September 16, 2009, 6:35 a.m.
Some Suggestions for Thinking About the Location of
the University of Iowa's New Performance Venue
Part III
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)[Entries in Hancher Series:
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009 (Downtown).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part II," September 15, 2009 (Natural Settings).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part III," September 16, 2009 (The Costs).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part IV," September 17, 2009 (UI's Mission and Mobility).]
Iowa City's residents, downtown merchants, University of Iowa officials -- and ultimately the Board of Regents -- have a decision, or series of decisions, to think through regarding the replacement of "Hancher," the city's largest and most elegant entertainment venue.
Monday's blog entry focused on the nature of Iowa City's downtown. Yesterday we discussed the contribution of natural settings to entertainment venues.
Today, Wednesday, we examine the economic costs of this project, including a comparison between the costs of the two "finalists" as possible locations.
This may prove to be a five-day series. The local paper, the Iowa City Press-Citizen, is trying to help with its three-day, three-part series, "The Hancher Decision." Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009. The data and various local opinions reflected in its series are linked throughout these blog entries and listed chronologically at the bottom of each day's blog entry.
Future subjects may be the rationale for public universities as part of the entertainment industry (football and Broadway road shows), what is "Hancher" (a building or a booking agent?), the role of greenbelts in flood control, the arguments of politically powerful actual and potential Hancher neighbors (downtown restaurants, and Manville Heights residents), the distances and logistics of getting around our little toy town, the University of Iowa's commitment to the arts, and the desirability/necessity of keeping the music buildings and Hancher together -- along with anything else that occurs to me throughout the week.
To the extent this exercise in figuring out my own position on these significant local issues is helpful to your own efforts to think them through you're welcome to it.
The Cost of Locating and Reconstructing Hancher
The Press-Citizen has run three stories involving the costs of this project which, for the most part, contain identical numbers.
Here are the issues I see.
Who's paying? Anyway you slice it, $300 million or more is one whale of a lot of money.
From my perspective, FEMA money is not "free money." The FEMA money, the State of Iowa money -- and the money from whatever other pockets we're picking -- is money that the nation's and state's taxpayers are -- or our great grandchildren will be -- paying.
It's an amount roughly equivalent to the first estimates for the ill-fated indoor rain forest, ultimately named "Earthpark" -- which was also going to rely, in large part, on taxpayers' money.
Cash Flow Construction cost was not the primary problem for Earthpark (although the promoters had not been able to raise a dime in a decade for that purpose), it was cash flow, or revenue. Once built would it generate enough in tourist dollars (or research funds; it's mission and function were usually vague and shifting) to cover its operating costs?
I believe Hancher's revenues are down about 75%. For an entertainment venue with no building that's actually more cause for congratulations than caution. But in this economy, most entertainment venues that didn't lose buildings are also suffering declining cash flow.
Although most economists assume a recovery is coming at some point, fewer think we will return to the heady economic and champaigne bubbles that created the seemingly unending discretionary income of the past couple decades. Moreover, the recovery has also been described as a "jobless recovery" -- which does not bode well for an economy 70% driven by consumer spending. There is also concern that with Wall Street's continuing lobbying, campaign contributions, executives' bonuses, and drive to make money out of nothing, the odds of our getting meaningful reforms -- without which there's nothing to keep us from going through it all again -- are much less than they would have been a year ago.
But put all that aside. Assume unemployment reverts to the 4-5% level, inflation is kept under control, the Iowa Legislature's support of the University and Iowans' incomes are back up to what they were and more, Americans abandon their current compulsion to save their money, and to quote the Depression Era Democratic Party song, "Happy Days Are Here Again."
As with Earthpark, I have not seen the numbers regarding the projected costs and revenues of operating this new Hancher, wherever it might be located -- whether during the best of economic times or during a seemingly unending recession.
When Coral Ridge Mall was created its $100 million in sales, it turned out, were largely mirrored in the near $100 million loss of sales in the surrounding counties. When another gambling casino is added to Iowa's rather significant collection, those nearby often see a decline in their take.
Do we know what other entertainment venues are planned in Eastern Iowa or Western Illinois? What may be the impact of the Coralville auditorium on a newly built Hancher?
Have we thought about what may be coming to compete with, and severely impact the revenue, for venue entertainment -- what I call an industry's unexpected "broadside blows"? From today's news alone: Clearly the addition of Harry Potter to Orlando is going to have an impact on that town. Blockbuster is closing stores because our DVDs are now coming to us (quite efficiently, thank you) from the most unlikely delivery service: the U.S. Postal Service! Netflix is saving us a trip to the mall. And if we're going anyway we can get them from the grocery store's "Red Box" vending machine. Are there equivalent potential competitors for the entertainment venue industry on the horizon -- similar to what VCRs and then DVDs did to the movie theaters, and subsequently video games did to the DVD business? (One game, Grand Theft Auto IV, sold 6 million copies globally, and took in $500 million, the first week it was on the market.)
Is there anywhere something resembling a "business plan" for the new Hancher; a reasonable set of projections of expenditures and revenues? Presumably its past budgets and books are a matter of public record. Is any of this material available on the Web?
None of this discussion is to say that a new Hancher will be an economic disaster, forced to ask for taxpayer subsidies or cut back on shows and amenities. My hunch is that it will be able to more than pay for itself (so long as it doesn't have to pay any of the costs of this $300 million project that makes it possible). But it's only a hunch. My point is simply that I haven't read, heard or seen any budgets or discussion of these issues.
Property Tax Payers Normally, property taxes are not affected by University projects -- only projects undertaken by Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, or the Iowa City Community School District. But in this case, if Hancher is located downtown, the cost will be paid for, in part, by Iowa City's property tax payers.
How can that be?
As the Press-Citizen reports, "Iowa City generated about $389,000 in taxes from those properties and land in 2008" -- referring to the two city blocks and their businesses the University would have to buy to squeeze Hancher in downtown. Once the University -- known to local taxing authorities as "the State" -- owns the property that money is lost to local tax collectors, because the State does not pay property taxes to its cities..
Note that not only does this $389,000 potential shortfall have to be made up, it has to be made up by local property taxpayers every year for the rest of their lives. This is another not-so-hidden cost of putting Hancher downtown; a cost to be paid by property owners who are already burdened with a multiple of what their taxes might otherwise be because of the amount of property in Iowa City that has been removed from the tax roles because of State ownership -- or because generous local governments have awarded "TIFs" (tax incremental financing) to the lucky, favored developers who get taxpayers' money transferred directly to the bottom line of their for-profit corporations.
Why Hancher? Like seemingly everyone else in these parts my initial instinct, following the realization that Hancher had for all practical purposes been destroyed by the 2008 flood was to simply assume that it would, of course, be rebuilt. My suspicion is that, following all the arguments the Libertarians and tax cutters could muster, I'd still be in favor of rebuilding it.
But I haven't heard those arguments, nor read about them in the Press-Citizen's coverage, and think they are serious enough that they at least deserve to be heard and rejected rather than never heard at all. Hancher was built in 1972. It had a successful 36-year run -- not bad in the theater biz.
"Hancher" (the program, not the building) is now booking performances under the Hancher name into other venues. Coralville's about to build its own auditorium. Does it automatically follow, without examination, that the University should try to make this beautiful Hancher omelet rise twice, rather than set off on some new adventure in the arts?
Could the University team up with Coralville to build a larger facility that both could use? Are there any private, for-profit potential investors who would be interested in building a facility; one for which "Hancher" could book performances -- as it is now doing with venues elsewhere?
Even if this much public money is going to be spent, what is the opportunity cost of spending it on this project (understanding, of course, that some of the money would not be available unless it was spent on a new "Hancher")? And "cost," of course, involves more than UI Foundation funds (and funds from other sources) being diverted to Hancher from what donors might otherwise have supported. There is also the investment of University administrators' and staff members' time in this big undertaking.
What Are the Total Costs? The Press-Citizen's stories, below, repeat the $276 million figure. One of them details the components:
"• $180 million to replace the facility with updates to meet today's building standards.
