through a system. . . . [Why] should I give to . . . the political science department which I got my BA from [and its] professors who did not want to be bothered by undergraduates[?]"
It's not the first time I have heard similar comments. (I offer no judgment as to whether such feelings are warranted or accurate; my only point is that to the extent there are UI graduates do feel that way their feelings probably contribute to inhibiting the size -- or existence -- of their alumni giving to academic programs.)
Since most institutions (including universities) seem to reserve their greatest enthusiasms and energies for fund raising of various kinds, I thought John Barleykorn's comment worth bringing to the attention of the Regents and Search Committee II.
In excluding any and all undergraduate representation from Search Committee II for what seem to be the phoniest of reasons, they not only look silly and stubborn, they not only totally ignore what is by any measure the overwhelming majority of persons in the UI community, they are also simply reenforcing the feeling that many undergraduates may already have: that the UI simply views them as a source of the cash flow called "tuition," a necessary evil to be tolerated, if that. Having been excluded from Search Committee II is not going to help when, after today's students graduate, they are asked to show their gratitude and affection for our academic programs with generous contributions.
Defenders of the exclusion say, if an undergraduate was permitted to serve on the Committee then others would also want representation. Arguments like that always remind me of my third grade teacher: "But Nicky, if I let you do that I'd have to let everybody do it." And to such arguments I continue to say today's equivalent of what I said then: Search Committee II is too small anyway.
What is this petulant stubbornness about Committee size about anyway? I won't repeat the overwhelmingly persuasive case for larger search committees. If you're unfamiliar with it, you can listen to Jon Carlson's explanation.
Last March (2006) law professor Carlson, who chaired the very successful and widely-praised search committee that produced President David Skorton, and who was selected as one of the first group of five to serve on "Search Committee II," reviewed for the Regents what works best. That includes among other things, in his view, a broadly representative committee that can share the workload. The Regents rebuffed his helpful suggestions borne of experience and followed their own path into a tar pit. (To borrow a song lyric, "when will they ever learn?" Apparently not in time for Search Committee II.) But the ideas are still out there, if you're interested. Start watching at 41 minutes 21 seconds into the 1 hour 25 minute video -- or watch the whole event as you choose. (His remarks run 41:21-48-00.) It's available here: http://winmedia.uiowa.edu/president/iboropen.wmv.
Before leaving this subject . . .
"Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons . . . three fifths of all other Persons." The Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 2, Par. 3 (1789).
What's the relevance of that passage from our Constitution? As early as 1789 even African-American slaves were thought to be entitled to at least three-fifths the representation of white folks when it came to taking the census. Of course, I'm not prepared to bear the burden of arguing that students should be accorded the full representation given slaves 218 years earlier. That would probably be asking too much of the Regents and Committee members. I just think there ought to be one on Search Committee II.
Few applicants.
Brian Morelli reported yesterday, "A list 'well into the double digits' of sitting presidents, provosts and other 'well-qualified' people who have applied, been
nominated or been recommended to be the next University of Iowa president, search committee chairman David Johnsen said. [Johnsen] would not specify how many names the list included. 'I am a little nervous to go in that direction,' Johnsen said."
What the hell is this about? The number of names on the list now needs to be classified "Top Secret"? Why?
Because Dean Johnsen is regarded as an intelligent and competent guy, not to mention someone who has indicated a desire for openness, I can only guess that this kind of bizarre behavior -- like the size of the undesirably small search committee, and the exclusion of any and all undergraduates -- has been ordered by Regents President Gartner, or perhaps even full Board action.
But if that is in fact the case I think Dean Johnsen should at least say as much in public, as he has indicated to some degree in the past. (He has said something to the effect of, "This process starts with the Regents and it will end with the Regents.") There would be nothing wrong with that. Just say, "The Regents, whose process in a way this is, have indicated they would prefer we reveal neither the names of the candidates nor even how many there are."
That would be acceptable. It would still sound silly. But at least it wouldn't reflect on the good common sense of Search Committee II and its chair.
