Jan. 23, 10:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m.
As predicted, the news this morning is that the additional UI Presidential Search II Committee members have been rounded up and the Regents are going to meet this afternoon at 4:00 p.m. (by telephone) to discuss whether to approve them or not.
(The meeting notice, dated January 22, and the agenda for that meeting, are now available from the Regents' Web site. Indeed, they may have been there yesterday at 5:00 p.m., when I said in the update of yesterday's blog that I couldn't find them. If that was the case I apologize for the error.)
This morning's stories in the Daily Iowan, Des Moines Register, Gazette, and Iowa City Press-Citizen -- along with a Press-Citizen editorial about the Legislature's review of Iowa's open meetings and public records laws -- are linked below.
Search Committee Issues
1. Who is -- and is not -- on Search Committee II? Now that the decision has been made to add seven rather than six to the original five (plus the chair) the Committee can no longer be referred to as "Regent Gartner and the Twelve Disciples." But it is still, at 13, exactly half the size that former Search Committee Chair, Jon Carlson, recommended. (See Nicholas Johnson, "UI Presidential Search Held Hostage Day 65 - Jan. 20," January 20, 2007.)
So what can be said about who is, and is not, represented? There seems to be a disproportionate number of those who are, in one way or another, representative of the sciences. The chair is dean of the College of Dentistry. The additional seven include an assistant to the vice president for research, professors of engineering, epidemiology, physiology and biophysics, and as the "student representative" a graduate student in biomedical engineering. The earlier five included professors of internal medicine and psychology. "Business" is represented in the persons of a finance professor and a former Maytag executive.
Which stakeholder groups are not so generously represented? There are no representatives from the UI's host community, Iowa City, as such. (Search I included the Iowa City mayor.) The University necessarily impacts on the community, its various governmental bodies, business and other local organizations -- up to and including its physical intrusion on historic neighborhoods. Any UI president should be someone who is knowledgeable about, and able to work with, a diversity of off-campus interests. Especially if the Regents and Committee follow through with their threat to grant confidentiality to any candidate who requests it -- thereby eliminating any on-campus interviews -- it will be very difficult even to educate the candidates about, let alone evaluate their ability to work with, the community.
Early rumors were that there might end up being no student representative on the Committee. It's possible the reason there are now seven, instead of six, to be added is because the six were on board before the Committee (and chair) reversed field and decided (perhaps because even Regents were complaining about the absence of students) that one should be added. In any event, there is now a graduate student proposed to be added. But there will be no undergraduate representative. Given the fact that undergraduates represent by all odds the majority share of the 30,000 students on campus, and given the issues they have with the University's administration that are distinguishable from those of every other stakeholder group, this would seem to be a major oversight.
The University is known internationally for its Iowa Writers Project and International Writers Program. Although there is to be an English professor on the Committee, he is not known to be associated with, or a representative of, those programs.
And speaking of "international," the University expresses interest from time to time in its international students, preparing students for a global society and economy, teaching additional foreign languages, and so forth. I'm unaware of anyone on the Committee representing those interests.
One could go on and on with this listing.
The point is that much more weight probably should have been given to Jon Carlson's observations about the value of larger search committees. The University of Iowa is a vast and sprawling institution with hundreds of programs and thousands of professionals. Whether from the standpoint of those interests, or from the legitimate need of candidates to be as fully informed as possible about the University, or the ability to tap "networks" of professionals around the country for possible candidates or evaluations of those we are considering, or simply having the pool of persons available to do the heavy lifting associated with a search, we're handicapping ourselves with this relatively small committee.
2. Who's calling the shots? Regents' President Michael Gartner has been quoted by Diane Heldt (as has been before) as saying, "I said to the dean, 'Do what you think is best.'" Maybe nobody cares, or even though they care they have no need or right to know, but the selection of the search committee members has occurred under as heavy a veil of secrecy as the selection of a UI president during the process of Search Committee I. What was the role of Gartner, or other individual regents, or some Board of Regents policy, or wish, arrived at in secret, and passed along to Dean Johnsen, either directly or by way of Interim President Fethke -- whether specific names or broad brush strokes of categories from which representatives would be drawn? What was Fethke's role? We'll never know.
3. What's next? Brian Morelli quotes Steve Collins (a former presidential search committee chair) as saying, "You get into trouble by not having a process laid out." He indicates that process needs to include, Morelli says, "strategies for identifying candidates, deciding how to narrow the pool, how to ensure diversity in the pool and whether to include on-campus interviews." And speaking of on-campus interviews, Regent Downer is urging that the Regents should at least discuss the requests and suggestions of the Iowa Ombudsperson -- until now somewhere between ignored and rebuffed by the Regents.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A _______________
Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Terry McCoy, "Regents to Vote on Search Panel Today," Daily Iowan, January 23, 2007
Erin Jordan, "No regents nominated for U of I panel; The group that will conduct the university's presidential search apparently won't have any undergrads, either," Des Moines Register, January 23, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Proposed additions leave out undergrad; Regents board today will consider 7 new committee members," The Gazette, January 23, 2007
Editorial, "Time to Review the State's Open Meeting Laws," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 23, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Regent, undergrad not on list; Regents may finalize search group today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 23, 2007
Blogs
Straight Out of the Cornfield (David Goodner), "Exclusion of undergraduates from prez search committee is unfortunate, undemocratic," January 23, 2007
Reference
David Johnsen, "Presidential Search Update" [e-mail to University Community], January 22, 2006, 4:52 p.m.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Jan. 22, 2:00 p.m.
Another day in which the biggest news is no news. A presidential search that, once called off by the Regents, could have nonetheless selected a UI president anytime after November 18, 2006, has yet to even announce who will serve on "Search Committee II." That's why this is: "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 67."
EXTRA (5:00 p.m.): The Press-Citizen (and undoubtedly other papers) will carry news tomorrow regarding the additional appointments to Search Committee II, to be recommended to the Regents at their Februry 6-7th meeting in Ames. The paper says they are on the Regents' Web site, but I was unable to find them there at 5:00 p.m. (Under "Agenda" for the February meeting the notice, in its entirety, now reads: "Agenda, Agenda Items and Committee Memos will be at this site prior to the meeting.")