• $44 million for expansion and updates for program needs plus a new gallery.
• $22 million for environmentally friendly construction, which UI officials said will be recouped over time in utility savings.
• $30 million for a new parking structure."
But another story notes that if the building is located downtown,
"UI would have to purchase six private properties, including two banks, an apartment complex, a condo-retail complex, a gas station and an auto repair shop. The property and land value for that is about $13.2 million . . . [and that] doesn't account for demolition costs. Plus, UI would have to tear down and find a new home for its Engineering Research Facility. . . ."
Putting aside the disruptive administrative hassle of acquiring all those properties, my guess is that the $13.2 million to buy all of them (the amount said to be their "assessed value") is an unrealistic basis for calculating what the actual purchase price will be. Ultimately, of course, the Regents can go with their own nuclear option (eminent domain) if the asking prices are too high, but they've usually been reluctant to use it.
And I have no notion of what it would cost to find or buy the land for, and build and equip, a new "Engineering Research Facility."
How much of all this is to be funded by FEMA? The story continues, "FEMA will cover 90 percent of eligible costs -- about $160 million."
$96 Million of "Extras" In other words, we could get a new Hancher for $20 million of Iowans' money (plus the $160 from FEMA). That being the case, just how essential are those updates and expansion budgeted at $44 million, the $30 million "parking structure," and the extra $22 million to be "environmentally friendly." Even assuming no cost overruns, $96 million in savings is nothing to sneeze at.
Subtract FEMA's $160 million from the $276 million, add the cost of buying two fully-built city blocks of downtown Iowa City, buying land and building a new Engineering Research Facility, demolishing the multi-million-dollar buildings just purchased, factor in the inevitable cost overruns for these projects and a parking garage and, as Senator Everett Dirksen is credited with saying, "You're talking real money."
And speaking of a $30 million "parking structure," is that intended to be a rather broad and bold hint that someone has already decided Hancher's going downtown? Or does the phrase "parking structure" refer to parking lots as well as garages, and is a phrase meant to include the cost of an additional parking garage downtown or the added expense of an open parking lot near Hancher's present location?
None of this is to say that building on up the hill from where Hancher is now would be cost free, but intuitively it would seem to be significantly cheaper. The University already owns the land. I'm assuming parking lots are much cheaper than parking garages. There would be no need to buy two city blocks worth of commercial properties -- and then pay to demolish them, and no need to demolish the old, and then buy land and construct the new, "Engineering Research Facility."
Nor is this to say that money is the only consideration. If a reasonable comparison of the advantages of a river front location vs. a downtown location favors the downtown location one might well decide the added costs are worth it. It's just that, at this point in my thinking, I don't see the comparative advantages tipping in favor of downtown (with or without the additional costs of downtown).
Here is the data from the Press-Citizen stories:
At 418,881 gross-square feet and costing $276 million, the building would be one of the largest and priciest projects the area has ever seen. . . .
UI would have to purchase six private properties, including two banks, an apartment complex, a condo-retail complex, a gas station and an auto repair shop. The property and land value for that is about $13.2 million, according to Iowa City Assessor's Office records. That doesn't account for demolition costs.
Plus, UI would have to tear down and find a new home for its Engineering Research Facility. . . .
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp project as eligible to be rebuilt in a new location with federal support. The damages exceeded a 50 percent threshold of the cost of building a new facility, which made it eligible.
FEMA will cover 90 percent of eligible costs -- about $160 million. UI is planning to build the facility about one-third larger than the current structure, add galleries and use an environmentally friendly design, which are not expected to be covered by FEMA, leaving UI to come up with $114 million. . . .
For Iowa City, it would be a sizable drop in tax revenue. Iowa City generated about $389,000 in taxes from those properties and land in 2008, according to the Assessor's Office.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009, p. A1.
At this point, some of the critical issues -- cost, available space, parking, protection from flooding and timetable -- are fairly similar for both sites, UI officials said. For example:
• Cost is $276 million.
• It would require 418,881 gross square feet, or about two city blocks of space.
• UI would need to find 1,300 parking spaces, which would require additions at both sites.
• Both sites are at least 2 feet above the 500-year floodplain.
• Once a site is selected, it is likely to take five years to complete.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency declared Hancher-Voxman-Clapp eligible for relocation with the agency's support. UI is expecting FEMA to kick in about $162 million toward the rebuilding project.
Brian Morelli and Deanna Howard, "As Venue's Losses Mount, Public Split; One site's weaknesses are the other's strengths, official says," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
UI officials project the cost of a new Hancher-Voxman Music Building-Clapp Recital Hall complex at $276 million.
FEMA has pledged to cover 90 percent of eligible costs, which at this point would not include parking, expansion or environmental goals. This leaves UI to cover $114 million.
The costs breaks down to:
• $180 million to replace the facility with updates to meet today's building standards.
• $44 million for expansion and updates for program needs plus a new gallery.
• $22 million for environmentally friendly construction, which UI officials said will be recouped over time in utility savings.
• $30 million for a new parking structure.
UI officials haven't detailed financing for a new Hancher-Voxman-Clapp complex at this point. However, they have identified broadly how to pay for the estimated $743 million in campus-wide recovery from the flood.
Brian Morelli, "Culver hopeful UI will get more federal funds; FEMA head to tour campus' flood sites in next two months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
The Press-Citizen's Series
[See also the University of Iowa Facilities Management Web page regarding its July 9, 2009, presentation to the community about these issues. It includes links to a streaming video of the evening, the Power Point slides used on that occasion, and the Flood Mitigation Task Force Recommendations. "Facilities Managment/Projects." My own evaluation of that evening is found in Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009.]
Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Editorial, "Choose Between Two Good Options for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Chuck Swanson, "Either Site Will Work for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Wallace Chappell, "Time to Divorce Hancher and the River," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Bob Hibbs, "Performance Spaces on the UI Campus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "What To Do About Hancher Auditorium," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Regents to Have Final Say in Hancher's Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
"UI Flood Recovery Mostly Covered By FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "UI, Hancher May Get More FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Officials Didn't See Flooding to Be Potential Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Deanna Howard, "A man for the arts; Virgil Hancher envisioned an arts campus on the river," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Rob Daniel, "New Stores Help Fill Coralridge Mall," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
September 13
Josh O'Leary and Brian Morelli, "UI Weighs Options for Hancher Flooded Site," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Yarrow Ready for Hancher Rebuilding," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Proximity Key to Hancher's Neighbors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
"Learn More About Coralville Arts Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009 ("This 500-seat community venue . . . will be available for use beginning in the spring of 2011 . . . by community groups for recitals, concerts, lectures, theater and other performances").
September 14
Bruce Wheaton, "The 'H,' 'V' and 'C' in 'HVC,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Marc Moen, "Benefits of Urban Auditoriums," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009 (with link to Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, "The Benefits and Qualities of Cultural Districts") .
Brian Morelli and Deanna Howard, "As Venue's Revenue Losses Mount, Public Split; One Site's Weaknesses Are the Other's Strengths, Official Says," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Who Will Make Site Selection?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
"Culver Hopeful UI Will Get more Federal Funds; FEMA Head to Tour Campus' Flood Sites in Next Two Months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 15, 2009, 7:15 a.m.
Some Suggestions for Thinking About the Location of
the University of Iowa's New Performance Venue
Part II
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)[Entries in Hancher Series:
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009 (Downtown).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part II," September 15, 2009 (Natural Settings).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part III," September 16, 2009 (The Costs).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part IV," September 17, 2009 (UI's Mission and Mobility).]
As I noted yesterday, Iowa City's residents, downtown merchants, University of Iowa officials -- and ultimately the Board of Regents -- have a decision, or series of decisions, to think through regarding the replacement of "Hancher," the city's largest and most elegant entertainment venue.
Yesterday's blog entry focused on the nature of Iowa City's downtown.
Today we think about the contribution of natural settings to entertainment venues.
