FromDC2Iowa

Thursday, November 06, 2008

National Community Organizer-in-Chief

November 6, 2008, 7:30 a.m.

OK, Now What?
Why I Did, and Will, Support President Obama

My enthusiasm about President-Elect Obama's victory is as great as anyone's -- with the possible exception of those African-Americans who are my age or older. My seven years in Austin, Houston, and traveling throughout the deep south during the 1950s were far from their lifetimes of oppression, but the environment and what I witnessed of the ravages of segregation and discrimination were enough to open this white Iowa boy's eyes and heart, and provide a little more meaning and force to my singing of "we shall overcome some day" during the 1960s. We haven't yet reached Dr. Martin Luther King's mountaintop, but at least it's now a lot closer than it's ever been.

Besides, law professors tend to favor as presidents former law review editors -- even if what they edited was the Harvard Law Review. I just hadn't thought there were enough law professors to get Senator Obama elected, but delighted to find out just how wrong I was.

Finally, I noted yesterday ("Global Election Results: 'The Whole World is Watching,'" November 5) the importance of our elections to the citizens throughout the world who will be affected by it, and the beginning of end of the harm that the last administration's rhetoric and actions have done to our standing in the world. (See, e.g., The Kenya Times' stories; and see bottom of blog entry for a very moving first-hand report.)

Every world citizen's best interests are served by hoping for President Obama's success and doing what they can to bring it about -- but that is multiples more true for those of us in this country who are in the best position to be supportive and helpful.

Having said all of the above, however, there is a difference between "supportive and helpful" and "unthinking cheerleading."

The Citizen's Duty to Criticize Government

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), established the standard that public officials must meet in suing for defamation (that the defendant either knew his or her statement was false, or exhibited reckless disregard in ascertaining its truth). Justice Brennan, writing for the Supreme Court, noted the protection given public officials when they are sued for defamation (for example, for something said by a U.S. senator during a debate in the Senate). He continued, "Analogous considerations support the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official's duty to administer . . .."

Note that Justice Brennan is not just saying that we American citizens have a privilege to criticize government -- though of course we do -- he says that those who live in a country that was designed and is devoted to be governed by its citizens ("self-governing") have a duty to criticize their government.

Hopefully, this will be what we call "constructive criticism." Hopefully the critics will have learned somewhere along their educational path the difference between data, facts and the scientific method on the one hand, and opinion, inference, rumor, and ideology on the other. Hopefully they know that when obscenities or mean-spirited misrepresentations are hurled at officials they only reveal what is going on inside the speaker's head, rather than anything about the world outside.

That New York Times v. Sullivan protects some pretty awful political speech from defamation suits doesn't make it commendable citizenship.

President Obama as National Community Organizer-in-Chief

Don't get me wrong. My clear inclination is to believe that a President Obama will be speaking and acting out of a love of country, a superior intelligence, and desire to do what he believes to be in the best national interest. I believe that President Obama at his worst will be better than President George W. Bush at his best.

But my dream, my hope, is that he will be even better than that.

Based on the very first conversation I had with him, plus a number of his speeches since, my hope is that he will use us -- the 3.2 million contributors, the millions more of supporters whose email addresses he has, and such of the 64+ million who voted for him whom he can contact or otherwise motivate -- as the "community" for whom he is the "national community organizer." As the saying has it, "When the people lead their leaders will follow." Or, as President Roosevelt is said to have urged public interest advocates, "I totally agree with you; now you go out there and make me do it."

Part of what makes Washington "broken" (as even Senator John McCain would say), part of the reason Wall Street and K Street seem to have their way with the federal government, is that we -- you and I -- aren't "at the table" with the lobbyists and special interests to whom our local representatives and senators, as well as the White House, are too often beholden.

Without Us There is an Improbability of "Change"

Without a president who will encourage and enable our meaningful and effective participation it's not clear to me how we get from here to there, how "change" can be possible. "Reaching across the aisle," reaching for compromise, sounds good -- and is certainly better than Democrats and Republicans, or the legislative and executive branches, throwing rotten eggs at each other. But if the senator doing the reaching is heavily funded by, say, Big Pharma, and the hand he grabs is that of another senator heavily funded by Big Pharma, the result may improve legislative harmony but is unlikely to improve our access to health care.

So long as Big Pharma and Big Oil are drafting the legislation, and making the campaign contributions necessary to get it passed, on economic issues the next four years are going to look an awful lot like the last eight years.

As Common Cause finally learned after 30 years of trying, campaign finance reform legislation has to be passed by incumbents. And incumbents have little enthusiasm for changing a system that virtually guarantees the re-election of those incumbents who want to be re-elected. I see no indication that incumbents attitudes about this are going to change -- especially after witnessing the success of a presidential candidate who reversed course, rejected public financing, and sailed on to a $600 million victory.

So the only hope I see for meaningful change in the way Washington does business is for "the people to lead" -- hopefully with the encouragement, rather than the resistance, of the president who could be our "national community organizer."

When "Centrist" Becomes "Continuity" -- and Early Appointments

President Obama never promised to be, and has given us no indication of being, a populist or progressive. He offered little to no rhetoric of the Robert Kennedy variety regarding the needs of the poor (as distinguished from "the middle class"). He reversed his position on trade, and immunity for the telephone companies than illegally wiretapped their own American customers. He voted for the first $700 billion flawed bailout of Wall Street -- the source of much of his financial support. His healthcare proposal bears little similarity to the "universal, single-payer" systems of most industrialized nations; it retains the high administrative costs, CEO compensation, and corporate profits of the insurance and healthcare "industry."

I appreciate that there is a case to be made for continuity and against "change."

But to the extent you personally favor the notion of change one thing to keep an eye on are the early appointments. To the extent Bush's cabinet officers are kept on (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been mentioned in that connection along with keeping General General David Petraeus in place), or former Clinton officials are brought back (former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers has been mentioned for Treasury Secretary), that tends to suggest relatively more emphasis on continuity and less on change.

"Can't Tell the Players Without a Program": Clues From the Transition Team

Here are some names from the Washington Post of transition team members at this point to help you follow news from the personnel front as it unfolds (as many-to-most of them will presumably find their way into positions in the Administration after January 20).

Obama spent most of the day ensconced in a downtown office building where he held discussions with Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.; John D. Podesta, who was President Bill Clinton's chief of staff; Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.); and senior campaign advisers. . . .

Leading the Obama-Biden Transition Project are Podesta; Valerie Jarrett, a close friend of Obama's; and Pete Rouse, Obama's former Senate chief of staff. . . . Obama . . . is expected to name his chief of staff, most likely Emanuel, this week. . . .

After weeks of speculation about who might fill the Treasury post, financial industry and Obama sources said the list includes Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury secretary at the end of the Clinton administration and has been a close adviser to Obama on the economy.

Geithner has been deeply involved in the government's response to the nation's economic crisis since it began in September. While he has extensive knowledge of the financial system, he is not as well known to Obama as is Summers.

Obama could also draw from his core economic team, which includes former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who chaired Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. . . .

Others suggested the possibility of a less conventional pick, perhaps a Wall Street name such as Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase. . . .

Beyond the Podesta-led troika, a separate team, headed by Mark Gitenstein and Ted Kaufman, will guide the transition process for Biden.