However, here are the names (from Brian Morelli's 3:30 p.m. story update on the Press-Citizen online):
"The list includes: Sarah Vigmostad, graduate student in biomedical engineering; Jarjisu Sa-Aadu, finance professor, Cheryl Reardon, assistant to the dean/vice president for research, Gene Parkin, civil-environmental engineering professor, Ed Folsom, English professor, Sarah England, associate professor of physiology and biophysics, and Elizabeth Chrischilles, epidemiology professor.
“'The Chair sought nominations from the campus community who can represent the University’s major constituencies and who are able to articulate the issues facing the greater University,' an executive summary stated.
"Already on board are chairperson David Johnsen, College of Dentistry Dean, Linda Maxson, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean, Paul Rothman, internal medicine professor, Lee Anna Clark, psychology professor, Jonathan Carlson, law professor, and Leonard Hadley, retired Maytag executive and indoor rain forest project board member."
Of course, none of this affects the fact that the University of Iowa is still held hostage by the Regents, whose actions in November 2006, after a 10-month search, still leaves this University without a president.
Are Benefits for Colloton Unwarranted "Perks"?
There was, however, another story about John Colloton's role at the UIHC ("Perks for Ex-U of I Official Questioned," linked below). The issue originally arose with regard to whether e-mails from UIHC Director Emeritus Colloton were properly considered "public records" (and thus available to the media) or "personal" and "private" and thus subject to being kept secret by the UI.
His use of UIHC office space, phone, fax, computer and Internet connection, a well-paid UI secretary, University stationery printed with his title, and the best parking permit (all lots, for free) suggested that, even though not paid directly by the UI (it has been reported he receives $144,000 a year as a Wellmark board member), he should be considered a public official for "public records" purposes. This was re-enforced by the subject matter of letters from him that did have to be released by the University, the subject of which suggested on-going consultation with University administrators on matters of University policy.
Today's story deals with questions being raised by regents regarding the propriety of "perks" for emeritus faculty members generally.
A Case for Privacy and Institutional (University) Responsibility
In fairness to John Colloton, a word needs to be said regarding employees' reasonable assumptions regarding the privacy of their communications.
I believe the University, or any other public institution (the documents of which may be found to be "public records"), has an obligation to insure that its administrators and other employees are informed in fact (as distinguished from being the recipent of an e-mail or memo) regarding the public nature (or privacy) of their communications.
Especially is this so when there is the ambiguity surrounding such matters as exists for an emeritus professor, and when the state law defines a public record as one "of or belonging to" the State -- but then fails to define that phrase.
There is certainly an argument to be made that in the 21st Century's digital "Information Age" anyone's "reasonable expectation of privacy" (to use the phrase from privacy law) places a burden on the individual to know at least a minimal amount regarding the operation of e-mail systems, employers' practices, government surveillance, and the range of newly evolving technologies that enable a variety of kinds of "spying" formerly unknown (e.g., surreptitious recording of a computer's keystrokes, or heat and motion detectors).
But the fact remains that, if one assumes a level of privacy that is violated, the impact upon them is the same as if someone broke into their house, rummaged through, and then stole some of their papers. They feel violated -- and understandably so.
This is true even if their mistaken understanding was a result of ignorance, misinformation, or negligent disregard of warnings. It is true whether their assumptions involved the likelihood of being photographed, recorded, or videotaped without their knowledge, or of their "private" e-mails appearing in the mainstream newspapers.
I'm not proposing a solution to this problem -- because I don't have one at the moment. I just think it needs to be mentioned as one of the dimensions of finding communications to be "public records" when the author truly did believe them to be private and confidential. (Whether this applies to John Colloton's e-mails I have no way of knowing.)
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Erin Jordan, "Perks for U of I ex-official questioned; Two regents want such benefits reviewed, citing tight budgets and limited space," Des Moines Register, January 22, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Jan. 21, 1:40 p.m.
UI Held Hostage Day 66
"Oprah didn't call again today." UI held hostage Day 66. What do we have to show for the first two months of Search II? How much closer are we to finding a president for the University of Iowa?
The Regents and the Search II Committee Chair have rebuffed Jon Carlson's well-considered arguments for a sufficiently diverse and populated search committee to get the job done with qualtiy (the successful one he chaired had 26 members). (Those arguments were discussed, and linked to, yesterday.) And, given their ability to find search committee members it may be just as well.
Let's see, 66 days and how many Search Committee II members have been rounded up so far? Oh, yes, five. Let's see, 5 members in 66 days -- that's almost two weeks per search committee member. And they have six more to go! I don't want to even begin to try to calculate how long it's going to take that future committee to find a president.
Gambling on the Hawkeyes; Wanna Bet?
NCAA to Legalize, Organize, Profitize Intercollegiate Sports Betting?
Last September I asked the question, "Is the University of Iowa Athletic Department, specifically the football program, promoting gambling?" Nicholas Johnson, "UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2007.
I think the only fair answer to that question is, "Yes, it is." And last week it only got worse.
As with the Regents' "rolling closed meetings" and "decisions by polling and e-mail exchange," and the UI position regarding John Colloton's e-mails, the athletic department is fearless in its willingness to skate on the edges of some very thin ice: "we haven't violated the letter of the law," they all say. There's some dispute about even that assertion, and virtual unanimity that the spirt of those laws has been seriously abused.
The NCAA professes to be opposed to gambling on intercollegiate athletics.
But these professions of innocence are beginning to produce as many snickers among independent observers of the college sports scene as NCAA President Miles Brand's straight-faced assertion (regarding the tax deductability of "contributions" to football programs) that, "The fundamental purpose of intercollegiate athletics is the education of student-athletes in both the classroom and on the field or court." (See "Federal Subsidies for UI Football Program" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 64 - Jan. 19," January 19, 2007.)
So what do the NCAA rules provide?
The NCAA Division I Manual provides:
10.3 GAMBLING ACTIVITIES
Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly: (Revised: 4/22/98 effective 8/1/98)
( a ) Provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition;
( b ) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team;
( c ) Accept a bet on any team representing the institution;
( d ) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or (Revised: 9/15/97)
( e ) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling. (Revised: 1/9/96, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)
NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw Article 10, Ethical Conduct, 10.3 (2001-02).