I'm guessing this may prove to be a five-day series. The local paper, the Iowa City Press-Citizen, is trying to help with its three-day, three-part series, "The Hancher Decision." Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009. The data and various local opinions reflected in its series are linked throughout these blog entries and listed chronologically at the bottom of each day's blog entry.
Future subjects may be the economics of rebuilding Hancher, the rationale for public universities as part of the entertainment industry (football and Broadway road shows), what is "Hancher" (a building or a booking agent), the role of greenbelts in flood control, the arguments of politically powerful actual and potential Hancher neighbors (downtown restaurants, and Manville Heights residents), the distances and logistics of getting around our little toy town, the University of Iowa's commitment to the arts, and the desirability/necessity of keeping the music buildings and Hancher together -- along with anything else that occurs to me throughout the week.
To the extent this exercise in figuring out my own position on these significant local issues is helpful to your own efforts to think through the issues you're welcome to it.
Entertainment Venues in Natural Settings 
A number of people have commented about the "setting" of Hancher, with its spacious, large grassy area, and its proximity to the City Park and the Iowa River. This is not an inconsequential consideration. (Photo credit: University of Iowa Facilities Management.)
That's not to say there aren't a goodly number of urban, "downtown," entertainment venues of some fame and financial success -- among them Madison Square Garden, at 34th and 7th Avenue in downtown Manhattan.
But the fact is that audiences seem to be attracted to outdoor venues, or those in natural settings, as well. Here are a number, each of which I've visited many times. The Hollywood Bowl ("the largest natural outdoor amphitheater in the United States" across the 101 from Griffith Park), offers picnicking in the Hollywood hills before the show and is one of the most popular venues in the Los Angeles area. (Photo credit: Erin74.)
For over 100 years Coloradans have thought the 15 mile drive west from Denver to "Red Rocks" well worth it for performances -- and so have the musicians. This "geologically formed, open-air Amphitheatre is not duplicated anywhere in the world. . . . [It] consists of two, three hundred-foot monoliths (Ship Rock and Creation Rock) that provide acoustic perfection for any performance." (Text credit: Red Rocks Park and Amphitheatre.)
Though not quite as striking a setting as Red Rocks in the Rocky Mountains, "Wolf Trap," in Vienna, Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., is somewhat similar to the Hollywood Bowl in its setting and seating. (Photo credit: Robert Llewellyn.)
Hancher's enthusiastic new programming director, Jacob Yarrow, who hasn't yet been on the job for a full month, has been running a venue somewhat similar to Wolf Trap. He was formerly "the executive director for six years at the Garth Newel Music Center in Warm Springs, Va., a few hours outside of Washington, D.C. The venue, which draws its visitors from nearby cities, is situated on a mountainside farm in a rural county with fewer than 5,000 people and no stoplights, Yarrow said." Josh O'Leary, "Yarrow Ready for Hancher Rebuilding," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
But of all the Washington area venues the Kennedy Center probably comes closest to what Hancher has to offer, located as it is along the Potomac River, with great views up and down the River and across to the wooded Virginia side (click here for a 360-degree view from the Kennedy terrace). (Photo credit: The Kennedy Center.)
I don't mean to equate Hancher along the Iowa River with the Kennedy Center on the banks of the Potomac, let alone a setting in the Colorado Rockies. Moreover, this picture was taken from the fourth floor of the Boyd Law Building, not the Hancher Auditorium, and during the 2008 flood at that. But it does show the original Hancher building (and Levitt Center for University Advancement) in the distance, and provides some sense of the Iowa River (for any reading this who are not familiar with Iowa City). (Photo credit: Me.)
So what's the point of this discussion? Simply that many performers, audience members, those who design or pay to build entertainment venues, not only in Iowa City but around the country and the world, seem to believe there is some "value added" to locating them in natural settings rather than the heart of downtown, urban centers. We would not be unreasonable to prefer such settings ourselves.
The Press-Citizen's Series
[See also the University of Iowa Facilities Management Web page regarding its July 9, 2009, presentation to the community about these issues. It includes links to a streaming video of the evening, the Power Point slides used on that occasion, and the Flood Mitigation Task Force Recommendations. "Facilities Managment/Projects." My own evaluation of that evening is found in Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009.]
Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Editorial, "Choose Between Two Good Options for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Chuck Swanson, "Either Site Will Work for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Wallace Chappell, "Time to Divorce Hancher and the River," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Bob Hibbs, "Performance Spaces on the UI Campus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "What To Do About Hancher Auditorium," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Regents to Have Final Say in Hancher's Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
"UI Flood Recovery Mostly Covered By FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "UI, Hancher May Get More FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Officials Didn't See Flooding to Be Potential Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Deanna Howard, "A man for the arts; Virgil Hancher envisioned an arts campus on the river," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Rob Daniel, "New Stores Help Fill Coralridge Mall," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
September 13
Josh O'Leary and Brian Morelli, "UI Weighs Options for Hancher Flooded Site," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Yarrow Ready for Hancher Rebuilding," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Proximity Key to Hancher's Neighbors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
"Learn More About Coralville Arts Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009 ("This 500-seat community venue . . . will be available for use beginning in the spring of 2011 . . . by community groups for recitals, concerts, lectures, theater and other performances").
September 14
Bruce Wheaton, "The 'H,' 'V' and 'C' in 'HVC,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Marc Moen, "Benefits of Urban Auditoriums," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009 (with link to Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, "The Benefits and Qualities of Cultural Districts") .
Brian Morelli and Deanna Howard, "As Venue's Revenue Losses Mount, Public Split; One Site's Weaknesses Are the Other's Strengths, Official Says," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Who Will Make Site Selection?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
"Culver Hopeful UI Will Get more Federal Funds; FEMA Head to Tour Campus' Flood Sites in Next Two Months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 14, 2009, 6:25 a.m.
Some Suggestions for Thinking About the Location of
the University of Iowa's New Performance Venue
Part I
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)[Entries in Hancher Series:
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009 (Downtown).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part II," September 15, 2009 (Natural Settings).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part III," September 16, 2009 (The Costs).
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part IV," September 17, 2009 (UI's Mission and Mobility).]
Iowa City's residents, downtown merchants, University of Iowa officials -- and ultimately the Board of Regents -- have a decision, or series of decisions, to think through. The local paper, the Iowa City Press-Citizen, is trying to help with its three-day, three-part series, "The Hancher Decision." Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009. (Stories in that series are linked throughout this blog entry and listed chronologically at the bottom.)
For any out-of-towners following this blog, "Hancher" was a stand-alone auditorium at the University of Iowa, set along the banks of the Iowa River, and one of Iowa's premier and most popular entertainment venues. During the flood of 2008 it was essentially destroyed. The decision to rebuild something called "Hancher" seems to have been made. The decision as to where to put it has not been.
This is the first in my own Hancher series this week. Today's subject is Iowa City's downtown. Tomorrow's will be entertainment venues in natural settings. Future subjects will be the economics of rebuilding Hancher, the rationale for public universities as part of the entertainment industry (football and Broadway road shows), what is "Hancher" (a building or a booking agent), the role of greenbelts in flood control, the arguments of politically powerful actual and potential Hancher neighbors (downtown restaurants, and Manville Heights residents), the distances and logistics of getting around our little toy town, the University of Iowa's commitment to the arts, and the desirability/necessity of keeping the music buildings and Hancher together -- along with anything else that occurs to me throughout the week..
I don't know about other bloggers, but I know that one of the reasons I write about issues like our economic collapse and recovery, future provision of health care, and path out of Afghanistan, is that the process of researching, analysis, organizing thoughts, and writing them up helps me figure out what I really think about these issues as to which I'd like to have a thoughtful opinion as a citizen. In the process, it often causes me to significantly modify, or completely change, the position with which I began.
So that's what this blog entry is about. What do I think about rebuilding the 1972, and now flooded-out, public entertainment venue we call, simply, "Hancher" (named for the University's president from 1940 to 1964, Virgil Hancher)? To the extent my exercise is helpful to your own efforts to think through the issues you're welcome to it.