A senior transition staff will oversee day-to-day activities: Chris Lu, Obama's legislative director, will serve as executive director. Campaign communications director Dan Pfeiffer will move into the same role for the transition. Stephanie Cutter, Michelle Obama's chief of staff, will serve as chief spokesperson. Obama friend and think tank executive Cassandra Q. Butts will serve as general counsel, a job that will include vetting job candidates for ethical conflicts. Campaign chief of staff Jim Messina will become personnel director. Phil Schiliro, a Capitol Hill veteran, will run congressional relations.

The transition team advisory committee includes numerous Clinton veterans and allies of Obama and Biden. One member key to the economic planning is Michael Froman, a former chief of staff to Rubin at the Treasury Department during the Clinton years and an Obama classmate at Harvard Law School.

Anne E. Kornblut and David Cho, "Obama Team Shifts to Transition Mode; Bush Extends Invitation, Calls Historic Election 'Uplifting,'" Washington Post, November 6, 2008, p. A1.

And see, Jim McElhatton, "Big-time Obama fundraisers to aid transition," Washington Times, November 6, 2008 (e.g., "Donald Gips, a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore who helped the Obama campaign raise at least $500,000, will serve on an advisory board overseeing the Obama transition" -- along with the names of many more, including Valerie Jarrett).

_____

Here is a letter from someone I do not know, shared with me by a friend, that reveals a good deal of what the election of President Obama is doing to improve our image abroad:

My dear friends,

Today I have had to travel from the island of Borneo...from SABAH and the town of Kota Kinabalu. Then to Kualam Lumpur where I had a 5 hour lay over and finally arriving very late at night in Bangkok. The election has already begun....

Today, in honor of the election, I am wearing an Obama '08 button on my lapel. If the treatment and reaction throughout my day is any indication of what our world might become....I am overwhelmed with optimism. First, every single place I went, someone noticed the button and called out, "OBAMA!". There were international administrators from across the region at the Hotel. Many of them nodded and smiled, and even the non-Americans who reacted with huge enthusiasm. One man from Australia stopped me to talk politics for 10 minutes. The crew working behind the desk all gave a thumbs up...the taxi driver did not charge me for taking me to the airport.

I must explain that, once at the airport, I am one of very few Americans among Asians from all over this region. I might possibly be the only blond in either airport I have been in so far today, and won't see many if any Americans until Bangkok. I do not speak the language...thank goodness they speak English.

Upon seeing my button, everyone, without exception, smiles. I have received preferential treatment all day long. They didn't make me pay extra for a heavy bag, they treated me in short, like royalty. The stewardess told the pilot, who stood up in the cock pit to give me a thumbs up. Even the immigration official barely looked at my passport. He was much more interested in knowing an Obama supporter and what I thought would happen today.

When I was buying dinner at a very American McDonalds (the only place to get something to eat), the entire crew behind the counter (not one American) came to say kind words to me. The man who exchanged my money asked how I could do anything so far away from the USA. I told him, with some amount of pride, that I had voted by absentee ballot. He took my hand and said, "thank you so much for voting for Mr. Obama." There were actual tears in his eyes.

While waiting at the airport in Kota Kinabalu and girl about 9 years old saw my button. She smiled broadly. I said hello and she asked if I wanted Obama to win because she did and her whole family did and that that morning they said a prayer that he would. I told her that I thought Barack would like that a girl all the way in Kota Kinabalu said a prayer for him. She asked could I tell him that they were praying for him and I said I would send an email to his headquarters. She was so excited that she ran to tell her parents. Her father came over and asked me if I knew Obama. I told him I had seen him speak, but never met him. He said that his whole community was praying for Obama and that he appreciated that I would write an email to tell him. He took my hand and said, we are praying for all of the American people too. This was the second stranger to take my hand today. It was my turn to have tears in my eyes, because this man, who I didn't know, was completely sincere. I thanked him. He said, "all of us, together...do you understand?" I said, "All of us together." We parted...smiling!

I write this as I sit in the airport at Kuala Lumpur waiting for hours for the plane. The women who guard the doors have on muslim headdresses, orange pants outfits and lime green jerseys. They are shy and reserved, yet they give me the thumbs up, and quietly whisper, "Obama" as I walk by. There are Thai and Chinese, and Indonesians and Indians surrounding me...The languages, dress, foods are all interesting. And sitting right next to me is a Buddhist monk, in just his orangish/yellow robes and shaved head. He smiles broadly when I look at him. He says frankly, "I like Obama."

The man behind the counter is Malaysian. He asks if I voted and when I confirm I have he laughs really loud and says something to the other official sitting next to him. This man laughs too. They both look at me intently. The one, fighting to find the right english begins, "This is (something in Malay). I smile saying I don't understand. He looks at his colleague and rattles something in Malay...The man says just a minute. He gets out a book. It is an english translation book. He says something to the man and hands him the book...pointing to a line on the page. The 1st man turns back to me and says..."this is fan/tas/a/tic...fan-tas-aahhh-tic...how do you say?" I tell him, yes, he is right "Fantastic". They laugh again at their attempts. I laugh too. He stamps everything forcefully, "wham! wham! wham!" And then he says something none of these officials ever take time to say, "We hope you will come back and visit our country!" "Of course, I say, of course." I don't quite know how to explain the full meaning of his invitation. Americans haven't been at the top of the list for quite awhile and traveling around, it isn't hard to sense.

Our leaders reflect who we are as a country/nation. I have always been proud of my family and Oregon. I have not always been proud of our leaders and the choices they make. Today I am proud...I am proud of our country and I was tearful watching a top French official trying to explain to the BBC reporter why the whole world is watching this election and praying that Obama will become our president.

Well, thank you for letting me share. Tomorrow at 7am we head to the American Embassy gathering to watch the election results come in. We are attending with world leaders and diplomats. We are to dress "smart casual". It should be quite the experience...one I hope brings new hope to our country and the world.

# # #

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Global Election Results

November 5, 2008, 9:00 a.m.

"The Whole World is Watching!"
Millions of Americans watched the results coalesce last evening, from 1% returns until the time when it finally became safe to believe that Senator Obama had actually won.

There were the U.S. Senate and House races, in sum a "national election" of their own to watch, district and state at a time, by both those who wanted the evening to end with a divided government and those who did not.

And the local races, and issues: Here in Johnson County the voters' acceptance of the conservation bond was a big one for me -- and something of a cliff hanger, as the early returns had it passing by 70%, before it finally came to rest at 61% -- just barely over the 60% required. Given the enormous campaign by the nay-sayers, both in money and with their thousands of misleading Robo-Calls, it's a great tribute to the sense of voters in troubling economic times that they saw sufficient value in protecting the environment, preserving our land and water, providing more recreational use, and taking meaningful steps to reduce the economic loss from flooding that they were willing to take on an additional $20 million of property tax obligation ("$2.20 a month").

But when the television started showing the dancing in Kenya, I was reminded that the BBC World Service has been telling us for weeks that ours really was a global election. Everyone in the world is affected by whomever we may select as our president. And they know it. It's just that we don't let them vote. It's our own little "Vote locally, impact globally" exercise.