Note that, while the prohibitions regarding intercollegiate athletics seem to cover all betting, the limitations on "professional athletics" only prohibits participation in a "method employed by organized gambling" (which I take to mean the legal sports betting permitted, I believe, only in the state of Nevada). Thus, while "illegal sports betting" would be illegal -- illegal is illegal -- it would not violate the NCAA rules if the illegal gambling involved "professional athletics."
Note also that there is no effort of any kind to control (a) gambling in general, (b) illegal sports betting in particular, or (c) legal or illegal betting by fans or others on intercollegiate athletics.
But those are just interesting asides.
So the position of the UI Athletic Department seems to be, "We can be as hip deep in the organizaed gambling industry as we care to be and find profitable so long as (a) our coaches and players aren't betting on intercollegiate games (especially those involving Iowa teams), and (b) we're not doing anything that violates any state or federal laws."
The issue I wrote about last September involved a tie to the Riverside gambling casino:
"[It] does seem a bit incongruous for the University's athletic program to enter into what amounts to a partnership with the gambling industry. How has it done that?
"The University has (1) sold special indoor box facilities in the football stadium to a local gambling casino, aware that the casino purchased the facility to entertain, and encourage, high rollers, (2) knowing that the casino plans to bring gamblers into the state, put them up at its hotel, transport them to and from the football games, and (3) then agreed to let the casino use the football program's oversized electronic scoreboard to advertise the gambling casino to the 70,000 plus sports fans in attendance! (4) Removing any possible ambiguity about this, the Casino Web site's opening page currently displays, 'Turn a Hawkeye game day into a weekend getaway!'
"See William Petroski, 'E. Iowa Casino to Lure U of I Fans; It will offer post-game parties, stadium shuttles,' Des Moines Register, August 29, 2006 ('The casino has spent $165,000 for a three-year deal to lease a new skybox at Kinnick Stadium, and the casino has purchased dozens of football tickets for its preferred customers. Starting with the Iowa-Iowa State game on Sept. 16, charter buses will be offered to transport patrons between the casino parking lot and Kinnick Stadium, and there will be post-game parties at the Riverside complex.'), and William Petroski, 'Kinnick ‘Hotel’ ad omits 'Casino;' By design, an ad for Riverside's complex does not mention gambling,' Des Moines Register, September 8, 2006 ('Chief Executive Officer Dan Kehl pointed out in a recent interview that . . . many students already gamble online.').
"The duplicity is stunning. Apparently the University, recognizing the impropriety of what it was doing, but wanting the money from the gambling industry advertising anyway, decided everything would be OK if only it would falsely represent that no gambling actually takes place in a gambling casino by changing the name on its scoreboard from the gambling casino's real name -- the 'Riverside Casino & Golf Resort' -- to that of a non-existant facility called the 'Riverside Hotel & Golf Resort.'"
And why is all of this OK according to University of Iowa athletic director Gary Barta? Because, he's quoted as saying, "casinos in this state . . . are legal businesses."
In other words, so long as it's "legal," anything goes. Ignore propriety, ignore responsibility to students, ignore what appears unseemly, ignore ethics and good sense. If it's legal, and it makes money for the athletic program, it's OK.
Well, bars are legal, too. And, just like gambling casinos, they are forbidden to serve students under 21. (Riverside was recently fined $20,000 for violating this law.) But just because it's legal doesn't mean it would be OK to serve alcohol at Kinnick Stadium, would it?
Oh, I forgot. I guess they decided that was OK, too, so long as you also purchased one of those $165,000 contracts for a skybox. After all, it make it easier to sell them.
Anyhow, that was the logic Barta found equally persuasive this past week. The issue this time was TV commercials using the University of Iowa athletic program to promote the Iowa Lottery. Never mind, he said in effect, that it constitutes just one more tie between students, gambling and intercollegiate athletics. The lottery, once a serious federal crime called "the numbers racket," has now been taken over by the State of Iowa to be run (at least in part) for its profit. In short, it's legal. And so long as it's legal, "Catch me if you can." (See
Dane Schumann, "AD defends 'Hawk' Lottery," Daily Iowan, January 19, 2007.)
The outrageous coaches' salaries, stadium building and rennovation projects, skyboxes, TV revenues, and ticket prices have captured Congress' attention. See, e.g., "Congress' Letter to the NCAA (letter sent to NCAA president Miles Brand from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas on October 2, 2006)," USAToday, October 5, 2006; Tom Witosky, "Grassley: Do College-Athletic Contributions Merit Tax Deductions?" Des Moines Register, January 18, 2007 (with link to Tom Witosky, "How Deduction is Figured on Kinick Lease Payment"); and Scott Dochterman, "Tax-exempt changes could affect donations; But officials at Iowa, ISU have no immediate concerns about issue," The Gazette, January 20, 2007.
I haven't taken the time to do thorough research, but 7 years ago the NCAA reported, "Total NCAA operating revenue for 1999-00 was $364,546,859, 77.5 percent of which came from television rights fees." One can only assume, given the increase in coaches' salaries over the past 7 years, that the $356 million has only grown over time, and the TV rights fees with it. Indeed, the NCAA itself projected at that time revenues from a single contract, with CBS, would grow to $764 million by 2012. See "Revenue" in NCAA Membership Report 2000.
In short, whatever one may say of the Regents' hopes of turning the entire University of Iowa into a business, intercollegiate athletics -- at Iowa and elsewhere -- clearly is a business, a big business. It is, to borrow a line from Steve Martin's character in the movie "The Jerk," "a profit deal."
As such, intercollegiate athletic programs are constantly looking for, and capitalizing on, opportunities of any kind for expanding revenues and budgets. They are more than willing to accept the proceeds from TV advertising that is not always consistent with the educational mission of the University. The UI is willing to partner with gambling casinos, and sell skyboxes in which alcohol can be served.
So why do I think we'll see the day when the NCAA, and the University of Iowa Athletic Department will be profiting from sports betting on intercollegiate athletics? Because, as Willie Sutton once explained when asked why he robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is.