By the way, why are the unknown precise number of candidates now only in the "double digits" -- somewhere between 10 and 99? Two months ago -- at the end of the extremely secret Search Committee I -- even that committee felt free to talk numbers. And if I recall correctly, the numbers of candidates were variously identified as in the range of 150 to 160. Once the chair of Search Committee II was selected, not to mention the first five members, wouldn't a top priority have been to immediately email those 150-plus persons to see if they were still interested? How much could have changed in two months? It's certainly possible that the treatment they -- and the UI community -- received at the hands of the Regents would have soured some individuals on that list (as well as others). But how many new names could have popped up in two months beyond those found over the last year of searching? If that was done I guess we can conclude that something between one-third and one-half (at least) of those 150-plus are no longer interested. If that hasn't yet been done it's reasonable to ask, "Why not?"
Lots of confidentiality. I am, as always, prepared to be proven wrong in my interpretation of Iowa law. When blogging I do not take the professional time to do the detailed research necessary to come to well considered "legal opinions" -- nor would I be publishing them in a blog if I did. I sometimes miss relevant provisions. And I seldom take the time to read court decisions or Attorney General's opinions.
But I'm troubled by the view of the law reflected in this report by Brian Morelli, linked below, of what appears to be Search Committee II's understanding:
"When the second presidential search committee met Friday [February 2, 2007], they tried to pin down the language of a solicitation letter that would go to each name on the list. The person could then respond and indicate if they would like to be discussed in an executive session. Iowa code requires job candidates to request that their name be discussed privately, instead of publicly, before a search committee can enter closed session to evaluate them. Johnsen hopes to get enough responses to warrant an executive session when the search committee meets Feb. 23."
I have discussed these issues at length before, and don't want to repeat them now. See "Open Meetings and Public Records, 1. Can meetings be closed for 'personnel' matters?" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XVII - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006; "Search Committee II and Open Meetings Requirements" and "Search Committee II, Candidate Confidentiality and On-Campus Interviews" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 371 - Jan. 27," January 27, 2007.
In sum, the Code presumes as a default that all meetings of a group such as Search Committee II will be open to the public and media. That would, of course, include meetings at which candidates are (a) counted, (b) named, or (c) discussed (with one narrow exception). Period.
The Committee apparently understands that it does not have the power to close a meeting unilaterally; it must have the agreement, the request, of the candidate being discussed. That much is true. However, as such it suggests too much.
The Code expressly states the circumstances under which a governmental body may close a meeting. If the body cannot come within one of those express exemptions the meeting in question must be open. The Code also states that no body is every required to hold a closed meeting merely because it has the discretionary authority to do so. (For example, merely because an applicant for UI president requests -- or even demands -- that his or her name be kept confidential, and that any discussion be conducted in secret, nothing in Iowa law requires the Committee to go along with that demand.)
Thus, even when both the Committee, and the candidate, wish to have the discussion held in secret they cannot do so without a very narrow standard being met, and having been found by the Committee (and a reviewing court, if any) to have been met.
That standard is that, secrecy (a "closed meeting") is "necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation . . .."
Now one may argue about what the law should be; perhaps any and all "personnel matters" should be discussed in secret. But that's not what the law now says (as far as I am aware, and as I read it). Nor do I believe the Committee can legally throw around that finding ("irreparable injury") with nothing to back it up save the candidate's, or Committee's, self-serving, conclusory assertion. There needs to be some factual basis, if not "fact finding," for that conclusion.
Moreover, even if some aspect of the candidate's record would qualify for secret discussion under the statutory standard, just as with other exceptions permitting closed meetings, the Committee would have to come back into open meeting upon the conclusion of the discussion of those matters. It would not, taken alone, warrant holding in secret the (a) number of candidates, (b) names of candidates, or (c) favorable or neutral information about those candidates. All that could be held in secret would be information so negative in character that to disclose it would cause "irreparable injury to that individual's reputation."
What I find even more troubling than what looks to be a clear violation of the law is the apparent desire of the Committee to perpetuate secrecy in this process, to actually solicit, to encourage, candidates to ask for secrecy. Given human nature most of them will do so -- both because they, too, probably prefer darkness to sunshine, and because they will be seeking to please their reviewers who have made their preference for secrecy so very clear.
The elephant in our board room. I have earlier discussed the continuation of the present Board of Regents and its leadership, in particular Michael Gartner, as "the elephant in our board room." See "The Elephant" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 70 - Jan. 25," January 25, 2007.
Will anyone want to become UI president knowing of this Board's past practices? Knowing that every major group on campus, representing tens of thousands of members of the UI community, has passed resolutions of "no confidence" in the Board's leadership? Knowing that the new governor has indicated no inclination to remove that leadership?