When the police began beating the demonstrators in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention there 40 years ago, the demonstrators chanted, "The whole world is watching!" And it was.

It was also watching this year, and last night -- a much more peaceful scene.

Before I went to bed, and again this morning, I turned to my "The Global Press" Web site to see just how many were watching.

Here's a sampling of the papers reporting on our election. The stories were almost universally positive -- sometimes enthusiastically so. Indeed, the caution it raises for me is that Obama's overwhelming success and impact contain the seeds of one of his greatest challenges: how to deal with the excessive, exaggerated, and sometimes wildly unrealistic, expectations of those who voted for him in this country, and those who wished they could have who live in other countries.

Here's the Newseum's collection of the front pages of the world's papers reporting our election.

Here are some of the papers I've been reading that report the "global story" of what we did yesterday:

Al Jazeera, Doha

Al Rafidayn, Baghdad

Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo

Dawn, Karachi

El Mercurio, Santiago

Iran Daily, Tehran ("World Hopes for a Less Arrogant America" -- "the globe geared up to celebrate a fresh start for America after eight wearisome years of George W. Bush")

Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem

Kenya Times, Nairobi

La Nacion, San José

Le Monde, Paris ("Les Etats-Unis ont surmonté les démons du passé")

New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur

O Estado de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo

Pajhwok Afghan News, Kabul

People's Daily, Beijing

Pravda, Moscow ("Yet in choosing Obama, the people of America have opted to come back into the international fold. Welcome back, friends!" -- replacing last evening's headline, "The end of eight years of hell.")

South China Morning Post, Hong Kong

Times of India, New Delhi
__________

9:30 a.m. Having written the above, I now discover that the New York Times is once again showing off one of the advantages it has over bloggers: reporters around the world. For what they have to say about the world's reactions to what we've done, see "Reactions From Around the World," New York Times, November 5, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CT -- and don't miss the additional comments added by Times' readers from around the world to that Times' Web page.

# # #

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Tuesday Night Caution and Clues

November 3, 2008, 6:25 a.m.; November 4, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

VOTE!
. . . New Hampshire has

Obama Sweeps Dixville Notch, 15-6!
"[I]n northern New Hampshire . . . registered voters in Dixville Notch cast ballots in a matter of minutes just after midnight. Obama carried the town with 15 votes, while McCain took six. Obama also won the nearby town of Hart's Location, with 17 votes to McCain's 10 and write-in candidate Ron Paul's two." Mary Pat Flaherty, "New Hampshire Voters Cast First Election Day Ballots," Washington Post, November 4, 2008; 6:24 a.m. CT

How late will you have to stay up Tuesday night?

Polls can be, and sometimes have been, misleading. Until either Senator Obama or McCain goes over 270 electoral votes Tuesday night we won't know for sure who our next president will be. And no one can predict for sure how late we'll need to stay up to find out.

I share the nervousness of those pollsters who are a little apprehensive this morning about their numbers. Partly that's because I've always felt that no election's over until the votes are counted, litigated if necessary, and the Electoral College members have cast their votes. Partly that's because of past experience with youthful and first-time voters who are enthusiastic at rallies but then fail to vote. Partly it's anxiety that the so-called "Bradley Effect" may not be the thing of the past that we hope it is. And partly it's because last Saturday, during the night, I was tuning up and down the AM dial rather than just listening to the BBC World Service.

Traveling the country In the 1970s I would return to Washington warning the politicos about the commentary I was hearing on radio stations all across the country from this guy Ronald Reagan. There was nothing to balance his views. But he wasn't on the radio in the Washington, D.C., area so my warnings were largely ignored. In case you've forgotten, he later turned up in Washington as President of the United States.

The talk show hosts and callers are really scary. Forcefully presenting as "facts" about Senator Obama what they must know are lies. Hate speech, venom and slander that would subject them to enormous damages for defamation if he was not a public official/candidate/public figure. All swimming in a sea of ignorance.

One drifted off into religion and whether the Bible was literally accurate with regard to the six-day creation of the Earth. One of the more flexible callers suggested that, "while we think of a 'day' as the time it takes the sun to go around the earth" -- that's right "the sun to go around the earth" -- that a "day" for God could be the time it takes our solar system to go all around the galaxies.

Elections always remind me of a story told by one of my colleagues about the McGovern campaign. A student came rushing into his office and excitedly repeated, "McGovern's going to win! McGovern's going to win!" My colleague asked how he knew; to which the student replied, "Everybody I know is voting for McGovern."

Everybody you know may be voting for Senator Obama. But that ain't the same as "everybody." Those talk show callers and listeners are going to be voting on Tuesday, too. And there's a lot more of them than cross my path each day.

Senator Grassley thinks it will either be a landslide for Obama or a squeaker for McCain. Tuesday night could be a long one.

Political scientists and professional political advisers will be going over the returns for months. But we'll have some early clues -- at least as to who the ultimate winner is likely to be.

Here's a list of the eastern states and others that close their polls between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Those with a * will be indications of the ultimate outcome -- especially if Obama is doing better than expected in rural areas, or McCain in urban areas. If one or the other is picking up a disproportionate share of the "swing states" it will be an indication that they will probably end up winning the presidency by the end of the evening.

Polls Closing, Central Time
[Source: CNN Election Center 2008]
* = states to watch for early clues regarding ultimate outcome (Real Clear Politics
is calling Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio "toss-up" states. Virginia will also be a bell weather.)

5:00
* Indiana (ET counties)
Kentucky (ET counties)

6:00
* Florida (ET counties)
* Georgia
* Indiana
Kentucky
* New Hampshire (some towns 5:00)
South Carolina
Vermont
* Virginia

6:30
* North Carolina
* Ohio
West Virginia

7:00
Alabama
Connecticut
Deleware
District of Columbia
*Florida
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
* Pennsylvania
Tennessee

7:30
Arkansas

8:00
Rhode Island

# # #

Friday, October 31, 2008

Regents Strategic Plan Needs Metrics

October 31, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 2:00 p.m.

Measuring Education's Value to Iowa
Examples of related blog entries:

Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" April 17, 2007.

Nicholas Johnson, "Of Mission and Metrics: Iowa Universities Presidents' 'Performance Goals,'" October 24, 2008

If you're familiar with the two blog entries linked immediately above you can understand why I would be pleased to see the Regents turning their attention to "strategic planning." There are excerpts from this morning's stories below to fill you in on the details.