Iowa City's Downtown There are a couple of interesting things to note about Iowa City's downtown. (1) One is the speed with which locals were able to make some really major decisions at the City's beginning. The legislative act creating the place was passed in January. As soon as the snows melted the commissioners met on May 1. By May 2 they'd selected, and placed a stake, in the center of downtown. By June they'd laid out all the streets. Compare that with the time it will take us to decide what and where to do about Hancher.
(2) The other is the year in which this was done: 1839 -- 170 years ago. The population of Iowa City would not reach 1250 until 11 years later. As Iowa's population spread westward, Iowa's 99 counties, and their "capitals," were located to serve an agricultural population -- with no farm more than a day's horse and buggy round trip ride along dirt roads to a county seat, with its markets, and entertainment for that weekly shopping "trip to town."
My memories of downtown don't go back much before the late 1930s. But at that time Iowa City still primarily functioned as the "county seat" town it remains today. (The city's population was almost 8000 in 1900, and grew from roughly 10,000 to 15,000 between 1920 and 1940.)
We didn't have "malls" in the 1930s, but downtown Iowa City provided much the same function, with drug and hardware stores (for farm equipment and supplies), Sears, Wards, J.C. Penney, five movie theaters, barber shops for the weekly shave and haircut, grocery stores, and so forth. There were no parking meters or parking garages, and no need for them. There was still the occasional horse, and not that many automobiles.
Coralville's Coralridge Mall, and the Tanger Outlets west on I-80, provide those functions for most shoppers today. (See, e.g., Rob Daniel, "New Stores Help Fill Coralridge Mall," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.) The former was soon doing a $100 million dollar a year business. It offered free, easy access parking, and a cluster of stores, restaurants and entertainment (including a childrens' museum) to satisfy a variety of needs and desires in one place (not to mention the additional dozens of facilities nearby).
Today that 1839 county seat of Iowa City, originally designed for less than 1000 people, has an 2008 estimated population of about 68,000 -- and is the principal city in its own Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) of nearly 150,000.
A 170-year-old-platted downtown is simply not suitable for thousands of cars and people -- as those people who have voted with their gas pedals to go elsewhere have made clear. It takes more than vertical parking garages to lure them back, and I'm not confident that increasing the density of automobiles in our 1839-designed downtown is going to help when we plop Hancher down in the middle of it all.
It's not like downtown Iowa City does not have entertainment venues. It does. There's McBride Auditorium on the Pentacrest, Shambaugh Auditorium in the Main Library, the ballroom in the Memorial Union, the refurbished Englert Theater, Riverside Theater, the bars that emphasize entertainment over binge drinking -- and the outdoor performance areas on Iowa Avenue and the Ped Mall -- among others.
Putting an entertainment venue the size of Hancher in downtown Iowa City would be like putting the Carver Hawkeye Arena, or Kinnick Stadium, in downtown Iowa City. Our 1839 town has its quaint charm (and abundance of bars), but it was simply not designed to provide a home for an entertainment venue that holds twice as many people as the entire population of the city during many of the years of its history.
Nor is this just a matter of finding room in downtown Iowa City for the Iowa City residents of downtown and their automobiles, those people and their automobiles from out of town coming to Hancher performances, and the people and cars coming into downtown for other reasons when the Hancher crowds are there. There are some other logistical problems that may very well be deal breakers for a downtown location. As "arborealbuffoon" comments on a Press-Citizen story,
After nearly two decades working production for various venues hosting traveling attractions . . . the trend in recent years is towards ever larger productions. It is not uncommon for a Broadway bus and truck tour to carry 10 semis and 5 tour buses. How are we gonna get those vehicles INTO downtown, and then load in and out? Logistical nightmare. Productions get booked at modern, user friendly venues. The former Mark of the QC is a prime example. Our area has lost countless arena acts to their modern practical venue. Pushing production up and down the ramp at Carver-Hawkeye is a fiasco that adds to labor costs in a big way. . . . 9/12/2009 10:30:02 AM
A comment attached to, Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
These are just some of the physical, logistical problems of putting a Hancher in downtown Iowa City. There are, of course, economic and other challenges that will be discussed in future blog entries.
The Press-Citizen's Series
Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Editorial, "Choose Between Two Good Options for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Chuck Swanson, "Either Site Will Work for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Wallace Chappell, "Time to Divorce Hancher and the River," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Bob Hibbs, "Performance Spaces on the UI Campus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "What To Do About Hancher Auditorium," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Regents to Have Final Say in Hancher's Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
"UI Flood Recovery Mostly Covered By FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "UI, Hancher May Get More FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Officials Didn't See Flooding to Be Potential Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Deanna Howard, "A man for the arts; Virgil Hancher envisioned an arts campus on the river," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
Rob Daniel, "New Stores Help Fill Coralridge Mall," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.
September 13
Josh O'Leary and Brian Morelli, "UI Weighs Options for Hancher Flooded Site," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Yarrow Ready for Hancher Rebuilding," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
Josh O'Leary, "Proximity Key to Hancher's Neighbors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.
"Learn More About Coralville Arts Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009 ("This 500-seat community venue . . . will be available for use beginning in the spring of 2011 . . . by community groups for recitals, concerts, lectures, theater and other performances").
September 14
Bruce Wheaton, "The 'H,' 'V' and 'C' in 'HVC,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Marc Moen, "Benefits of Urban Auditoriums," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009 (with link to Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, "The Benefits and Qualities of Cultural Districts") .
Brian Morelli and Deanna Howard, "As Venue's Revenue Losses Mount, Public Split; One Site's Weaknesses Are the Other's Strengths, Official Says," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
Brian Morelli, "Who Will Make Site Selection?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
"Culver Hopeful UI Will Get more Federal Funds; FEMA Head to Tour Campus' Flood Sites in Next Two Months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 11, 2009, 7:00 a.m.
9/11 -- Eight Years and Out
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"You lie!" A member of my family with a twisted sense of humor has come up with an explanation for S.C. Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's otherwise inexplicable outburst ("You lie!") during the President's health care address to a Joint Session of Congress Wednesday evening (Sept. 9th). See Robbie Brown and Carl Hulse, "Heckler’s District Mostly Supports the Outburst," New York Times, September 11, 2009, p. A15. According to his theory the boorish behavior came about as a result of a trick his fellow Republicans played on Wilson. Before the President's speech the Republican caucus gathered to plan its post-speech strategy. Most of the discussion was as serious as that caucus' discussion ever gets. But, unknown to Wilson, this next part was not.
The whole thing grew out of a bet entered into one day, long before the President's speech. A Republican bet one of his colleagues, "I'll bet you $1000 I can make Joe apologize to the President." "What? Are you nuts? He'd never do that. Why would he?" Other caucus members were contacted (all but Wilson). The matter of the $1000 was dropped, and all joined in. Following their pre-caucus planning about what to do after the speech they began talking about what to do during the speech.
The pre-arranged consensus that finally emerged was that when the President mentioned that his plan would not provide health insurance for illegal immigrants the entire Republican membership would shout out in chorus, as loud as they could, "You lie!" Wilson was persuaded, thought it a great idea, and fell for it. As a result, when the time came his was the only voice to ring out in the chamber and he was forced to apologize to the President. Who says Republicans don't have a sense of humor? Bad taste and poor timing perhaps, but a creative sense of practical jokes.
Afghanistan. When members of the House and Senate are not shouting at the President or each other they are now beginning to hem and haw about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, "Obama Facing Doubts Within His Own Party on Afghanistan," New York Times, September 11, 2009, p. A1.
Why is there no one to stand and speak out, like the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes," "The emperor is naked"? -- in this case, "This course of action is nuts!"
From my perspective, what we should do about what we're confronting over there is kind of a no-brainer.
Our military, especially at the top, has some very bright, analytical, broadly well educated, thoughtful and responsible individuals. But they have two, often disparate, responsibilities.
One is to participate, when asked, in the early stages of evaluating options for the most appropriate response to a trouble spot, global strategies, and foreign relations.