And if they would be willing to kowtow to such a Board do we even want them as president? What's the matter with them? Don't they care? Are they just interested in the job because it will provide them a $100,000 to $200,000 pay raise? Are they really so egotistical they think that they will be able to win over the Board? That they will be able to function as a leader for this University notwithstanding the Board?
Confidence is commendable. Excessive confidence is Iraq.
Are we going to take, and answer, their questions about Gartner? If they ask questions does that count off points -- or add them? Will we volunteer information if they don't ask? IWhat should we conclude if they are totally ignorant of what's gone on here during the last few months?
From Diane Heldt's report, linked below, it sounds like Search Committee II is giving at least some consideration to these issues:
"Another concern committee members said they’ve heard is that a failed first presidential search will keep qualified candidates away. . . . Committee members said they should address problems with the first search in their mission statement . . .. Nat Sutton, a consultant from the Heidrick & Struggles search firm, agreed. 'We have to be prepared to deal with the past search . . . questions will come up,' he said. 'Everybody needs to be on the same page.'’’
It will be fascinating to see how the Committee, and the candidates, tiptoe around this elephant.
The SILO Sales Tax for K-12 Schools
Read the editorials on the "SILO" tax in The Gazette and Press-Citizen, linked below.
Notwithstanding the pro-SILO, self-serving interests of those who trade in real estate, or the rental of real estate, or for that matter all home owners -- interests that publishers would not normally consider antagonistic to advertising revenue -- both papers end up somewhere between critical and opposed to the tax proposal.
The Press-Citizen, for example, while headlining its editorial "SILO Benefits Will be Worth the Cost," linked below, says of the proposal:
"Iowa City district officials haven't done as good of a job this time around making a compelling case for how the funds will be spent and why the district needs the funds now. . . . [The proposed projects] don't necessarily convey a sense of compelling need concerning this tax. . . . [T]here's never a time when the school district can't use more money. Likewise, there is no clear-cut reason in Iowa City why the election needs to take place now . . .."
The Gazette simply says, "The reasons voters should say no to the SILO are . . ." and then proceeds to argue five persuasive points.
Note that neither of these editorial boards -- both of which are generally supportive of the schools in general, and spending on them in particular -- are staking out an ideological, or partisan, "read my lips, no new taxes."
The concerns they express, to which I'll add a few of my own, are:
1. The proposal is unbecomingly greedy. (a) It's a kind of "I've got mine, Jack" move to collect money for local schools from those who must come from outside the school districts to buy, and pay sales taxes, at the malls and shopping centers in Linn and Johnson County.
And, (b) within the District, it is an unabashed effort to shift the tax burden from a relatively progressive property tax system to a regressive sales tax system, to shift the burden from the relatively wealthy who own, trade or rent out real estate onto the backs of those least able to pay (and who must already pay a disproportionate share of their income in sales tax compared with their more fortunate, wealthier neighbors).
To the extent that the SILO funds go to legitimate, real "needs" they will, thereby, reduce property taxes to the extent that they would otherwise have to have been increased to pay for the bonds that would otherwise have to be used.
(c) But, finally, there is the self-defeating argument by the sales tax promoters that they intend to use some of the increased sales tax revenue as a direct transfer to property tax payers. Why self-defeating? (1) It looks like vote buying ("vote for our sales tax and we'll reduce your property taxes") and (2) it dramatically undercuts the argument for the sales tax that it is necessary "for the kids" and to meet the "needs" of the local school systems and that every dollar it will raise is desperately needed by the schools and will be used to meet those needs.
It raises the obvious question: If every dollar is needed for the schools, how are you able to transfer these dollars directly from those who pay sales taxes (but don't own property, and therefore don't pay property taxes) to property tax payers? Analytically, it's difficult to make both arguments simultaneously.
2. Although represented to be a "1% tax increase," it is in fact, of course, a "20% tax increase." (One cent is 20% of 5 cents.)
3. When Iowa City recently voted to approve a bond issue for the schools it was under a carrot and a stick. "We want a sales tax-funded school system, and we're frustrated that you Johnson County folks won't support it. So we'll promise you this: If you'll support this bond issue then we won't put in a sales tax. But if you don't support the bonds we're coming back with the sales tax again." Well, the anti-sales tax folks supported the bond issue, and now are within their rights in believing they have been double-crossed in a way.