My comments and caveats would include the following:

o Under the standards of many gurus of governance this should be the Regents' full time job, not something for a couple days of brainstorming (October 30, and February 2). Much of what the Regents currently do involves a level of administrative micromanaging that conflicts with most governance models, is counterproductive, can usually be better done by the universities' presidents (or those to whom they've delegated the tasks), takes time away from what the Regents ought to be doing, with the result that both Regents and presidents are left with little or no guidance as to measurable goals.

o The current Board of Regents includes individuals with an impressive array of the education, skills and experience necessary to do their job. They should do it; without the use of and reliance upon "consultants." (Moreover, of lesser significance but worth noting, at least by my standards $15,000 for a couple days consulting is pretty generous.) This is hard work. But it shouldn't be -- actually it cannot be -- "delegated" to staff or consultants.

o If individual Regents would like a little outside guidance, knowledge of what other universities (and other institutions) are doing, what are thought to be "best practices" in institutional governance, the best way to get it is through self-education; work at it; internalize the skills. It's all out there on the Internet (not incidentally, for free). Want an analogy? Law students use "outlines" of courses. Those who buy and read commercial outlines are sometimes able to pass an exam (barely), but retain little. Those who make their own outlines from the book and class discussion not only do better on exams, they internalize the information, skills and analytical abilities that they continue to draw upon throughout their professional careers. Regents need to do the equivalent of making their own, individual outlines regarding the analytical skills and process necessary to the task of mission/strategic planning/goal setting.

o Strategic planning basics: metrics, metrics, metrics. Any institution needs some general notion of what it's about. But many institutions, whether school boards or universities, never get beyond such generalized "mission statements" and "strategic planning." That's been my primary complaint about past University of Iowa "strategic plans" (and more recently the Regents university presidents' "performance goals," see "Of Mission and Metrics," linked above). If the plan is to be actually used, if it is to have a meaningful impact on anything (rather than be merely printed, shelved, filed, and stuffed into a Web site somewhere), it needs to have some (a) measurable goals, with (b) mileposts of accomplishment, (c) that are in fact regularly assessed and measured according to a, say, monthly or quarterly schedule, (d) reported on publicly with total transparency, and (e) modified as appropriate. (Not incidentally, these then double as the bases for university presidents' "performance bonuses.") You get what you measure;" measure nothing, you'll get nothing. We've not been measuring much.

o Focus. I'm not at all troubled that the Regents' first effort, according to today's press reports, below, was a pretty scatter-shot exploration of a wide variety of possibilities. That's part of the process. That's constructive. But what it does illustrate is that (a) this is a long process requiring much more than a couple of days' effort. Indeed, as I indicated above, properly conceived this is the Regents' full time job, something that should be the first item on every agenda. And (b) that at the end of this long process there comes to be a need, ultimately, to focus on a handful of measurable, attainable goals (what John Carver calls "ends policies").

o Big picture. Regent Michael Gartner threw out the idea of lengthening the K-12 school year. Many educators think he's right about that; others point out the complexities. Our school schedule is still being dictated by the needs of 19th Century farmers to have their kids in the fields, working on the farms, during the summer months. Few of our K-12 students have those responsibilities today ("more's the pity," some of my generation may think). One of the reasons I ran for, and served on, the local school board was because I finally came to the conclusion that we could not do, as law professors, what should have been done to improve writing skills during the K-12 years.

My point? If you're really interested in the role of education in Iowa, its impact on anything (take your pick), it will be most productive to see higher education as but a small part of the overall effort, from pre-natal care for pregnant mothers-to-be, early childhood health care and pre-school education, K-12, community colleges -- as well as other institutions' efforts at training and education -- and not just "higher education." That's what, I'd guess, Regent Gartner was trying to suggest.

Note in this connection that the Iowa Code already urges as much: "The board [of Regents] shall: . . . Explore . . . the need for coordination between school districts, area education agencies, state board of regents institutions, and community colleges for purposes of delivery of courses . . .." Iowa Code, Sec. 262.9 (26).

o "The price of everything and the value of nothing." I don't deny that "productivity of the faculty and the cost effectiveness of academic programs" might be both measured and improved, and that "helping Iowa with economic development [and] job creation" have a role to play in a university's mission. After all, I'm the one calling for metrics. Richard Florida talks about the value of a "creative class" to economic growth (and what it takes for a community to attract such people), something directly related to education. But there are other than economic benefits for the individual and the community of a quality education, "lifelong learning," individuals' curiosity, appreciation of the arts, awareness of history, geography, other cultures, science, involvement in the passions of one's time, that are central (I believe) to a university's mission even though less capable of being measured. I would hope that this enormous value, and purpose of education, would not be lost in the rush to put a dollar value on everything done by a university.

Note in this connection that the Iowa Code provides that "The university of Iowa ['s] . . . object shall be to provide the best and most efficient means of imparting to men and women, upon equal terms, a liberal education and thorough knowledge of the different branches of literature and the arts and sciences, with their varied applications. It shall include [a college] of liberal arts . . .." Iowa Code, Sec. 263.1.

o Do we have "public universities"? Do we want them? With a mere $750 million of the universities' $4 billion -- 18+% -- coming from the state, there's some question whether the people and legislature of Iowa even have, let alone want, a "state university." Regent Gartner says even this modest "level of state support is not sustainable."

The average number of years of education thought basic for most citizens, and paid for with public funds (because of its benefit to the entire community and nation), has extended over time from third grade, to sixth grade, to eighth grade, to the full K-12 "high school diploma." Wouldn't you have to agree that if K-12 was necessary, say, 50 years ago, that K-16 (i.e., a four-year college education) would be its equivalent today? If so, what is the rationale for stopping the community benefit from the public funding of public education at K-12?

Initially state universities were created to provide free or radically reduced-cost education*; now they charge more in tuition than our nation's most expensive private colleges charged not that many years ago. Might the Regents and presidents at least explore the implications of a complete split, a candid recognition that these universities have become, in fact regardless of name, "private universities"? If that's a feasible idea, perhaps the State could then provide more adequate funding for the community college system, putting on it the primary responsibility for liberal arts education (along with its associate degree programs), leaving the newly-private universities to focus on graduate and professional education and advanced research.
_____
*

The 1845 law establishing what became the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents (a) was expressly subject to revision and has of course been revised over the years, (b) uses the word "tuition" (though without specifying any amount, nor authorizing the Regents to collect it), and (c) does not expressly provide for "free tuition." However, it does speak in terms of the University being "equally accessible" to all, students being "freely admitted," and authorizes the Regents to "admit gratuitously."

"An Act to Incorporate the University of Iowa" of 1845 provides:

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Iowa, That a Seminary of Learning shall be, and the same is, hereby, established in Iowa City or vicinity thereof to be known by the name and style of the 'Iowa City University;' which shall be founded and maintained forever on the most liberal principles, being equally accessible to students of all religious denominations who shall be freely admitted to equal advantages and privileges of education . . ..

"Sec. 7. That the Regents shall have authority whenever in their opinion the funds of the Institution may justify the measure, to admit gratuitously, in whole or in part, as the respective case may require, such person or persons as they may think proper to enjoy the benefits of tuition in said University."

Laws of Iowa, Passed at the Extra Session of The Legislative Assembly Which Commenced on the 17th Day of June, 1844, Also, The Laws Of The Regular Session, Which Commenced on the 5th Day of May, 1845 (Iowa City: Williams & Palmer, 1845).Chapter 41, University of Iowa City, p. 61.

However, the Act of February 25, 1847, often referred to as the Act creating the University of Iowa ("There shall be established at Iowa City, the present seat of government of the state of Iowa, an institution to be called the 'State University of Iowa,' . . ."), does expressly provide (with regard to education of future "common schools" teachers), "That the grants . . . herein made are upon the express condition that the said university shall . . . commence and continue the instruction -- free of charge -- of fifty students annually, in the theory and practice of teaching, as well as in such branches of learning as shall be deemed best calculated for the preparation of said students for the business of common school teaching." Acts and Resolutions Passed at the First Session of the General Assembly of the State of Iowa Which Convened at Iowa City, on the Thirtieth Day of Novembeer, A.D. 1846 (Iowa City: A. H. Palmer, 1847), Chapter 125, Secs. 1, 7, p. 156 (February 25, 1847), in Laws of Iowa, First to Fourth General Assembly, 1846-1913, Reprint 1913.