The other is, once the decision has been made by the president to undertake a military operation, to request the levels of personnel and other resources thought necessary to execute that military mission.
In the case of Afghanistan, General McChrystal has wisely responded to this inherent conflict by preparing for the President not one, but two, reports -- the first his evaluation of how things are going and what's necessary to make them better, and the second his best guess as to what he will need if the President wishes to continue to treat our role in Afghanistan as a "military" one.
His first report candidly acknowledges, in effect, why our interests in Afghanistan are ill suited to military operations.
(Some of what follows is mine alone, and some based on what he -- and numerous other military officers over the past year or so -- have said.)
There's no "there" there. Afghanistan, as a "nation," is essentially ungoverned and ungovernable. Political, economic, police and military power rest essentially with regional war lords, tribal and religious leaders. There is little infrastructure in the form of the kind of roads we're used to in our Interstate highway system; electric, gas, water and communications networks. Large numbers of Afghans have very little education. The treatment of women is horrible. Corruption is a widespread way of life at all levels. The recent election was riddled with fraud and may likely produce more divisiveness rather than unity in the society.
Our actions result in financing our enemy. There is very little to the Afghan economy, or "GDP." Unemployment is high; one of the nation's primary needs, General McChrystal noted, is a "jobs program." Ironically, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan they eliminated the drug trade. We have permitted it to flourish; Afghanistan is once again the world's leading supplier of heroin (including to the United States). It is this drug money that creates the ability of the Taliban to acquire ever more sophisticated military weaponry -- in addition to the thousands of improvised explosive devices ("IEDs") that have succeeded in killing unprecedented numbers of American soldiers during July and August of this year.
And it now turns out that as much of 20% of what U.S. taxpayers are providing to private contractors in Afghanistan is being siphoned off with bribes to the Taliban. So in a very real sense, we have created the funding for both sides in this war: our own troops and those who are determined to kill them (as a result of the bribes we pay and the increased drug trade we've enabled).
It's not exactly our favored terrain. The Taliban live there. We don't. We wear easily identifiable uniforms. They don't. They know the terrain. We don't. Going through those mountains would not be an easy hike even if you were on vacation and there were no danger. But you're not, and there is. They know how and where to hide. We don't. It's relatively easy for them to ambush our soldiers. Harder for us to do the same.
Why it is that the more we fight the less we win. There is solid evidence that the more troops we send in (with the resulting "collateral damage" in the form of dead women, children and innocent men, the destruction of their homes and buildings) the less the local population supports our being there, and the more fighters the Taliban are able to recruit, arm and send out to kill Americans. In short, our military operation involves the execution of a self-defeating strategy.
Although it is doing remarkably well under the circumstances, the military is also severely handicapped by the mission imposed upon it by the White House and the Congress. It is ill defined, shifting and irrational.
Wrong enemy, wrong country. It was Al Qaeda that attacked us 8 years ago today, not the Taliban. To the extent we want to fight the Taliban anyway, instead of Al Qaeda, note that they are coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, when Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, makes about as much sense as going to war with Iraq because of what some Saudi terrorists, and their Saudi financiers, did to us on 9/11. Increasing the terrorist population in Pakistan really does constitute a threat -- one that we are intensifying by our own actions. Moreover, as the AP's headline reveals, Mike Corder, "McChrystal: No Major Al-Qaida Signs in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 11, 2009.
The futility of containment. We are not at war with a "nation." Make no mistake, "we're not paranoid, we have real enemies." What is a mistake is to think that, if only we can run Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, out of Afghanistan, or Pakistan -- something we clearly cannot do -- we have "won." We will not have won. One of the feminist movement's bumper stickers in the 1970s read, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Well, neither does Al Qaeda need Afghanistan. Terrorist plots can be hatched in any apartment in any city in the world -- or village, mountain retreat, or desert -- and have been. Training camps can be based in any dysfunctional country -- in other words, any one of a large number of potential destinations.
There can be, by definition, no truly effective "exit strategy." If our goal is to create a self-sustaining, stable, secure government and environment for the Afghan people (and it's not clear what our goal is), that is possible only if we will treat Afghanistan as our 51st state and stay there forever. That is certainly one possible scenario. World War II ended over 60 years ago and we still have troops in Germany and Japan. We still have troops in Korea. We have troops all around the world. If we had the troops, financial resources (Afghanistan costs us close to $100 billion a year), and will -- none of which we do have -- we could decide to stay in Afghanistan, too, for 50 to 100 years. Since I don't think we're able to do that, even if we wanted to, we're going to have to leave at some point. When we do conditions will likely revert, as they did after the Russians left, and after we left (or got substantially diverted by Iraq) the first time. So long as that is the seemingly inevitable result, what exactly is the long-term advantage of our staying another 5 years rather than 5 months?
Going to do it anyway? What will it take?
For all the reasons listed above, and the many more that could be added, we need to get our brave fighting men and women out of Afghanistan. That seems to me obvious. It is not only senseless and ill considered, it is actually counterproductive to try to conduct a "war" there. Will there be consequences, adverse consequences, when we leave? Of course. Whenever we leave there will be -- although there will also be local benefits. That's not the question. The question is whether the adverse consequences of staying -- which are pretty well known by now -- so far exceed those of leaving that any rational benefit-cost analysis suggests we should get out as soon as reasonably possible.
Then the question becomes, if the President and the Congress continue to dilly and dally over the matter, and decide to go ahead with this folly and send in more troops anyway, how many should that be?
As General McChrystal puts it, "My position here is a little bit like a mechanic. We've got a situation with a vehicle and I've been asked to look at it and tell the owner what the situation is and what it will cost to make the vehicle run correctly and I will provide that. Now I understand that the vehicle owner has to make a decision on what the car is worth, how much longer he intends to drive it. Whether he wants it to look good or just run." Mike Corder, "McChrystal: No Major Al-Qaida Signs in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 11, 2009.
That is to be the subject of General McChrystal's second report.
My own view is that the numbers being talked about are but small fractions of the numbers that would be necessary to provide "stability and security" for the Afghan people (one of the goals sometimes mentioned). I think it would require something more like a total of 250,000 to 350,000 troops, rather than another 20,000, to bring anything like "stability and security" to that country.
This morning I discover that Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who just returned from Afghanistan, is talking similar numbers -- albeit he hopes these numbers will be provided by the Afghans rather than the U.S.: 240,000 troops and 160,000 police. See Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, "Obama Facing Doubts Within His Own Party on Afghanistan," New York Times, September 11, 2009, p. A1.
In my judgment the likelihood of that happening is "somewhere between slim and none at all," and that even if it did the chances are good that it would bring analogous (though not identical) problems of corruption and tribal loyalties to those we've confronted in Iraq.
We put a cap on presidential terms. A president can only serve for eight years. Perhaps we should put a similar cap on our wars of choice: If they can't be won in eight years the president has to stop, leave, and start a war somewhere else.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m.
It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper;
Old Board "Starting Off Backing Up" With Consultant and Tough Decisions;
Meanwhile, Part of $6 Million that Mysteriously Disappeared Miraculously Reappears
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sarah Swisher led the race from the beginning as the returns came in last night, and ended up with 54% of the votes (2393) in an election that brought out a better than average 6.07% (4392) of the District's 72,000-plus eligible voters. Tuyet Dorau, at 50% (2197), pretty much retained her second place rank throughout the night. Third place shifted between Jean Jordison and incumbent Mike Cooper, but when the North Liberty vote came in, and the counting stopped, Cooper had 47% (2066) to Jordison's 38% (1685).
And a big shout out of thanks from me, on behalf of the District community, to Anne Johnson and April Armstrong, in addition to Jean Jordison -- and Joshua Kaine and Jeffrey Manthey (who dropped out of the race in August) -- for having enough interest in our children and their schools to put themselves out there, invest the time and money in a campaign, and risk the political loss that, in the end, was theirs. I'm pleased to read this morning that a number of them have indicated they intend to remain informed and active in addressing the District's K-12 issues.