4. They got it backwards. The initial enthusiasm was for the money. Only later did they realize that, in order to get it, they better come up with some ideas for how they might spend it. That's not a convincing way to persuade skeptics that there's a real need.
Of course there are things that even the nation's wealthiest school districts (of which the ICCSD is one) could do with more money. Many of those "wants" could actually make some difference in children's education.
But as The Gazette earlier pointed out, there is a distinction between "wants" and "needs" and -- precisely because the list was thrown together fast, after the possibility of an additional $100 or $200 million became known -- the process was not persuasive.
5. Nor has the evidence been presented that the districts have made a real full-bore effort to rationalize expenses, save costs, and look for ways to simultaneously cut expenditures while improving educational outputs.
There has been little or no movement (of which I am aware) toward consolidation. No effort to improve the ever-distancing relationship between the salaries of teachers and administrators. Little or no effort to measure outputs and build accountability into teacher pay and other expenditures.
When I was on the school board there was a rush to talk to architects about the buildings our bond issue would finance. I commented that usually, before one goes to the architect one knows whether they want to build an outhouse or a courthouse. What I meant by that, of course, is that (a) how many kids there will be in school (as a result of job shadowing, or students taking college courses, or cluster schools), (b) what activities are going to take place in school, (c) the extent to which computer instruction is used in the classroom and at home, or (d) whether there will be team teaching and block scheduling -- to name but a few of the possible variables and potential educational innovations -- affect the size and shape of schools and their classrooms.
No one wanted to do that kind of thinking when I was there, and I have no reason to believe anyone has done it since (though I'm the first to admit, since I'm no longer there, I cannot know for sure).
6. One of the advantages of bonding over an open-ended sales tax is that it informs, and forces, both school administrators and the public to focus with relative precision on needs, plans and costs. This sales tax does not.
Few people know with any degree of accuracy what they pay in sales tax for a year, let alone how those revenues are divided among TIF beneficiaries and various public programs. Bonds they do know.
7. As The Gazette points out, and emphasizes, ten years is just too long for a District to plan how it's going to spend that much money. As a result, the public really loses even any knowledge, let alone control, over how that money is spent.
8. It is difficult enough to plan and budget a school district's annual expenditures and reserves with relative stability in both revenue and costs. When either varies radically, whether costs or revenue, and over a short space of time (because the greatest flood of dollars will only come for five years), it can be very disruptive.
When I was on the school board the administration was even reluctant to go after or accept relatively small grants for this very reason. The money would run out and create demands for its replacement from somewhere else. I thought this a short-sighted policy at the time, and it involved far smaller quantities of money. But those experienced in such matters were seriously concerned about it, and the SILO influx of money would be many multiples the problem of any little grant.
9. These have been primarily my comments about the local papers' editorials about the specific sales tax increase proposal called SILO. To the extent anyone cares about my own views on taxation in general, and public support of the schools in particular, here are some very summary comments. (a) Politicians' talk of "taxes" is often a disservice, a diversion away from the public needs, priorities and programs that they (and we) should be discussing. See Nicholas Johnson, "It's Not About 'Taxes,'" October 24, 2006. (b) Depending on how that needs-priorities-programs analysis comes out -- with, hopefully, a focus on efficiency, effectiveness and pay backs -- I have no problem paying more taxes to cover those investments. Without knowing, my instinct is that after that analysis most thinking folks would conclude we would probably all be much better off if we paid significantly more in taxes (i.e., had more public goods). (c) Again, without knowing (tax policy is not my area of expertise), my instinct is that income taxes are probably the fairest form of allocating the costs of public goods (rather than, say, sales or property taxes). (d) As a general proposition I have no problem paying more for our K-12 system -- subject to the kinds of reservations the editorial writers, and I, have discussed, above. In fact, I once proposed doubling teachers' salaries. (e) So, to the extent I have any problems with SILO it is not because I don't want to "Do it for the kids." It is not because I'm opposed to "improving our schools." It's not because I don't want to have to pay more in taxes for those improvements. It's really more a matter of process and fairness, as discussed in the 8 numbered points above.
Something to think about.