Here are some stories reporting on the Regents' efforts:

Brian Morelli, "Gartner suggests lengthening the K-12 school year," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2008, p. A1 ("System-wide, the regents are a $4 billion enterprise, Regent President David Miles said, noting that is two-thirds the size of the entire state budget of Iowa, which is about $6 billion. 'We are an enterprise of scope, scale and significance that if we set our direction, we should be able to make a difference,' Miles said. . . .

The conversation included access for Iowa students; managing budgets, state appropriations and tuition; helping Iowa with economic development, job creation and attracting people as the population ages; improving diversity; increasing competition from overseas; and improving the quality of education, among others. One of the areas of focus was productivity of the faculty and the cost effectiveness of academic programs, and putting research into practice. . . .

Regent Michael Gartner discussed increasing the K-12 school year by 30 days as a way Iowa could invest in education and use it as an economic development tool. 'If we could say, "Move your company to Iowa, and when your employees' children graduate from high school, they will be a year smarter than if they were in Illinois or Kansas or Ohio," that would be awfully powerful,' the Des Moines businessman said. . . .

Another topic was the declining level of state dollars -- about $750 million this past year -- as a proportion of the regents' overall budget. 'The level of state support is not sustainable,' Gartner said.").

Diane Heldt, "Regents Want Goals with State Focus," The Gazette, October 31, 2008, p. B4 ("[Dennis] Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, said he sees four areas the regents should focus on . . . closing the achievement gap . . . ; higher education's role . . . in economic development . . .; providing a trained work force . . .; keeping higher education affordable. . . . [W]hat are the societal needs in Iowa . . ..").

Erin Jordan, "Regents see population-tuition link," Des Moines Register, October 31, 2008 ("Iowa's state universities may have the potential to reverse the state's declining population trends, several members of the Iowa Board of Regents said. The about-face could be made by charging nonresidents the same tuition as residents or recruiting more international students, suggested regents and university leaders at a strategic planning brainstorming session Thursday.").

Amanda McClure, "Regents See Need for Diversity; Bringing People to the State on the Forefront of the State Board of Regents' Strategy," The Daily Iowan, October 31, 2008, p. A1.

Amanda McClure, "Regents Want to Burnish Iowa's Rep," The Daily Iowan, October 31, 2008, p. A4.

Other university news:

Brian Morelli, "Regents Turn to AG on Stolar Note Request," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2008, p. A5 ("The Iowa state Board of Regents is backing off statements that it intends to release notes from interviews conducted during an investigation of the University of Iowa's handling of a sexual assault case. Regent President David Miles said Thursday that the regents have turned the Stolar Partnership notes over to the Iowa Attorney General's Office and are waiting for direction.").

Erin Jordan, "U of I Hospitals to cut $24.8 million to meet budget," Des Moines Register, October 29, 2008

# # #

Thursday, October 30, 2008

$2.20 Gift Keeps on Giving, Pays Dividends

October 30, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Looking for "The Economics of Conservation," October 28, 2008?
Related sources, most popular entries, at bottom this page.

A $2.20 Gift to Our Great-grandchildren
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
October 30, 2008, p. A15
The conservation bond offers one of the best returns on an investment of public money we're ever likely to enjoy.

• What's it worth to bike or cross-country ski along a trail? A fishing trip with grandchildren? It's Mastercard "priceless."

• Economists say recreation's value can be measured. It's at least what we're willing to pay for outdoor equipment, travel costs and related expenses. Clearly, more than $20 million over 20 years -- including profits for local merchants.

• Savings. The 2008 flood cost UI -- one institution from one flood -- more than $200 million, 10 times the bond. Conservation's reduction of flood damage may be its largest pay back.

• If matching funds materialize, $80 million of conservation for our $20 million bond is a better bet than any in Riverside or on Wall Street.

• Increasing values. New York's $50 million investment in Central Park in 1853 now is worth $500 billion. Imagine what our $20 million investment will be worth 150 years from now.

• Land and water stewardship is supported by all major religions and denominations. They know it's essential to continued life on Earth for all, including humans. That's another "priceless." For detail see http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com ("The Economics of Conservation").

Of course, those who oppose all public expenditure -- whether for libraries, schools or parks -- oppose the bond. Why wouldn't they? But they can't deny either its ecological benefits or these returns on our investment.

And when their RoboCaller tells me the added $2.20 a month is going to increase my property tax by 25 percent to 30 percent I think they must be living in a smaller house than my son, Gregory.

For $2.20 to be a 30 percent increase would mean I'm paying $7.33 a month in property tax, or an annual total property tax of $88. I don't know about you, but my bill runs a good deal more than that. Sufficiently so that I don't think I'm going to miss that $2.20 gift to my great-grandchildren.

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
_______________
As usual, the skillful and insightful Bob Patton has used his clever pen to pose the basic choice confronting Johnson County residents:

[Credit: Bob Patton, Patton's Pad: "Happy Little Trees," uploaded October 28, 2008, 2:19 p.m., published Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2008, p. A23.]

In short, what our elected and appointed officials prefer is to take taxpayer money and give it to what he depicts as bloated "Out-of-State Developers," holding plans for "strip malls," "big box stores," and "corporate chains." The alternative? To give a small fraction of that to the cause of conservation.

Here's another:

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Can We Trust Our Bankers?

October 29, 2008, 9:00, 10:15 a.m.

Looking for "The Economics of Conservation," October 28, 2008? Click here.

"If You Can't Trust Your Banker . . ."

[Credit: "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," Maverick, 2nd Season, 1958. The popular early television series, Maverick, "starring James Garner and Jack Kelly, remains the most famous and widely discussed episode of the Western comedy television series Maverick. Written by Roy Huggins and Douglas Heyes and directed by Leslie H. Martinson, this 1958 second season episode depicts gambler Bret Maverick (James Garner) being swindled by a crooked banker (John Dehner) after depositing the proceeds from a late-night poker game, then recruiting his brother Bart Maverick (Jack Kelly) to mount an elaborate sting operation to recover the money." It's also the source of two oft-quoted lines: "If you can't trust your banker, whom can you trust?" and "I'm working on it." See, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," wikipedia.org.]

At the outset, let me make clear that I don't mean to be questioning the trustworthiness of our local bankers (notwithstanding the physical similarity between one of them and John Dehner). The "bankers" I'm talking about are those in Washington, represented by the President, his Secretary of the Treasury, those "to get along go along" campaign-contribution-receiving members of the House and Senate, and their Wall Street collaborators.

Given that they have fallen for the same "Chicken Little, 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'" rhetoric from Bush on the economy that he used for the Iraq War,

[Credit: Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show," September 25, 2008.]

apparently what this country needs is a Washington invasion of chiropractors to strengthen their spines.

Europe is still providing examples of how to go about this bailout responsibly.