Koleman S. Strumpf, of the Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, reports in Illegal Sports Bookmakers, February 2003, that illegal sports betting "currently generates over $100 billion in wagers or roughly $10 billion in bettor losses per year. The illegal market dwarfs the legal one, with only one to three percent of all sports wagers being placed in the legal Nevada market" (citing a 2000 American Gaming Association report).
Don't you know that $10 billion has to look attractive to the NCAA, which is only now getting used to $1 billion from TV? And don't you suspect it's learned a lesson from "the numbers racket" and "gambling casinos"? How can college athletics profit from them? By making them legal, partnering with them, and thereby being able to respond to critics: "We're not doing anything illegal."
As you may have noticed, the college operations' big brothers, "the pros," (for whom they function as farm clubs), claim that they "own" reports of the scores of their games. They claim that those who have put the money into the computer software and marketing of games using pro players' look-alikes will have to pay to use their names.
How much of a stretch could it be for college athletic programs to say, "Hey, look, its our games you're betting on. We own those games. We own the right to let you bet on them. We will continue to prohibit our coaches and players from betting on games -- especially those in which they are playing -- but we see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to have the kind of monopoly we do over the TV rights when it comes to the operation of sports betting on our games -- once they are legalized."
It's coming. You read it here first.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Editorial, "Strengthen Laws to Keep Government Open," Des Moines Register, January 21, 2007
Editorial, "Where Are Plans for Reform?" The Gazette, January 21, 2007
Amber Bryant-Tapper, "A new look at 'sunshine' laws; Open government rules under review in Iowa," The Gazette, January 21, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Jan. 20, 8:00 a.m., 1:30 p.m.
Follow-Up to Yesterday's "Honey, I Shrunk the Search Committee"
Yesterday, in writing about the possible exclusion of any and all students from the search committee, and the advantages of relatively larger, rather than smaller, search committees ("Honey, I Shrunk the Search Committee"), I made reference to remarks of Jon Carlson at an on-campus meeting with the Regents last March. I noted that his remarks were unavailable in written form so far as I knew. That's still true. But an Anonymous comment later added to the blog entriy suggested his remarks might be found in a video record of that meeting. They are.
Law professor Carlson, who chaired the very successful and widely-praised search committee that produced President David Skorton, and who has been selected as one of the first group of five to serve on "Search II," reviewed for the Regents on that occasion his views as to what works best. That includes among other things, in his view, a broadly representative committee that can share the workload. The Regents rebuffed his helpful suggestions borne of experience and followed their own path into a tar pit, but you can listen to Carlson's arguments, and judge them for yourself. Start watching at 41 minutes 21 seconds into the 1 hour 25 minute video -- or watch the whole event as you choose. (His remarks run 41:21-48-00.)
The URL provided in the comment doesn't work exactly as is, but this portion of it does: http://winmedia.uiowa.edu/president/iboropen.wmv.
Follow-Up to Gartner Coverage
Late yesterdy I added to "Media Stories and Commentary" an Associated Press story dealing with the controversy swirling around Michael Gartner -- including his NBC tour. It first came to my attention in the Herald-Sun. Now I find that Editor & Publisher, which characterizes itself as "America's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry," also saw fit to run it yesterday (click here). This AP take on his record as a regent may get much more play, as newspapers view this as a journalism story about one of their own, given Gartner's often-distinguished role as journalist, editor or owner of a number of papers.
Follow-Up to "When a Sale of a Hospital is Not a 'Sale'"
Have you ever "leased" rather than "owned" a car? Ever "rented" equipment from an equipment rental store? Ever "owned" a house in which the bank's financial interest exceeded your own?
My property law professor ("two score and ten years ago," as Abraham Lincoln might have put it) explained to me about the "bundle of rights" represented in "owenrship."
And so it is with hospitals.
Many Regents' and University spokespersons are rushing to the microphone to reassure us that "the UIHC is not for sale."
OK, they're right. Nobody is going to jack up all those heavy buildings that John Colloton got built for us, put them on a flat bed, and haul them off to Des Moines.
But there's not a lot of difference between making monthly payments on the SUV you "own" and making lease payments on the same vehicle you "lease." In both cases, you have the use of the vehicle.
And there's not a lot of difference between the "sale" of the UIHC on the one hand, and leaving all the buildings in Iowa City, but breaking up the doctors, staff and equipment in the UIHC's tertiary specialties and moving them out of Iowa City and into someone else's chain of hospitals scattered around the state.
There are a lot of other possibilities one can imagine in this multi-billion-dollar industry, none of which involve putting the UIHC up for "sale," but many of which could leave the University, and the people of Iowa, with something very, very different from what the UIHC and College of Medicine are today.
There are three shells; there is only one pea; do you know which one it's under? Watch very, very closely.
Follow-Up on Colloton Letter to Fethke
This image, from The Gazette Online, even though blurred, adds three things to yesterday's story, and the Press-Citizen's online image of the letter: (1) It shows that the letter was written on University of Iowa letterhead, (2) that the letterhead indicates, at the top, Colloton's title as "Director Emeritus, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics," and (3) that the initials at the bottom are those of his UI-employed secretary. This takes on significance (along with the content of the letter) in the evaluation of Colloton's e-mails and hard copy documents as either "public records" or "personal and private." (For a sharper image of the text see yesterday's link to the Press-Citizen's image of the letter.)
_______________
There will be more to come tomorrow with regard to the UI athletic program's ties to the gambling industry, and my predictions regarding the NCAA's openly profiting from sports betting in the future.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Diane Heldt, "Freedom of Information Flood of Requests; Regents’ handling of UI presidential search spurs demand for documents," The Gazette, January 20, 2007
Scott Dochterman, "Tax-exempt changes could affect donations; But officials at Iowa, ISU have no immediate concerns about issue," The Gazette, January 20, 2007
Editorial, "Glad 'Rampant Rumors' Are Being Put Down," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2007
Brian Morelli, "It's Been a Tumultuous Year Since Skorton Left," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2007
Brian Morelli, "What Does Emeritus Title Mean? 651 People Have Honor at UI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Fethke Speaks About Hospital, Search Process," Iowa City Press-Citizen,, January 20, 2007
Peter Fisher, "Sales Tax and Property Tax Are Both Regressive," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Jan. 19, 7:30 a.m., 1:15 p.m.