# # #
[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. And 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 Bog since June 2006.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Editorial, "School Sales Tax Too Long," The Gazette, February 4, 2007
Editorial, "Our quick take on last week's news stories; President Search II," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 4, 2007
Editorial, "SILO benefits will be worth the cost," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Undergrad UI search rep looks unlikely; Graduate student already on committee," The Gazette, February 3, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Already long list for UI president; Committee has lots of good candidates," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2007
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Feb. 3, 7:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m. (Sperber, Miller and Parrott), 9:30 a.m. (Grassley, DeFord, Register, Athletics and Academics, The Hindu)
Press-Citizen Devotes Page to Athletics as Academics
Because the Press-Citizen's entire op ed page this morning is devoted to college football (and Senator Grassley's look at whether "contributions" for skyboxes should qualify as "charitable contributions" to "education") it's enough for one day's blog entry and will be today's focus here as well.
(The UI Presidential Search Committee stories this morning (coming out of yesterday's Committee meeting) will be linked and discussed tomorrow. Issues: Regents continue to respond to tuition-paying undergrads' request to be included with a "poke in the eye with a sharp stick," Committee chair tries to put best light on number of interested applicants following Regents' disaster during first Search, though search firm shares my view that it's a problem. (I've discussed the issue, and described Regent President Gartner as "the elephant in our board room." See "The Elephant" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 70 - Jan. 25," January 25, 2007.))
If you'll forgive the immodesty, I'm going to lead this morning with the full text of my own 500-word contribution to the page, which the Press-Citizen headline writers dubbed . . .
"It's Sure Cheapter Than a Rain Forest"
Nicholas Johnson
In addition to the fact that Iowa's Sen. Chuck Grassley is no longer chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I don't think his suggestion that there shouldn't be tax deductions for "contributions" to intercollegiate football programs stands a snowball's chance in an Iowa rain forest.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
Legal discussions pose two issues: What is the law? What should it be? Grassley acknowledges perhaps the law should be changed. But, as written, he questions whether it provides deductions for contributions to college football.
Tax deductions are for charitable contributions to eligible organizations. The IRS says "charitable" means things like "relief of the poor; advancement of religion, education or science; defending human and civil rights."
Eligible organizations under Section 501(c)(3) are those, for example, "operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes."
Doesn't sound much like football.
College football has become a business. Big business. With corporate CEO-level salaries for coaches. NFL scouts watching these "farm clubs" and hiring the best players. Student seating giving way to $100,000 skyboxes in $100 million-plus stadiums. TV revenues over $1 billion. Coaches' product endorsements. Advertising on scoreboards. And tie-in agreements with gambling casinos and lotteries.
It doesn't look exactly like a program designed for "relief of the poor." Nor, suggests our senator, does it have much to do with scholarships for those among them seeking a college education, or building classrooms, or any other "educational purposes."
Competitive sports have been around for thousands of years. They're not going away soon. Nor should they. The question is whether housing them in our high schools and colleges is best for either academics or athletics.
The rest of the world also loves sports. They go crazy over soccer -- the only sport for which there is truly a "world championship." But they're cheering for community teams.
Sure, their schools have physical education classes and intramural sports -- and given our kids' obesity, we could do with more of both in our schools. But the primary focus of their secondary schools and universities is on academics, not athletics.
Sports Illustrated's Frank DeFord thinks we should admit football isn't academic and put it in a university's "Department of Entertainment." I have an even better idea, a kind of win-win.
Keep "the Iowa Hawkeyes." Keep Kinnick Stadium. Keep the tailgating and drunken crowds. But make the football program its own, separate for-profit corporation. It keeps the football revenue, but pays to lease Kinnick. The corporation could pay the coach whatever it wanted. It might even pay the players a little fairer share of those revenues, too.
Meanwhile, the university could become an academic institution.
How could for-profit Hawkeye football give contributors tax deductions? That's what special interest lobbyists are for: making the tax code resemble Swiss cheese. The Olympics are a 501(c)(3). Why not the Hawkeyes?
Propose the idea to Sen. Chuck "Earmarks" Grassley. He's not opposed to football; he just doesn't think it's "education."
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the UI College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and
FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
_______________
First, the Press-Citizen online makes three other columns from its page available. Here are the links to . . .