See, Rob Daniel, "Swisher, Dorau, Cooper Win in Election; Area Sees Higher Than Average Voter Turnout," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2009, p. 1A.
The Consultant Curse. Meanwhile -- unfortunately -- the old School Board, with the election results only a couple hours away, chose to rush through approval of the Superintendent's proposed no-RFP, no-bid (so far as I know), $80,000-to-100,000 contract for unspecified services with the out-of-state consultant RSP from Olathe, Kansas -- without including, or even alerting, the two new Board members. I still don't understand what that was about, but if anything it looks even worse this morning than it did when I last wrote about it. Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly," August 28, 2009. And see, Rob Daniel, "School District to Hire a Consultant," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2009, p. A1.
Daniel reports the consultant is supposed to "figure out its [the District's] high school enrollment and districtwide boundary issues . . . [including] analyses of enrollment trends, facilities, grade configuration and boundaries . . .." There will be a "telephone survey of 400 registered voters," public forums in "October or November," with more "forums in January and February." This is to be followed by "a committee of community members, teachers and school board members in March" tasked with coming up with a "boundary scenario" -- whatever that might mean -- which will then be handed to the Board.
Although irrational, chaotic, manipulative, misleading, unnecessarily expensive, and destructive of the Board's proper role, this approach will at least have the virtue of providing the layers of political protection that confusion always offers -- to both the Superintendent and the Board.
Hopefully, the Board will at least include in its management information reporting system requirements of the Superintendent (it does have a MIRS, doesn't it?) a requirement as to how often, when, and with regard to what, it wants reports of consultant progress against benchmarks.
(If you're not familiar with the reference to MIRS (management information reporting system), sometimes MIS (management information system), although normally a tool of management, it can also be modified for boards as a tool of oversight, or governance. Sometimes the MIRS would relate to Board goals (that are also CEO job descriptions, and basis for bonuses -- or dismissal if not met). But they can also be used to monitor delegated management responsibilities unrelated to Board goals and responsibilities, merely to enable the Board to oversee and keep informed (as distinguished from the basis for Board action). In either case, there would usually be a project, an articulation of the purpose or goal of the project being monitored, a metric for measuring progress toward that goal, often "benchmarks" or "mileposts" of accomplishments along that path, and agreed upon times at which reports will be brought to the Board -- often in the form of, or accompanied by, charts and graphs of some kind. See, e.g., my old The Marad Management Information Reporting System (1965).)
Come on, folks, this is not rocket science.
1. Here's what the Board does. It's the job of the Board, and only the Board, to propose, and revise as appropriate, the standards, the parameters, the goals, the metrics to be used in drawing boundary lines in order to implement the policy decisions made by the Board.
2. Here's what the Superintendent (or the consultant) does. It is then the job of technicians (albeit very skilled, well-educated technicians!) to do the actual drawing of the boundary lines that will carry out the Board's orders, apply its parameters, and reach its goals.
3. Here's what the stakeholders do. Those members of the public that care about this process have numerous ways of participating. They can email (phone or meet with) Board members and District administrators, write letters to the editor of the local papers, attend and speak out at Board meetings and forums scheduled for the purpose, discuss the issues within their local PTOs, PTAs and other organizations to which they belong that might be willing to get involved. Some may serve on committees.
To illustrate: The hot button issue involving boundaries is equity -- the disparity in the allocation of "free-and-reduced-lunch" students among the elementary schools.
First off, I believe there are some federal and state legal requirements. If true (I haven't looked into it), presumably all would have to agree we at least need to comply with the law. OK?
Next, what does the Board want the future levels of disparity to be? (This could be a slow transition over six or seven years to ease the impact on current students and parents.) Within the limits of the law, it can keep them what they are, increase them, or decrease them.
If the Board wants less disparity it can propose to make the percentage (a) equal in all elementary schools, or (b) within a range of 3%, 5%, !0% of each other. (Similarly, if it wanted to increase the disparity it could set a parameter permitting even greater percentage variations.)
After, but only after, a majority of the Board has taken a position on these issues, and proposed a "parameter," then and only then District administrators (or the folks from Olathe) can create some alternative boundary line maps that would produce those results.
But these decisions simply must be made by the Board, and the earlier on they are made and the Board's ownership of them is established, the less will be the wasted time and money invested by others. The longer you keep stirring the soup the less likely you are to get clear broth. For the community to keep going round and round about this with no direction from the Board is in no one's long term interest. (Want a national analogy? Think President Obama's delegation to Congress of the major policy decisions about "his" healthcare reforms, as well as the writing of the 1000-page H.R. 3200.)
We don't need to create forums to know that there will be howls of protest from some parents in some elementary schools that now have very low percentages of free-and-reduced-lunch students and under a new, more equitable plan ultimately will have more. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention.
The new Board can decide, and decide now, whether it's willing to stand up to individual schools' opposition for the sake of the entire District, or not.
Do I mean that the Board should ignore public input and ram through what it wants without either truly listening, or responding to, all stakeholders (as the old Board was perceived as doing)? Absolutely not. I would like for it to produce reasoned, rational, respectful, responsive written opinions explaining why it is doing what it is doing, and why it is proposing some courses of action and rejecting others.
What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that the Board should be the first out of the starting gate rather than the last in establishing parameters. Will it refuse to budge in any respect from what it first proposes? I would hope not. But it should be the Board -- from first to last -- that is doing the research, discussing the parameter options, responding to public reactions, making the parameter proposals, the revised proposals and ultimately the decisions as to parameters -- not some consultant from Olathe, the Superintendent, or some community committee (whose job it is to draw the lines that carry out the Board's parameters).
(And since the article makes some reference to designated Board members sitting with the committee I should also note that, in my opinion, this is the worst of all possible worlds. (1) The Board should act through a Board of all members, not individual Board members. (2) I don't think delegating major policy decisions to a committee of citizens telling the Board what to do is a good idea, but (3) if there is to be one it needs to be truly independent of the Board, rather than a neither-fish-nor-fowl creature that is part Board and part not.)
The same analysis can be applied to other boundary related issues.
Equality of occupancy. We have a total number of elementary students in our District. Each school is designed for an optimum occupancy. Hopefully, that total population is a percentage of (rather than greater than) that total optimum occupancy. However, as the boundary lines are now drawn some elementary schools are overcrowded (have a number of students in excess of their optimum occupancy) while others have empty classrooms. The Board can (and I believe should) set a parameter for this percentage occupancy as well: each school should be at the same percentage of optimum occupancy as all the others, or that they should only vary by some fixed percentage from each other. Board's choice.
Equality of class size. Class sizes (for example, how many children their are in each third grade classroom in all of the third grade classrooms throughout the District) vary significantly. This is also something that can be essentially solved with parameters about boundaries, but I don't want to take the time and space to explain that now.
Flexible allocation; long term boundaries. In order to maintain the Board's parameters regarding allocation of students over time (whatever those parameters may be), more or less flexibility can be provided the Administration. This can take the form of what I believe it now calls "zones" (from which students can be assigned among two or more schools) or what I've described as "cluster schools." How much (if any) of this kind of flexibility also needs to be addressed, and resolved, by the Board.
Finders, keepers. How does a school district accidentally lose $6 million? It's a mystery. Fortunately, there are still miracles as well. A good deal of it has recently miraculously reappeared. See Rob Daniel, "School District to Hire a Consultant," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2009, pp. A1, A5.
Wait, there's more. I've written about many of these issues before. If you're interested in looking at more of my writing this year on K-12 issues generally, and board issues in particular, here are some links:
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Election: Now Work Begins," September 9, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "Labor and Schools Deserve Respect, Support," September 7, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Governance: First Things First; School Board Forum Producers Charis-Carlson and Yates Create Hit, But Where Was Candidates' Awareness of "Job One": Their Governance Model?" September 4, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "IC School Board Needs Fresh Thinking; Swisher Starting Dialogue,"
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," August 28, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Members' Advice; So You Want to be a School Board Member," August 19, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI VPs and ICCSD Consultants; Concerns About Consultants and Vice Presidents," August 14, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries; Tonight's Schools Meeting and the more to come," March 30, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, " Demolition Disaster; Come Let Us Reason Together," March 10, 2009 (contains links to additional sources);
Nicholas Johnson," Roosevelt: Valuing Our Schools; Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking," March 9, 2009 (contains "Earlier, Related Writing" section with links to seven additional sources).