Yesterday (January 18) there were 17 entries under "Media Stories and Commentary" (including "Blogs" and "References"), and my commentary on "Follow-up To Yesterday's 'Revisiting Optiva,'" "John Colloton's E-mails," "Destruction of President Skorton's Files," and "Dijon Vu (the same old mustard all over again)" (regarding Governor Culver's apparent refusal to call for Regents' resignations).
Given the persistent limitation of days to but 24 hours each, there's still more to be said about some of those 17 entries that will carry over to today -- when, what should I find as the top-of-the-fold headline on page one of the Press-Citizen but Brian Morelli's story: "Regent: Rumors of UIHC for Sale Untrue," linked below.
UIHC for sale??!!
One can almost be grateful that, once again, there's no news from the Search Committee ("Oprah didn't call again today"), which is why it's "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 64."
Selling the Nation's Largest, Formerly-University-Owned Hospital
When Iowa State decided to sell WOI-TV, I did a tongue-in-cheek op ed, rather than writing about it as the virtual giveaway of an incredibly valuable asset -- that would only increase in value over time with techological innovation, more uses for, and greater shortages of, frequencies. I wrote that selling off Iowa's assets was a terrific way to raise money and that in that spirit I had found a guy in Arizona who was offering to buy all of Iowa's topsoil.
The rumor is (or was) that the UIHC was going to be offered for sale, and that an "exclusive strategic alliance" would be created with Iowa Health Systems. Morelli tells us that's the firm that is "the largest integrated health care provided in the state with eight hospitals and $1.8 billion in net revenues."
Was there anything to the rumor? It depends on whom you ask. Regent Gartner says, simply, "That is crazy." Regent Downer says, "The concern [a Iowa Health Systems competitor] expresses was the intention of Iowa Health . . . somewhat beyond the rumor stage."
It is Morelli who tells us that "Iowa Health's April 2006 letter of intent for collaborative programs with University Hospitals such as medical education, employer health benefits and provider networking spiked Bressanelli's interest." And he quotes Genesis CEO and President Leo Bressanelli: "I do know that the matter was being discussed privately without the knowledge of those organizations that might be affected by such an arrangement. . . . I am not aware of any consideration or consultation with major health care stakeholders and supporters of the University health care system."
Once again, we're indebted to the Iowa Public Records law, and the willingness of the Press-Citizen to use it, for this information. It's not from an "open meeting." It's not the result of those who had this information realizing that, given its significance, it should be shared with the public. No, it's the result of the media having to use the law to pry from a public institution documents -- in this case e-mails to Gartner -- that would have otherwise forever remained secret.
_______________
Federal Subsidies for UI's Football Program
The Press-Citizn also has on page one this morning a Gannett News Service replay of the story we noted here yesterday (with links) regarding tax breaks for college athletic programs (linked below).
It turns out that Iowa's Senator Grassley, in an effort to regain his reputation as a fiscal conservative after giving his friends $50 million to build an indoor rain forest in a tulip bed, is looking at the tax deductions provided athletic boosters for their near-$1 billion-a-year in "contributions." The former chair of the Senate Finance Committee is joined in this effort by his colleague, and current chair, Senator Max Baucus.
The Senators have noticed that these programs, headed by $4 million-dollar-a-year coaches, undertaking near-$100-million "renovations" of stadiums used six times a year, with sky boxes for the wealthy (and, at Kinick, for gambling casino patrons), don't look very much like the academic instruction in college classrooms that the Senate had in mind when providing this federal subsidy of higher education.
Ah, but it is, says NCAA President Miles Brand. You just don't understand, Senators. "The fundamental purpose of intercollegiate athletics is the education of student-athletes in both the classroom and on the field or court."
Yeah, right. How could I have missed that?
_______________
"Honey, I Shrunk the Search Committee"
At an on-campus meeting of the Regents and UI community last March, UI law professor, Jon Carlson (who led the search that produced David Skorton, and is one of the five selected so far for this year's "Search II" committee) spoke on the value of relatively larger, rather than smaller, search committees. Unfortunately, so far as I know, there is no written record of his remarks.
But from what I can remember, the following were among his observations. (1) The "University of Iowa" is a community of tens of thousands of students, staff, faculty and administrators involved in hundreds of departments, programs and projects. It's not just that they need to feel that they have been represented on the search committee in order to get their constituencies to "buy into" the ultimate choice. It is that the ultimate choice will be a better one if their perspective is represented as candidates are evaluated by the committee, and finalists are questioned.
(2) Combined, those associated with the University have networks of contacts that cover much of American academia and beyond. Fully used, these contacts can identify potential candidates in even greater numbers than a commercial search firm. They need to be used.
(3) The search process involves a lot of work -- going over paper resumes, calling and interviewing references, and so forth. The more people who can share these tasks the faster and better that work gets done.
Unfortunately, these observations from one who led one of Iowa's most successful presidential searchs were not only ignored, they were rebuffed by Regents who thought they knew better.
And their thinking has carried over to "Search II." So much so, that it is, as of today, not even clear that there will be student representation on the search committee. Given that students constitute roughly 30,000 persons among the UI's various stakeholders, this is a pretty dramatic oversight.
Yesterday, Diane Heldt reported ("Regent Supports Students on Search Panel," linked from yesterday's blog entry) that "[Regent Bob] Downer said he intended to speak to [Search Committee Chair Dean] Johnsen soon to voice his strong support for having one UI undergraduate student and one UI graduate or professional student on the committee."
The committee chair is noncommittal. "Johnsen said Wednesday he and the five other committee members, approved by the regents last week, have discussed membership but he was reluctant to comment about it until their recommendations go to the regents for approval."
Of course, such reluctance to speak just raises further questions about the degree to which the committee is constrained, or the chair feels himself to be constrained, by the Regents, if he feels he cannot, or should not, reveal his own opinion on such an issue without first clearing it with them.