For example, in a story of some local interest we learn that the Dutch government is bailing out the corporate parent of Cedar Rapids' AEGON USA. Associated Press, "Netherlands Gives Aegon a $3.7 Billion Bailout," New York Times, October 28, 2008 (in this morning's Gazette as, "AEGON Gets $3.7 Billion Government Investment," The Gazette, October 29, 2008, p. B7 -- apparently Europe's "bailout" is America's "investment").

Note that the European AEGON parent has canceled dividends and executive bonuses for the rest of the year.

Note also that the government has given "Dutch Uncle treatment" a whole new meaning by simply nationalizing the biggest Dutch financial institutions, ABN Amro and Fortis.

Nor has it simply given AEGON $3.7 billion. It has acquired 750 million shares of a new class of non-voting AEGON stock which, if converted to common stock would be nearly a 50% stake in the company. It will name two members of the board. The stock will pay a minimum of 8.5% annually. And if the company ever chooses to buy them back it will cost them $5.6 billion, not $3.7 billion.

Meanwhile, here in the good old U.S. of A. it looks like Secretary Paulson is weakening on his commitment to obtain taxpayer equity in exchange for the $700 billion bailout. Meanwhile, apparently the banks are taking the money -- designed to ease the credit crisis -- and instead of using it to make loans have decided they might better enrich themselves by using it to buy up other banks at a bargain, thereby creating even larger financial institutions that "we just can't afford to let fail."

And the auto companies, having already been given $25 billion (I believe), are now back in line for whatever they can get from wherever they can get it -- a part of the $700 billion "financial institutions" bailout, the additional $25 billion auto "just for the hell of it" fund, and some $5 billion from the Department of Energy for retooling to (hopefully) begin building cars that Americans would actually like to buy.

The roughly $10 billion in government funds to support a merger would be in addition to whatever funds would be allocated under an already-approved $25 billion program to provide low-interest loans to the auto industry for retooling to make more fuel-efficient cars. . . .

Moody's Investors Service cut its GM rating on Monday deeper into junk territory on the view that GM's liquidity would continue to erode into 2009. The ratings agency also cut Chrysler for similar reasons . . ..

GM has a market capitalization of just over $3 billion based on Monday's close and roughly $10 billion of outstanding debt. Chrysler's privately held auto operations were valued at zero last week by Daimler AG (DAIGn.DE) . . ..

GM's shares have slumped nearly 80 percent this year and its market value has dropped below what it was in 1929.

Jui Chakravorty Das and Kevin Krolicki, "GM seeks $10 billion in aid for merger: sources," Reuters, October 28, 2008, 12:06 p.m. ET.

Far be it from me to yield to the persuasive forces of cynicism and conspiracy, but doesn't it kind of remind you of two things:

(1) Civil disorder and riots, whether in Baghdad after our invasion or American cities 40 years ago, with store windows broken and looters running down the streets with anything that was not locked down that they can carry. Even the foxes have stopped guarding the chicken coops and opened the door to any and all to come take as many as they can carry. This Administration and their friends in Congress realize that change is most likely coming. If they intend to keep on getting they best get while the getting is good. Since when they opened the vaults at Fort Knox they discovered they were bare, and they don't want the wealthy to have to pay taxes, they've simply run up debt for our great grandchildren to pay, and then started paying this borrowed money to themselves as fast as they can between now and January 20 (Inauguration Day). Maybe not, but that's sure as hell what it looks like to me.

(2) An almost equally valuable byproduct -- certainly politically -- of this unrestrained theft from taxpayers involves one of the most effective strategies of those who would like to do away with government entirely -- except for making war (while enriching the weapons merchants). By running up astronomical levels of debt they can totally eliminate any and all "discretionary spending" by the president and Congress. Remember Bush's adviser, Grover Norquist? "To Norquist, who loves being called a revolutionary, hardly an agency of government is not worth abolishing, from the Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration to the Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts. 'My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years,' he says, 'to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.'" Robert Dreyfuss, "Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshall' of the Bush Plan," The Nation, May 14, 2001 (online April 26, 2001).

It's a two-fer for them: riches beyond their wildest dreams of avarice, and a political body blow to any Obama Administration. After all, what will Obama's options be? ("You can't always get what you want; but you can get what you need"? Not if "Change We Need" is "Change We Can't Afford.")

1. He can capitulate to the neocons' strategy; fail to put any of his proposals in place, and cut back even more on the few social programs that still exist, further extending the gap between rich and poor and driving America ever closer to third-world demographics.

2. He can, irresponsibly, increase the national debt beyond the $10 trillion or more that Bush is leaving for him -- and the $55 trillion of unfunded future obligations -- and just hope that the Chinese, and other peoples with greater inclination to save than Americans, will continue to loan us money.

3. He can (a) pray for an economic recovery sufficient to radically increase federal tax revenues (without increasing tax rates), using the money to both pay down debt and provide at least pilot project-level funding for new programs, or (b) increase tax rates notwithstanding the lack of economic recovery.

There may be other options, but those are the only ones that immediately occur to me.

Of course, I may be too cynical. After all, "If you can't trust your banker, whom can you trust?"

# # #

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Economics of Conservation

October 28, 2008, 6:45 a.m.

Economic Analysis of Conservation Bond
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors has put a conservation bond issue proposal on the November 4 ballot.

I've been asked, now repeatedly, whether I think it makes economic sense for Johnson County's property taxpayers.

The short answer is "yes;" the longer answer continues below.

There are over 100 organizations, and thousands of individuals, whose recreational activities involve the use of Eastern Iowa's land and water. Iowa ranks near the bottom of the 50 states in public land. So many of them have been having to contribute their own land, money and efforts to improving Iowa's status.

But that's not the way our nation, and the other 49 states, have gone about creating this fundamental public asset over the last 200 years. They view this as a public function, appropriate for public expenditure.

Now Johnson County voters are being given the opportunity to join the rest of the nation. We get to vote on whether we want to invest $1 million a year over the next 20 years for the acquisition of private land voluntarily offered for sale. (This is not an "eminent domain" undertaking.)

Readers' comments. I welcome "comments" about my blog entries, and often benefit from their constructive criticism. But I don't use the blog to carry on an ongoing debate. I figure I have my say in the blog, and those making comments should be permitted their say unchallenged, leaving it to readers to sort it all out. So all comments except for overt advertising are retained on the blog.

But a recent anonymous comment directly asks for a response, and involves the conservation ballot issue:

Anonymous said...

People have been watching your blog for some type of analysis of the conservation vote coming up, the one where you and your wife sit on the board? You know, an analysis of the budget, the business plan, etc. The detailed plans about what happens to the land after purchase and who pays for it...the answering of questions related to conflict of interest...why we are expected to give away $20,000,000 without no more information that a one-page flyer and the exact one-page website???

We have come to expect greater thought on matters pertaining to our tax dollars. We expect more of you, Nick. How would a banker analyze your request for tax dollars? How should the general public? How can one vote on something with no details? Is it a desert topping or what?