The election's over. Now the work begins.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 7, 2009, 7:00 a.m.
Labor Day Monday, School Board Election Tuesday
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Labor Day. Although labor day began in Canada a good decade before it made its way south to the U.S. in 1882, it wasn't formally recognized until 1884. President Grover Cleveland had acceded to the corporate pressure from the railroads, and called out the military and U.S. marshals to crush the Pullman strike -- ultimately resulting in the death of 13 workers and serious injury to 57 more. Wishing to distance themselves from the resulting understandably hostile labor union movement, a mere six days later members of Congress unanimously passed legislation making Labor Day a national holiday. So it has been ever since, including today, September 7, 2009.
It is fitting that the day was born out of conflict between government and big business, on the one hand, and working people on the other. For that conflict has continued to the present day -- including additional death and injury to union organizers during the 125 years since.
We continue to see the anti-union business-government axis even here in Iowa.
o Union members underwrite the cost of contract negotiations -- providing benefits to workers who are not required, in Iowa, to belong to the union. (This includes a good many ICCSD teachers who benefit from the Iowa City Education Association's negotiations, but refuse to join their professional association.) The unions proposed a "fair share" bill that would not have required workers to join the union and pay dues, only that they pay their "fair share" of the costs associated with contract negotiations. The legislature went along with business in refusing to pass the bill.
o "Labor went into the 2009 [Iowa legislative] session with four key priorities: 'fair share,' a bill to expand collective bargaining, a bill to give employees their choice of doctor if injured on the job, and a bill to require that government projects pay the 'prevailing wage.' They got nothing." "Final results from the Iowa Legislature's 2009 session," Bleeding Heartland, April 26, 2009.
o What are some of the consequences of this anti-labor stance of Iowa's business-government axis? "The median male wage in Iowa is lower today than it was a generation ago, in 1979." (p. 12) "Iowa’s median wage . . . ranks the state 32nd in the nation and 77 cents below the national average . . .." (p. 9). Colin Gordon and Christine Ralston, "The State of Working Iowa 2009," Iowa Policy Project, September 6, 2009.
o When I was on the school board I tried to get the board to support a "project labor agreement" -- a concept widely accepted elsewhere (and found to be legal in Iowa) -- for school district projects. It would not have required contractors to hire union members, only that they pay workers the prevailing wage. The local contractors objected, and the board majority supported their anti-union, anti-worker position.
o The Gazette reports on page one, ironically on this Labor Day today, that the "project labor agreement" fight is currently continuing full bore in Cedar Rapids, with the Linn County Board of Supervisors, and Cedar Rapids School District board, apparently siding with the non-union, out-of-state contractors against local workers and union members. Dave DeWitte, "Battleground: Linn Flood Recovery Projects Focus of Contractor, Union Debate," The Gazette, September 7, 2009, p. A1.
o An awful lot of the University's contracts go to non-union contractors -- sometimes requiring re-dos on projects that should (and could) have been done right the first time.
As the bumper sticker has it: "Trade unions: Those wonderful folks who brought you the weekend."
Students who start their "weekend" with Thursday evening's binge drinking (what the Daily Iowan refers to as "80 hours" -- of the 168 in a week) may not know why a steam whistle has been blowing at 8:00, 12:00, 1:00, and 5:00 on Saturdays for as long as I can remember. That's because, when I was a very young boy, everyone worked from 8:00 to noon, and 1:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays (including faculty) -- if they were lucky enough to get more than 20 minutes for lunch.
Why are many Americans working 35 and 40 hour weeks instead of 48 hours? Thank the unions.
The Canadian issue out of which its labor day was born was the fight for a nine hour working day.
Why do we have a minimum wage for all workers? Why are the UI students who are working instead of drinking paid the wages they are? Thank the unions.
In fact, most of the efforts at progressive legislation in this country (some successful, some not) have come as a result of unions' efforts.
We complain, and rightfully so, about American businesses that not only do their manufacturing in other countries, but employ children at low wages to do the work. But children were made to work in factories in this country in the 19th Century. The practice was stopped only after unions worked to pass the child labor laws.
Minimum wages. Maximum hours. Unionization and collective bargaining. Social Security. Medicare. The near century-long struggle we're undergoing at the moment to recognize health care as a basic human right. Unemployment compensation. OSHA and other efforts to create safer workplaces.
The list goes on.
So think about it today. Don't just thank union members for the quality work they do. Don't just honor them on "their day." Thank them for what they've done for you and me, for every American, fighting for the basic rights of everyone who's not a Fortune 500 CEO -- whether they're a member of a union or not.
School Board Election. Since I've taken to writing Monday, Wednesday and Friday (for the most part; no promises) during the teaching semester, I wanted to add a word today about the election tomorrow.
While I thought all of the candidates conducted themselves with civility and responsiveness at last Thursday's forum, Sarah Swisher has seemed to me the strongest candidate of the six. Now it turns out that both the Iowa City Press-Citizen and The Gazette have included her in their endorsements. Editorial, "Dorau, Johnson, Swisher will bring change to board," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 5, 2009; Editorial, "Iowa City: Cooper, Dorau, Swisher," The Gazette, September 6, 2009, p. A12.
If you're interested in looking at more of my writing this year on K-12 issues generally, and board issues in particular, here are links to that blog entry about last Thursday's forum, and many, many more:
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Governance: First Things First; School Board Forum Producers Charis-Carlson and Yates Create Hit, But Where Was Candidates' Awareness of "Job One": Their Governance Model?" September 4, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "IC School Board Needs Fresh Thinking; Swisher Starting Dialogue,"
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," August 28, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Members' Advice; So You Want to be a School Board Member," August 19, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI VPs and ICCSD Consultants; Concerns About Consultants and Vice Presidents," August 14, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries; Tonight's Schools Meeting and the more to come," March 30, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, " Demolition Disaster; Come Let Us Reason Together," March 10, 2009 (contains links to additional sources);
Nicholas Johnson," Roosevelt: Valuing Our Schools; Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking," March 9, 2009 (contains "Earlier, Related Writing" section with links to seven additional sources).
However you plan to vote, please do. When only 5 or 10% of us turn out for school board elections it sends an uncaring message to our school children; it tells the board members that we not only don't appreciate what they do for us, frankly we don't even care; and it puts our hard working teachers on notice that, so far as we're concerned, they're on their own and will have to deal with the resources they're handed, and the administrators with whom they must deal, with no help from us.
We're better than that. Let's go vote tomorrow.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 4, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
For other, related, blog entries, see:
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Governance: First Things First; School Board Forum Producers Charis-Carlson and Yates Create Hit, But Where Was Candidates' Awareness of "Job One": Their Governance Model?" September 4, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "IC School Board Needs Fresh Thinking; Swisher Starting Dialogue,"
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," August 28, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Members' Advice; So You Want to be a School Board Member," August 19, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI VPs and ICCSD Consultants; Concerns About Consultants and Vice Presidents," August 14, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries; Tonight's Schools Meeting and the more to come," March 30, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, " Demolition Disaster; Come Let Us Reason Together," March 10, 2009 (contains links to additional sources);
Nicholas Johnson," Roosevelt: Valuing Our Schools; Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking," March 9, 2009 (contains "Earlier, Related Writing" section with links to seven additional sources).
School Board Forum Producers Charis-Carlson and Yates Create Hit
But Where Was Candidates' Awareness of "Job One": Their Governance Model?
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
By any reasonable standards last night's (Sept. 3) ICCSD School Board candidates' forum was a great success.