Murray Sperber, "Whether they love, hate or are indifferent to the Hawkeyes, taxpayers will pay the difference," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2007
Charles Miller, "Thanks for the Reminder of the Difference Between Civic-Minded Giving and Tax-Deductible Giving," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2007
Steve Parrott, "University of Iowa Responds," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2007
The hard-copy, newspaper page also contains some summary comments about the original column from Senator Chuck Grassley that prompted this discussion (and more!), an excerpt from the Frank DeFord column to which I make reference (in my column today, set forth above), and an editorial from the Des Moines Register. Here are links to the text of that commentary:
Charles Grassley, "Looking Out for Taxpayers by Looking at Donations," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
Frank DeFord, "Money in College Sports? Let's be Honest," Morning Edition, National Public Radio, January 24, 2007
Editorial, "Tax-loophole users should feel like targets; Grassley hunts down too-sweet deals," Des Moines Register, January 22, 2007
Also relevant in this context, perhaps, is my earlier Nicholas Johnson, "Athletics and Academics," September 30, 2006, which makes reference to another Frank DeFord column.
And while of course there was no way of anticipating the event and story, it's noteworthy that The Hindu reports in its edition this morning that fans of the soccer teams "Catania and Palermo rioted outside Catania's Angelo Massimino stadium during the second half," in a way that was sufficiently serious that a policeman was killed from an explosive device and "Federation (FIGC) commissioner Luca Pancalli called an emergency meeting in Rome late Friday, and announced he was canceling all games." The story goes on to note that "the violence follows last month's death of a fourth-division team manager from injuries he received when he tried to stop a
brawl during a game."
(a) In my column, above, I note that "The rest of the world also loves sports. They go crazy over soccer -- the only sport for which there is truly a 'world championship.' But they're cheering for community teams." The riots in Catania are evidence of the more extreme form of how fans "go crazy over soccer." (b) I also find the story -- in India, of this soccer riot in Italy -- some evidence of the world-wide enthusiasm for soccer. (c) Post-game riots are not unknown in this country, but they seldom involve explosive devices and death. (d) The point is simply that, as I say in the column, "Competitive sports have been around for thousands of years. They're not going away soon. Nor should they." Thus, when we talk of tax deductions, or whether "community teams" might not be a better alternative to university-affiliated football, it's not "anti-athletics," it's just an effort to rationalize and possibly improve the sport.
The Hindu story can be found at Police officer killed in riots at soccer match in Italy," The Hindu ("India's National Newspaper"), February 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. And 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 (updated January 17, 2007) 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 Bog since June 2006.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Feb. 2, 11:45 a.m., 2:15 p.m. (Molly Ivins)
What looked like a slow news day or two has now reversed field and requires a catch up.
Another great woman has been lost to breast cancer, my friend Molly Ivins.
The UI Presidential Search Committee will be meeting today, so there may be more news coming on that story. Meanwhile, Iowa's undergrads are (understandably) still upset at having been given the cold shoulder by the Regents and Search Committee -- especially since they are clearly the largest category of stakeholders in this search, and are shouldering the burden of ever-increasing tuition at this "public" university that continues to become ever more indistinguishable from an "elite private college."
In what I believe to be a related story (though others minimize the connection) there has been an increase in departing faculty -- some for greener pastures, some simply fired from the Hygienic Lab, with timing UI's critics suggest is suspicious.
Those administering Iowa's semi-pro farm clubs continue to see nothing wrong with profiting from gambling -- whether the Riverside gambling casino or the Iowa Lottery -- but have acquiesced to talk about it with administrators.
Colloton's friends are lining up to sing his praises, but the Press-Citizen editorial board isn't buying all of it -- though, as always, opening its pages to a range of views.
Someone who actually knows what he's talking about has fired off a letter to the editor of the Daily Iowan that seems totally consistent, and supportive, of the off-the-top-of-my-uninformed-head letter I wrote about alternatives to more and bigger jails and prisons.
[There will be additional commentary on these items later today.]
Molly Ivins
For the most part, I'm going to defer to Rekha Basu and her column this morning about the loss we all suffer as a result of the death of Molly Ivins. As we say in legal documents, I'd like to "just incorporate it by reference" in my remarks -- since she's a much better writer than I and we share similar sentiments about Molly Ivins. (Rekha Basu, "Thanks for the truth - and the laughter, Molly Ivins," Des Moines Register, February 2, 2007; and linked below.)