_______________
Hog Lots, Maybe?
This has all become sufficiently crazy that blogger J.D. Mendenhall has asked, "Hey, What's Going on Here?", linked below, and thinks he's found a possible explanation: "Airborne pollutants from ever-growing corporate hog lots have tainted the atmosphere causing . . . physical and mental paralysis of notable Iowans."
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Dane Schumann, "AD defends 'Hawk' Lottery," Daily Iowan, January 19, 2007
Henry C. Jackson, "Former NBC Chief in Faculty Dispute," Herald-Sun [Durham, North Carolina], January 19, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Regent: Rumors of UIHC for sale untrue; Iowa Health also denies trying to buy hospital," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 19, 2007
PC Opinion, "National Issues: Should Athletic Contributions be Tax Deductable?" (with the Gannett News Service story on the subject embedded), January 19, 2007
Blogs
J.D.'s Blog Bites (J.D. Mendenhall), "Hey, What's Going on Here?" January 18, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
Jan. 18, 8:45 a.m., 5:00 p.m. (links), 9:20 (some commentary)
An Iowa state senator is calling for the resignations of all Regents. And Downer has an upper for the students -- he's essentially supporting their demand for some representation of the 30,000 tuition-paying UI stakeholders called "students" on the presidential search committee. Meanwhile, the search committee chair, currently searching for six more searchers, says . . . nothing.
A U.S. Senator is asking questions about the tax deductibility of "contributions" to the UI athletic program. And the UI athletic program, with its well-established ties to the gambling industry, sees nothing wrong with its new alliance with the Iowa Lottery. Meanwhile, The Gazette is editorializing about sources of revenue other than gambling to support higher education in Iowa.
The Press-Citizen thinks it wasn't so swift for the UI to erase Skorton's e-mails, and is upping the ante on its demand for Colloton's e-mails by publishing a facsimile of a letter he wrote to Interim President Fethke on UI stationery that, despite its "Dear Gary" salutation sure looks more "public record" than "personal" (as Colloton's attorney contends).
The former Johnson County Attorney was one of the toughest in the U.S. on enforcing open meetings and public records requirements. His highly-regarded successor is being tested on her resolve on such issues, having been asked by the Press-Citizen to look into the Colloton e-mail dispute, and having already begun her inquiry.
So, all in all, things are back to normal here at "Regents' Watch," as the UI President Search is held hostage for Day 63.
_______________
Follow-up to Yesterday's "Revisiting Optiva"
Trey Reeme kindly attached a comment to yesterday's blog entry about "Optiva." It prompted me to check out http://www.opensourcecu.com. If you're really into credit unions you've long since discovered it and probably participate in its ongoing discussions. If not, check it out.
He says my entry prompted discussion on the site about credit union name changes. Indeed it has. And these folks (as distinguished from my off-the-top-of-my-head comments) really know what they're talking about. (The site says of itself: "Created as an idea exchange, Open Source CU is an outlet and resource for credit union leaders toward the goals of opening communications between members and management, using technology that fits the movement’s inherent cooperative nature, and converting marketing sales-speak into legitimate conversation.")
And speaking of "opening communications between members and management," many of those providing comments noted how essential it is that if there is to be a name change management fully and honestly explain to the membership the reasons. I think that has been one of the causes of the membership dissatisfaction with "Optiva" -- that the board and management felt (whether correctly or not) that they really were not free to discuss their reasons candidly in public.
_______________
John Colloton's E-mails
Read the letter, linked below, from John Colloton to Gary Fethke; it's dated July 11, 2006, and on official UI stationery (in the hard copy Press-Citizen presentation, but not the pdf it has online -- and I have linked). I cannot imagine anyone of independent mind reading that and concluding that it is a "personal" document (rather than an official "public record").
The Press-Citizen has asked the new Johnson County Attorney, Janet Lyness, to investigate the UI refusal to make public what appears increasingly, with every passing day, to be about as close to "public records" as any messages could be.
See links, below, to Brian Morelli ("Lyness to Investigate UI Denial") and Press-Citizen, "Private Correspondence or Public Record?" The UI Operations Manual, Section 17.3, which is linkeded under "References," is primarily related to the UI's destruction of the records of President Skorton, but is also relevant in evaluating the official status of the Colloton communications.
I've discussed at some length what I believe to be the best strategy for Colloton, Gartner an the UI to take in this situation (see, "Couriouser and Couriouser" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 58 - Jan. 13," January 13, 2007). Instead, they've opted to continue to stonewall, which only intensifies media and public interest and suspicion with every passing day.
Because, ultimately, these e-mails will be released.
_______________
Destrction of President Skorton's Files
"It never rains but it pours," the expression has it. It almost makes you feel sorry for the University folks caught up in this mess. Perhaps anticipating the tar pit they're currently caught in with Colloton's documents, they apparently programmed President Skorton's computer to destroy all documents that might someday be requested, thereby saving the need, hassle and embarrassment of producing them.
Read Section 17.3, linked below, and decide for yourself whether you think this was a violation of University regulations. The Press-Citizen thinks so (see its editorial this morning, "UI Shouldn't Have Deleted Skorton E-mails," linked below).
Section 17.3 is not as clear as one might hope. However, consider the following clauses:
- E-mail and voice-mail are governed by the subject matter contained within and should be retained according to the department's record retention schedule.
- When there is any doubt as to whether or not any item is a non-record, it will be considered to be a UI record.
- Ordinarily, all UI records are considered public records.
- "UI record" means any documents . . . made, produced, or executed in the conduct of University business, including . . . administration.
- Official records of this state . . . shall not be . . . destroyed, removed, or disposed of, except as provided by law, rule, or policy.
- The UI archivist will have the opportunity to examine and review all UI records selected for disposal to determine whether the records proposed for disposal have research or historical value to the UI. The UI Archivist shall maintain those research and historical records in a manner consistent with this policy.
- UI records in the possession of a UI faculty/staff member . . . whose employment . . . with the University ceases for whatever reason are presumptively the property of the University . . ..