For starters, the producers of the "show" -- the Press-Citizen's Jeff Charis-Carlson and the Iowa City Education Association's Tom Yates -- brought a little creativity into an event that, without imagination can become a little tedious before the night is out. They avoided the usual format of one question-at-a-time answered by each candidate in turn. Candidates could speak up whenever they felt like it. They were permitted to respond to, and converse with, each other -- creating an evening more like a real Board meeting. Charis-Carlson and Yates could ask follow-up questions, cut off the candidates who rambled on, and otherwise interact with them. The evening was divided into roughly two, one-hour segments interrupted with a break; the first with questions from the moderators, and the second addressing written questions from the audience.
For the most part, the candidates did relatively well in responding to the questions and in demonstrating considerable Iowa civility in interacting with each other.
And a wide range of topics and issues were covered:
- inequity between the schools
- SINA designations (Schools in Need of Assistance)
- No Child Left Behind
- students' stability and mobility
- reading development
- federal and state standards vs. lobbying to change them
- District's budget; why are we dealing with a $6 million shortfall?
- if and when to build a third conventional high school -- or alternative solutions to the projected 450 students beyond West, City and Tate's capacity
- the amount of the District budget going to highly paid administrators
- appropriateness of, and proper role for, consultants
- elementary, junior high, and high school boundaries; need for District-wide approach
- the need for long term planning generally
(See, Rob Daniel, "Candidates Debate Issues at School Board Forum," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 4, 2009, p. A1.)
My only real disappointment was the candidates' failure to address what I consider any Board's (for-profit and non-profit corporations, Regents', school boards) "Job One" -- designing the rules of the game, how the board members are going to interact with each other and the CEO, what they expect of each other in terms of the minimum time and effort each should put in, and most important: what do they think is their job, their role, what are they going to spend their time doing, what are they going to delegate to others and what are they going to do themselves? (In fairness, Sarah Swisher did address governance issues at Tuesday's candidate forum.)
Many school boards seldom, if ever, design and hold a board meeting. They attend superintendent's meetings at which they have very good seats, but for which the superintendent and his or her staff have prepared the agenda, the reports to be presented -- and sometimes (as with one superintendent I worked with) are even told how to phrase and vote on what are in fact the superintendent's motions.
To the extent the board members get off into issues of their own choosing the discussion is relatively desultory -- not unlike the conversations in which our candidates were engaged last evening.
My own preference is that boards focus on long range planning, measurable goals, mileposts at which progress toward those goals is measured and reported to the board -- and that the primary system for tracking the rest of what's going on in the District be provided in the form of management information reporting systems.
That means the board members get to work on the jobs they've assigned to themselves (the goal setting) and dispose of the rest with clear delegation orders -- or the "go-until-we-say-stop" approach of "executive limitations" (leaving the CEO/superintendent free to chose whatever approaches s/he thinks best for reaching the board's goals so long as s/he doesn't do what the board has forbidden him/her to do).
For example, under this approach our school board would not literally draw the boundaries around each school. That clerical task could be delegated to others. What it would do would be to discuss and make the really tough, decisive decisions with regard to the parameters that would drive that line drawing: How much disparity can there be between the percentages of free-and-reduced-lunch students in each school? Can we have "zones" within which students can be assigned to any one of a number of schools to meet parameters (or do we want "boundaries" around each school so tight that, together, they include every square block within the District and preclude any flexibility for the Board and Superintendent in future years)? Is there a fixed percentage occupancy of each school building, equity with regard to overcrowding, or are we willing to accept variations in crowding?
From my perspective, such decisions should only be made by the school board -- not the superintendent, and certainly not by out-of-town "consultants."
Until any board arrives as some majority view (it need not be unanimous) as to how it intends to govern itself and its relations to others, and what it believes to be its primary function and responsibility -- obviously it need not be my choice in this regard, only that it have some articulation of its job description -- it's unlikely its District will ever reach the goals it has never articulated (however lively and interesting may be its "bull session" discussion of fascinating topics).
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 2, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
For earlier, often related, blog entries, see:
Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Governance: First Things First; School Board Forum Producers Charis-Carlson and Yates Create Hit, But Where Was Candidates' Awareness of "Job One": Their Governance Model?" September 4, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "IC School Board Needs Fresh Thinking; Swisher Starting Dialogue,"
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," August 28, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI VPs and ICCSD Consultants; Concerns About Consultants and Vice Presidents," August 14, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, "School Boundaries; Tonight's Schools Meeting and the more to come," March 30, 2009;
Nicholas Johnson, " Demolition Disaster; Come Let Us Reason Together," March 10, 2009 (contains links to additional sources);
Nicholas Johnson," Roosevelt: Valuing Our Schools; Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking," March 9, 2009 (contains "Earlier, Related Writing" section with links to seven additional sources).
Swisher Starting Dialogue
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There's a school board election a week from yesterday -- September 8. There are six candidates running for three seats, and many multiples of those numbers of issues for the new board to address. Voter participation in school board elections is notoriously low, but this is one year you really ought to get informed and vote.
I've written elsewhere, and at length, over the years about our local K-12 issues, problems, challenges, opportunities, and solutions. So I'm not about to repeat -- or even link to -- all of that here.
What I want to suggest this morning is a ICCSD need that doesn't get much discussion: the need for fresh thinking, for new ideas, minds that are open to others' "best practices."
From last night's forum -- and there's another Thursday evening (tomorrow) at the Public Library -- it looks like Sarah Swisher is our best bet for a little improvement on that score locally.
She demonstrated the leadership to at least raise for discussion the idea of year-round schools, and magnet schools -- ideas the others were forced to respond to by saying they were "interesting ideas" they'd like to find out more about!
Bear in mind, no one's saying the District ought to rush out and implement every good K-12 idea from the last 40 years. What Swisher seems to be saying, and I've been saying, is that we need to at least do the research to find out what they are, discuss them, and then modify and try as pilot projects those that make sense to us.
We're so self-satisfied and smug about how great our schools are. They do turn out a good product for the most part; among the best in Iowa on any one of a number of measures. But at least a part of that result has something to do with the school children in any university community who come into kindergarten. There's a limit to how much harm any school system could do to them; most will look like outstanding graduates when they leave. And I'd say it's pretty clear we're doing them more good than harm.
But what else could we be doing -- or at least learning about and discussing as possibilities? Here are a few ideas:
- magnet schools (with a focus on science, foreign language or the arts, that could attract (not compel) attendance by students from all over the District into schools that would benefit from that infusion)
- team teaching, with the flexible scheduling and classroom walls that can make it easier (something to think about before talking to architects)
- smaller high schools, and "schools within schools"
- charter schools (part of the school district, but with a mission and administration of their own)
- year round schools (which still have three months of vacation time, but throughout the year)
- shifting the high school day to start later in the morning, and last longer into the afternoon (with the same total hours per day)
- more hours per day, more days per year, more homework (something that's done by many of the countries whose kids' test scores put us to shame)
- the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year (including more opportunities for enrollment at the University of Iowa or Kirkwood, job shadowing, and out-of-school independent research projects -- thereby, among other things, reducing the over crowding)
- in-school clinics (e.g., dental and medical)
- a volunteer coordinator (to make it easier for those who'd like to volunteer in the schools, along with a minimum of training)
- more emphasis on all students' physical fitness and intramural sports (with relatively less on the competitive sports' super stars)
This is just quickly off the top of my head as I go off to teach a morning class. There are hundreds of ideas out there -- many of which have been proven to be of value, and have been adopted by school districts all over the country.
Of course, some of what I've listed we're already doing; but perhaps we could do it more, or better, or differently -- or more effectively, efficiently and economically.
Board members are not only the best ones to do this job, they are in many ways the only ones who can get these discussions started. Our administrators and teachers more than have their hands full. ("When you're up to your waist in alligators, its difficult to find the time to think about how you might drain the swamp.")
Even the Army advises we should "Be all that you can be."
However good we are, shouldn't we, too, aspire to "be all that we could be"?
It looks like Sarah Swisher has already proven herself to be someone who can get that discussion going.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