All of Molly's friends and admirers (and I know of no one who knows her who is not both -- though she might have said in response that my comment is simply proof that my range of acquaintance is far too narrow) have their own collection of stories. Rekha tells of being joined in a hot tub by Molly Ivins at a conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
I have a number of stories -- though none involves a hot tub -- but will just tell one.
As a Texan of sorts myself, having spent the 1950s living in Austin (while attending the University of Texas as an undergraduate and law student) and then Houston (clerking for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John R. Brown) before going to Washington (which ultimately included a couple of presidential appointments from a President from Texas), I was able to share an attraction for The Texas Observer, and both the outrage and sense of humor she brought to her many fans by way of her columns about "the Lege" and other Texas institutions.
We were generally aware of each other, but it was not until one morning, listening to her commentary on NPR, that something she said struck me as so clever and funny that I picked up the phone, called her, and we had our first delightful conversation.
It seems that British royalty was coming to visit Texas, and to present the Lone Star State in the most favorable light possible, someone had baked "a yellow cake the size of a basketball court" (if I remember her phrase correctly) in their honor.
I remembered from my Austin days that Texans were actually proud of the fact that, outside of town, along the highway, Texas had the distinction of having "the world's largest billboard." (This may have contributed to Lady Bird Johnson's insistence on billboard restrictions along the Interstate system.) The Longhorns' band proudly paraded with what they insisted was "the world's largest base drum." I could go on, but you get the idea.
I had just never heard a way of putting Texans' obsession with being the biggest in a succinct phrase. Molly did it. As she explained this (probably) "world's largest yellow cake" to her listeners: "Texans believe that 'more is better, and too much is not enough.'" I decided I needed to get to know better anyone who could put a line like that in a commentary.
In the conversations we had after that she never failed, not only to entertain, but to bring to the subject at hand a knowledge, a mind both curious and analytical mind, and a creative intelligence that always left one wanting more.
We continue to lose too many women to breast cancer. My own mother was blessed with twenty more years of life than Molly Ivins, but it eventually got her as well. In her later years she commented to me how, as you grow older your circle of friends shrinks as they die off. With every passing year I come to better understand just what she was talking about. Last Wednesday that circle got a lot smaller.
# # #
[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. And 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 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Kurt Hiatt, "Two more terminated at Hygienic Lab," The Daily Iowan, February 2, 2007
Richard Gibson, "Look beyond new jail," The Daily Iowan, February 1, 2007
Dane Schumann, "UISG: Put undergrad on panel," The Daily Iowan, January 31, 2007
Terry McCoy, "Panel begins UI-head search," The Daily Iowan, January 29, 2007
Rekha Basu, "Thanks for the truth - and the laughter, Molly Ivins," Des Moines Register, February 2, 2007
Tony Leys, "2 more dismissed at Hygienic Lab; Researcher, deputy chief were associates of fired director," Des Moines Register, February 1, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Ex-director: UI lab firings raise concerns," The Gazette, February 2, 2007
Editorial, "Celebrate the Colloton era, but don't return to it," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Regents to set committee's duties; Presenting president finalists top responsibility," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Two more let go at Hygienic Lab at UI; Gilchrist calls the timing suspicious," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007
Ryan Suchomel, "UI to Examine its Lottery Ties," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007
Reginald R. Cooper, "Colloton Deserves Better," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Pres search committee to meet Friday," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 31, 2007
"UI Search Committee to Hold Meeting Friday," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 30, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Will UI funding return to 2001 level?; Higher education officials hope for more money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 29, 2007 (with link to "State Appropriations")
Charlotte Eby, "Regents like Culver proposals," Sioux City Journal, January 31, 2007
Blogs
Patton's Pad (Bob Patton), "UI News Cartoon Caption Contest from Jan. 23," January 30, 2007 (sale of UIHC)
Reference
Brian Morelli, "Letters touch on allegations of blame; Correspondence shows glimpse into Wellmark dispute," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 30, 2007"Selection of Universiy of Iowa Presidential Search Committee," Board of Regents Agenda Item 1, January 11, 2007
"Naming of Interim President" and "Selection of Executive Search Firm," Minutes of Telephonic Meeting, April 3, 2006, Board of Regents Agenda Item 13B, May 3-4, 2006
_______________
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 www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