10/22/2008 10:37:00 AM

I decided this was one comment that really did require a response, which I prepared over the weekend and intended to use today. Yesterday, he or she was back again, and after quoting from the "Missions and Metrics" blog entry of October 24, added a comment including this excerpt:

. . . These are the same issues being demanded regarding the $20 million conservation vote. All based on a one-page business plan? Give me a break Nick. By ignorning the issue you are agreeing with every argument the opponents of this handout have.

10/27/2008 11:33:00 AM

While I rather suspect that "Anonymous" is opposed to the bond issue, and will remain so regardless of what I write, it makes more sense to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and treat the comment as a serious inquiry.

Comparing Apples and Automobiles. While the implied economic questions can be and will be addressed (whether or not to the satisfaction of the author of the comment is another matter), there are some basics to address first.

1. Public money, private projects. Most of my concerns about public finance, expressed in newspaper columns and blog entries, have involved the transfer of taxpayers' money to private individuals and the bottom lines of for-profit corporations: the recent $700 billion bank bailout; earmarks such as the $50 million from Senator Grassley for the indoor rain forest proposal from Ted Townsend, Governor Ray, and Dave Oman; a vast array of other "corporate welfare" subsidies and programs; and locally the equivalent forms of gifts from the City Council to businesses in the form of TIFs and direct expenditures.

Such spending (rule by joint corporate-government authority is central to the classic definition of "fascism") should raise serious ideological problems for "free private enterprise" and "marketplace" advocates. But if it is going to be done anyway, I've argued, then claims such as those of projected ticket sale revenues, as for the rain forest or Stories Project, need to be subjected to the kind of analysis the author of the comment expresses as, "How would a banker analyze your request for tax dollars?"

2. Public money, public projects. By contrast, public projects, serving public purposes, that come from public bodies -- especially those funded with bond issues voted on by taxpayers -- are an entirely different matter.

That doesn't mean they should be exempt from economic analysis, only that comparing the issues they raise to those of typical corporate welfare projects is like comparing apples to automobiles.

When local school district residents voted a $40 million bond issue for more schools I had laid before them an alternative that would have eliminated the need for the $40 million. But enough voters were sufficiently uncomfortable with what the alternative involved (a modification of the high schools' senior year, and a different system for assigning elementary students to schools) that they thought the $40 million well worth it. And that was fine with me.

Taxpayers have as much right to make an additional contribution to new schools, or more conservation land, as they have to increase their tithe to their house of worship. (And yes, I understand that, unlike the voluntary tithe, once 60% or more of the voters vote for a bond for something those who voted against the proposal will also have to pay their fair share of the property tax used to pay it off.)

There's an enormous difference between, on the one hand, four individuals (Grassley, Ray, Townsend, Oman) deciding to spend $50 million of federal taxpayers' money on a private project in Iowa (their indoor rain forest idea), without meaningful consideration (if any) by the other 99 of the 100 senators, any of the 435 of the members of the House, or the White House staff, and no vote of Iowa's (let alone the nation's) taxpayers; and, on the other hand, the citizens of Johnson County voting to spend $1 million a year for the acquisition of additional public land for conservation and recreation in Johnson County.

Unlike transferring taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations, there are basic community functions and infrastructure that have historically been well within the role of state and local government.

Of course, public expenditures on public projects should be undertaken with as much administrative and managerial expertise, efficiency, and attention to alternatives and cost control as possible.

But there is relatively little debate that public projects can appropriately be undertaken by government -- at some time, in some way, to some degree. I would include in this category our public library, schools, roads, bridges, sewer system, and water plant.

Clearly, public parks and forests; wetlands, lakes and rivers; recreation areas and trails, have been seen to be an appropriate public purpose, and expenditure, since the time of the Boston Common in 1634.

3. "Our Land, Water and Future" and the conservation bond. Is the conservation bond proposal another example of for-profit corporations or wealthy campaign contributors trying to enrich themselves with taxpayer money? No.

This is clearly not only a "public money, public project" proposal, but one that originated with the Johnson County Conservation Board, with the approval of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.

I had earlier been researching, writing about, and had created a Web site for "greenbelts," and had made efforts to contact the Conservation Board, although unsuccessful in doing so. Frankly, I had not thought about a bond issue, had not a clue the Conservation Board was thinking about such a thing, and was stunned (though pleased) when I first heard that a bond issue was in the works.

The comment indicates that my wife and I are on the "board" of "Our Land, Water and Future." In fact, the organization is sufficiently informal that it does not have a "board" as such, only a "steering committee" more or less make up of everyone who came to the first meeting, along with a couple of "co-chairs."

Certainly the organization did not exist prior to the notice of the bond issue, and thus neither it, nor to the best of my knowledge any of its supporters -- unlike the rain forest project's promoters -- could have been instigators of the conservation bond idea.

The closer analogy would be to the "Yes! for Kids" group, organized after the school bond proposal was put forward and made up of those who thought it a good idea.

The conservation bond details. How much detail can a voter reasonably expect from a bond issue proposal? It's one of the questions put by my anonymous comment writer.

Another Anonymous person (not me, obviously) actually responded with a comment of his or her own on this point, quoting the ballot language:

Shall [a] the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, [b] be authorized to acquire and develop lands [c] with public access provided, [d] to be managed by the Johnson County Conservation Board, [e] in order to protect the water quality in rivers, lakes and streams; protect forests to improve air quality; protect natural areas and wildlife habitat from development, and provide for parks and trails, [f] at a cost not exceeding $20,000,000 and [g] issue its general obligation bonds [h] in an amount not exceeding $20,000,000 for that purpose, [i] to be repaid in not more than 20 years? [j] All expenditures will be subject to an annual independent audit. [letters added]

This is about as detailed as you're likely to get from any comparable proposal.

Bonds to build schools don't indicate where the schools are going to be, the precise land and building costs for each, what the architectural plans are, the schools square footage and number of classrooms, how many students will attend, what neighborhood areas they'll come from, who the teachers will be, or where the bus routes will run.

And of course, like schools, it would be both difficult and unwise to identify precise parcels at this point because it would drive up the cost of those parcels for the public, and because it cannot be known, today, precisely what land will become available for voluntary sale, and thought to be most appropriate to the conservation purposes, 5, 10 or 15 years from now.

So what is the economic value of this proposed conservation bond? A part of our "apples to automobiles" problem involves the calculation of the economic value of public projects. It's not that it can't be done, and I'm about to show how it can be.

But you can't measure the "economic" return on a community's investment in libraries, schools -- or parks -- with the same approach you'd use to evaluate the investors' return on their investment in a hotel or shopping mall. Public libraries and schools were never created with the expectation of the "profits" they would spin off. The economic return they provide benefits not only those personally involved, but the community as a whole -- from the enhanced education and information possessed by the citizens, entrepreneurs, workers, and public officials in that community.

Similarly, there is no universally agreed upon single measure of the value of conservation, but these approaches may help:

(a) It's what the Mastercard advertisements call "priceless." What's it worth to you, today, to know that your grandchildren will have access to land in addition to that which is located in a suburban development of homes, or under the parking lots of super malls? What's it worth to you to take a bike ride along a trail through the woods and along a stream? Or to cross-country ski that same trail on a new winter's snow? To spot a rare bird in a forest? To play a game of ultimate Frisbee? To go fishing or hunting with one of your children? To camp overnight along a river?