This is not a "legal opinion." I haven't really studied Section 17.3, and certainly haven't seen any interpretations there may have been of it over the years. But superficially, these excerpts would seem to suggest that -- if it is in fact true that all of President Skorton's e-mails were routinely permanently destroyed (or destroyed after his departure) -- there may well have been violations of Regents' and University policy.
From the perspective of computer geeks, it would be interesting to know the details of how this was done.
But however it was done, anyone skilled enough to so program a computer would certainly have been skilled enough to come up with a system for destroying e-mails from patients -- said to be the reason for the "destroy all e-mails" policy -- without destroying everything. Talk about "burning down the barn to roast the pig." It really strains credulity that the practice was adopted for the reasons stated. (Besides, aren't there requirements for maintaining patient records as well? But that's clearly another issue.)
_______________
Dijon Vu (the same old mustard all over again)
So we have a new governor. But so long as Gartner remains as Regents' President it's just the same old mustard all over again.
While it's certainly significant that Iowa State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) has asked Governor Culver to call for the resignations of all the Regents (see the three stories, linked below), the most significant line in the AP story is the reminder, "Culver said last month that he doesn't plan to seek any resignations from members whose terms aren't expiring." Clearly that is a category that includes Regent Gartner -- who is the primary focus of the public (and legislative) dissatisfaction with the Regents.
So long as he remains it's like Vilsack never left town. It's still "UI Held Hostage - Day 63."
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Matt Nelson, "State Senator: All Regents Must Go," Daily Iowan, January 18, 2007
Tom Witosky, "Grassley: Do College-Athletic Contributions Merit Tax Deductions?" Des Moines Register, January 18, 2007 (with link to Tom Witosky, "How Deduction is Figured on Kinick Lease Payment")
Danny Valentine, "U of I students demand role in search; They fear they will have no say in the choice of the school's next president," Des Moines Register, January 18, 2007
Editorial, "Keeping Higher Education Affordable," The Gazette, January 18, 2007
Ron Boshart, "Senator Urges Culver to Ask for Regent Resignations," The Gazette, January 18, 2007
Diane Heldt, "UI Doesn't Cry Foul Over Lottery's Ads," The Gazette, January 18, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Regent supports students on search panel; Six spots have been filled on 12-member search committee," The Gazette, January 18, 2007
Editorial, "UI Shouldn't Have Deleted Skorton E-mails," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2007
Associated Press, "Lawmaker Seeks Regents Resignations," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Lyness to investigate UI denial; P-C appeals to county about records request," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2007
Press-Citizen, "Private Correspondence or Public Record? Letter to Fethke," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2007
Jared Taylor, "Iowa newspaper sues board of regents for closed meetings; Board discussed 'personnel matters,' officials say," Student Press Law Center, January 18, 2007
Blogs
David Johnson, "Board of Regents: The Party Never Ends," January 18, 2007
Reference
Board of Regents Minutes, January 11, 2007 (search committee approval)
Letter from John Colloton to Gary Fethke, July 11, 2006
Section 17.3, Records Management Program [Part V. Administrative, Financial, and Facilities Policies; Chapter 17, Records Management], University of Iowa Operations Manual
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
See "Note" below regarding UI President Search
Jeff Cox's letter to the editor in the Press-Citizen this morning, Jeff Cox, "Credit Union Must Hold New Election," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 17, 2007, reminded me that I'd intended to provide an update regarding my earlier concerns about the change in name of the local credit union to "Optiva."
The University of Iowa Community Credit Union ("UICCU") was created in 1938, and has grown and prospered for nearly 70 years with that name. Since the University is clearly the largest employer in the Iowa City/Johnson County area -- if not the whole of Eastern Iowa -- it was natural that its founders and most of its early members would have a university affiliation of some kind. Today, having long since severed ties with the University and moved off the campus into numerous locations throughout the community, and with over 40,000 members and growing, it's obvious there is no confusion in anyone's mind regarding the fact that it is open to all. And yet it is still the case that virtually everyone on its board of directors has had, or still has, some affiliation with the University of Iowa.
In short, this is not the case of a new start-up company searching about for a name into which it hopes it will be able, over time, to blow some meaning and positive customer response -- such as Kodak did. The UICCU already has that meaning and customer response. What it is proposing to do is to shoot itself in the foot by hauling out to the city dump what has cost millions of dollars and nearly 70 years to build, and start all over from scratch with a new name.
Moreover, the new name is one that many view as, at best, silly, and -- at $250,000 to a consulting firm -- well over-priced. And of course the purchase price for the name is only the beginning of the cost. Paying lawyers to handle the paper work, changing the signs on buildings, the literature and stationery, the checks and statements and all the other documents associated with banking ain't cheap. But it is as nothing compared with the multiples more costly, years-long expense of the advertising and marketing necessary to implant a new name in the public's consciousness. And all of this is in addition to the very substantial (and unnecessary) throwing away of the asset represented by the present name -- clearly a relevant item when calculating the "cost" of this move.
I wrote about some of these issues last fall. See Nicholas Johnson, "Optiva," October 13, 2006, and also Nicholas Johnson, "Seattle's Optiva," October 23, 2006.
Following that, I communicated with each member of the UICCU board by mail individually. I was interested in, among other things, the organization's governance model in terms of board-CEO-member relations, and wanted to find out the extent to which this decision to become "Optiva" truly represented an enthusiastic choice by each of the board members. Following that, I intended to (and ultimately did) talk with management as well.
Communicating with board members proved to be a little difficult. When I inquired as to their names and addresses it soon became obvious that staff had been instructed not to reveal that information. A number of appeals and stubborn persistence on my part ultimately, over time, extracted the names (although not an up-to-date list as it turned out), but a continued refusal to provide addresses or e-mails. So I was left to track down mailing addresses from phone books and the University directory.
Aside from that little glitch (of which more later), I would have to say that, as boards go many of the board members were responsive, some extremely so. (During and following my time on the local school board people I didn't formerly know have sometimes stopped to thank me later for responding to their e-mail to all board members, saying I was the only board member to respond.) That's not to say that anyone on the board or in management showed an inclination to reconsider their Optiva decision. But that I got any response at all was welcome and appreciated.
There are a number of issues here.