(b) Economists say it's not "priceless"; they attempt to put a value on it. They say that, at a minimum, recreational land is worth what you are willing to pay to enjoy such pleasures: the mileage cost of driving your car there; the cost of the boat and motor; the outdoor clothes; the sporting, hunting and fishing equipment; the mountain bicycle -- possibly even an RV. In fact, this understates the value; I suspect most of us don't think about the dollar value of such pleasures, and if we did would value them far higher than our mere out-of-pocket expenses -- indeed, if the benefit from the cost was only a wash we probably wouldn't buy the stuff in the first place. And, of course, what's a "cost" (and a "value") to you is a "profit" to some local merchant. So, while I haven't run the numbers, it seems reasonable to assume that there's at least a $20 million return over 20 years from this analysis alone.

(c) Cost avoidance. What did the most recent flood cost us? I don't know the total, but I do recall a University of Iowa estimate of, was it $250 million? It was something over $200 million. And that's just one institution's loss from one flood -- over ten times the cost of the bond!

Greenways and wetlands; prairies, pastures and recreational lands in floodplains; and buffers of filters along rivers can both reduce the number and severity of floods and virtually eliminate the damage to homes and businesses. Cost avoidance alone makes the bond one of Johnson County taxpayers' best investments.

(d) Matching funds. I don't emphasize the proponents' suggestion that the $20 million can and will be "matched" with state, federal and private funds (though I have no reason to doubt them). It may be. But I haven't seen the details on that, so I'm not including it here. Obviously, however, if our $20 million ends up producing $80 million that would be another very positive economic return in the equation.

(e) "Return on investment." From the time of the Boston Common until now, America -- indeed the world -- has had a serious commitment to public lands. And for many good reasons, not the least of which is "return on investment."

"Now is not the time," say some of the bond issue's opponents. But do you know when is the absolute worst time to acquire public land? Next year. Conditions are never better than right now, whenever "right now" and "next year" may be.

It was not easy for the New York legislature to buck the political opposition 150 years ago and come up with the $50,000,000 then necessary to buy what is today Central Park in New York City. But do you know what its value is today? Some 10,000 times that much: $500 billion dollars!

Over the years, from the Boston Common and Central Park, through our vast system of national and state parks and forests today, Americans have seen that kind of return on their investment. Some 23-76% of the land in our 12 western-most states is public land. The National Forest Service alone holds 8% of all the land in America, about 193 million acres.

Imagine what our little $20 million investment will be worth 150 years from now!

(f) We know of the contribution of public lands to Iowa's ability to hold our graduates here, and encourage the immigration of others -- and the economic value that must represent, even if it cannot be measured accurately.

But even more significant, and more difficult to measure, is the contribution of conservation to the continuation of life itself. A reliable water table. Clean water in lakes and streams. The wildlife that help keep both plant and animal life in balance. The retention of our topsoil. The forests that help keep our carbon footprint and greenhouse gases in check. Healthy air to breathe. We cannot continue to take and take and never give back and expect to survive. Survival; that's truly "priceless."

Opposition to all public expenditure. There is a political/economic philosophy held by some that we should eliminate virtually all public expenditures for public purposes and "privatize" most of those functions: schools, jails, libraries, water, trash pickup, and turn the Interstate system into toll roads; give Disney the national parks. (Even these individuals might be able to concede that there's something different about meeting conservation needs essential to continued human life that have not, and will not, be satisfied with "marketplace forces.")

But unless you agree with that approach to government (or, rather, doing away with government) there is no reason to take seriously the arguments of those who do hold that view when they oppose the conservation bond. They are not really arguing against the wisdom of the conservation bond as such -- any more than they argue against schools, libraries and jails as such -- so much as they are arguing against any and all public projects.

(There are also, of course, arguments that it would be more fair and just to provide public funding for public projects with an appropriately progressive income tax rather than property tax, but that, too, is no more program-specific as an argument -- nor likely to be adopted -- than doing away with all public projects.)

As I began, "There are over 100 organizations, and thousands of individuals, whose recreational activities involve the use of Iowa's land and water." My thanks go out to all of them, as diverse in purpose as they may be, for what they have done with their own time and money -- most recently pulling trash out of the Iowa River. Rachel Gallegos, "Difference Makers; Volunteers Help with Iowa River Cleanup," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 26, 2008 (available as, Rachel Gallegos, "More than 100 attend 'Make a Difference Day,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 25, 2008).

"Flipping the ballot" and voting "Yes" for the conservation bond issue is a way we can all work together to further multiply their efforts -- while, in my humble opinion, getting one of the best returns on an investment of public money we're ever likely to enjoy.

# # #

Friday, October 24, 2008

Mission and Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A previous Chugach mission statement said:

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

It has been said many times in many forums,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Who is this Nicholas Johnson?

This Nicholas Johnson is best known as a former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. For more about him than even his mother would ever have wanted to know, check out his web page, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org. [Photo credit: Andrea Chapman Day; Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.]

His 5 most recent books:

Catfish Solution (1st edition; Lulu)
Columns of Democracy (1st edition; Lulu)
Test Pattern for Living (2nd edition; Lulu)
How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (3rd edition; Lulu)
How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (4th edition; Amazon Kindle)

To preview or purchase go to:

Nick’s Books

• 2019: Catfish Solution (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2018: Columns of Democracy (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2013: Test Pattern for Living (2nd edition; Lulu)
• 2013: How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (3rd edition; Lulu)
• 2013: How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (4th edition; Amazon Kindle)
• 2012: From D.C. to Iowa: 2012 (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2012: From D.C. to Iowa: 2012 (2nd edition; Amazon Kindle)
• 2012: Predicting Our Future Cyberlife, 1970-2040 (1st edition; Lulu; with 15 Iowa law students)
• 2009: Virtualosity: Eight Students in Search of Cyberlaw (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2009: What Do You Mean and How Do You Know: An Antidote for the Language That Does Our Thinking for Us (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2008: Are We There Yet? Reflections on Politics in America (1st edition; Lulu)
• 2008: Are We There Yet? Reflections on Politics in America (2nd edition; Amazon Kindle)
• 2008: Your Second Priority: A Former FCC Commissioner Speaks Out (3rd edition; Lulu)

To preview or purchase go to:

• Your local bookstore (in Iowa City, Prairie Lights, http://prairielights.com)
• Nicholas Johnson's Amazon Author Central Page, https://www.amazon.com/stores/Nicholas-Johnson/author/B00B138MYQ
• Nicholas Johnson's Lulu Press Page, https:// www.lulu.com/spotlight/NicholasJohnson

CREDITS
With thanks and appropriate credit to Gregory Johnson, http://aboutgregjohnson.com, for his contributions, creativity, and cheerful assistance with the creation and maintenance of this form of "publication" over the years since its creation.

DISCLAIMERS
No Legal Advice
Nothing posted on this blog is intended as, constitutes, nor should be taken to be, "legal advice," nor as creating an attorney-client relationship.

Personal View
This blog is neither affiliated with nor hosted by the University of Iowa or any other institution or organization. It is maintained by Nicholas Johnson in his individual capacity. Nothing posted here should be construed as anything other than the personal views of the author.

# # #