Was the decision to change the name a reasonable and rational one? If so, was the use of an expensive consultant necessary? If so, was the ultimate selection of "Optiva" a wise one? What alternative names might have been considered -- or were considered and rejected -- that might have been better?
A credit union is a membership-governed, non-profit organization. As such, there is apparently a legal requirement that before one can change its name a vote of its membership is required. (I have not examined this law or done any research regarding it.) Thus, there are other questions regarding whether the law was complied with. Were there irregularities in the voting?
Even more significant than the legal requirements, from my perspective, are the issues surrounding the most appropriate relationship between the members of a credit union, the management, and the board. This is, in part, the issue that also concerns Jeff Cox.
1. I did not, and still do not, believe that the decision to make a name change (a change of any kind, not just to "Optiva") was either necessary or in the best interests of the UICCU (for some of the reasons mentioned above, and others). Had I been on the board (on the basis of what I now know) I would have voted against doing so. However, I would acknowledge that the board members who voted for making a change had reasons; there was a superficial rationality that they could provide for their vote. I just don't think that the benefits of the change could come close to outweighing the costs and disadvantages of doing so.
2. I do not believe a consultant was necessary. Selecting names is not rocket science. Board members and administrators have access to computers connected to the Internet. They know how to use Google -- which, not incidentally, provides 130,000 hits for this "unique" name "Optiva." As I'll note in a moment, even if a change of name must be made, a number of names are easy to think of that would have advantages over, and none of the disadvantages of, "Optiva."
3. For a whole variety of reasons, were a new name to be chosen, "Optiva" would not have been anywhere close to my "final four." It communicates nothing of the UICCU's near-70-year proud history -- nor even its location. It subjects the organization to ridicule. And, as just noted, it's widely used elsewhere.
4. There are other names. Go to the Iowa Credit Unions Web site. Once there, click on "Locate a Credit Union," fill in your zip code, and a distance from home; 100 miles will give you the maximum choice: 173 credit unions. There are a number of things you'll observe on that list. (a) No more than one name was a silly, meaningless name like "Optiva." (b) There are a great many that bear the name of an institution; for example, "Collins" and "Quaker Oats" both appear in credit union names. (c) Most of the other names refer to some geographical location, such as the "Linn Area Credit Union."
Is it possible those 173 credit unions' board members are not nuts? Is it possible they see a value to an institutional identification (while opening membership beyond that institution), or to a geographical reference? Is it possible they considered a change of name, but decided they'd rather save the fee some consultant would charge them for a less useful name that would, in addition, subject them to ridicule?
So what names do not appear among those 173 that the UICCU could have selected? Here are a few examples:
Iowa City Community Credit Union
. . . or, if you'd like a broader geographical appeal, how about
Johnson County Community Credit Union (or, as in Linn County, "Johnson Area Credit Union")?
. . . you want something more geographically broader still? OK, how about
Eastern Iowa Community Credit Union
or
Corridor (or "Eastern Corridor" or "Iowa's Corridor") Community Credit Union?
That's just for starters; off the top of my head; the result of three minutes' research. And they can consider it pro bono; I won't even bill them for my time.
5. Did the UICCU comply with the law? Apparently so; at least we've recently had a ruling from some State regulatory body that the UICCU can go ahead with the name change. A vote of the membership was held. There were charges that the ballot boxes had a good many ballots in them before the meeting even began, and that many of the votes cast were those of UICCU employees. (Of course employees, who are members, have the right to vote. But were they pressured to do so? Or to vote one way or the other? An effort of management to stack the results and shove through its idea?) But apparently those concerns, if legitimate, and presented to the State body, have been resolved in favor of UICCU management. I'm told the membership vote in favor of the change was by a very slim margin -- I think I've read somewhere it was six votes. But, hey, a "majority" is a majority.
6. UICCU management's insistence that the law was complied with is kind of like Regents' President Gartner arguing that "rolling closed meetings" that never close and never re-open, or the resolution of issues by means of e-mail polling, do not violate the letter of Iowa's open meetings law. (My own interpretation is that the Board may have actually violated the law.) But all commentators seem to agree that, at a minimum, the Board of Regents violated the spirit of the law.
And it is the spirit, the notion of a membership organization and its governance, that most concerns me.
Roughly one percent of the UICCU's 40,000-plus membership actually voted -- and a half of those who did vote voted against the change to "Optiva."
There may very well have been some communication to me from the credit union that a vote was to take place. But I don't recall getting it if there was, and clearly it was not sufficient to penetrate my consciousness.
Hanging on the fact that there was a vote at a meeting as required by law is, in my view, a very narrow thread indeed for the management of what purports to be a membership organization.
Jeff Cox is calling for another vote.
My own view is that, at a minimum, there should be a "poll" of the membership. This should have taken place before the first vote. But there's no reason it can't take place now.
If, as management predicts, very few UICCU members -- even after actual notice (as distinguished from some bulk mail item begging to be thrown away) -- choose not to express a view on the matter, fine. That's their choice. Half of the American electorate doesn't bother to vote for their president, either. But if a significant proportion -- say 10% participate in the poll, and of those 55% or more vote against adoption of the "Optiva" name -- then I would think common sense, common decency, and respect for the idea of a membership organization, would call for a second "vote" of the kind requested by Jeff Cox and required by law.
7. Finally, a word about board accessibility. There is no "legal requirement" that the board members of a public body, or a membership organization, make themselves available to their constituents, or members. But doing so is more than just "a nice thing to do." It is inherent in their role -- in my view. It is a responsibility that goes with the territory. (a) UICCU staff should be instructed to provide, as a matter of course, a list of board members, with at least their mailing addresses (business or home, as each board member may choose) to any member of the credit union who asks for it. (b) The UICCU Web site and Annual Report ought to contain addresses as well (along with, ideally, email addresses and phone numbers, since that is the way most folks communicate these days). Just a thought.
# # #
Because there was little-to-no news this morning (Jan. 17) regarding the Regents, UI Presidential Search, and related items -- more evidence of the "UI Held Hostage" -- today's blog entry focuses on the "Optiva" controversy.
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of all entries since June 2006 is also available.]
# # #
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
