. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
There seems to be great bewilderment as to why our children, and the young professionals we train from elsewhere, seem to leave the state. I've suggested a simple solution: pay them.
Pay workers enough and they'll even relocate to the coldest spots in Alaska -- or the hottest deserts in the Middle East. Surely Iowa can compete with those locations.
One cause of our unwillingness to use income as a magnet for workers is the state's anti-labor ideology. Iowa is a so-called right-to-work state -- and proud of it. The powers that be opposed even the "fair share" proposal that those who benefit from the higher wages unions make possible (such as the teachers who refuse to pay dues to the Iowa State Education Association -- but are happy to accept the raises it makes possible in their pay checks) should at least pay their fair share of the union's cost of negotiating those contracts. They opposed the recent public employee unions' legislative efforts. They've beaten back the fair compromise called "project labor agreements."
Nor is the University of Iowa immune from this anti-union stance.
Notwithstanding the fact that nurses in Iowa rank at the bottom of the states in wages (so much so that Iowa inexplicably ranks 52nd out of 50 states -- somebody explain that one to me) -- leading to (surprise!) a nurses shortage, the University opposed the efforts of the SEIU to unionize them.
The University seems to prefer dealing with non-union contractors. Were they the source of whoever ended up burning the dome off of the Old Capitol?
Most recently, the University of Iowa has been taken to task by the courts for violating its own agreement with its very own graduate students working as teaching assistants. In short, it is not enough that the laws all cut in favor of employers over employees, the University believes it is entitled to even more.
An administrative law judge ruled the Board of Regents and the University of Iowa bargained in bad faith while negotiating the 2007-09 contract with the graduate workers union.
The judge for the State of Iowa Public Employment Relations found that actions of the regents and the UI showed a "reckless disregard" for the Public Employment Relations Act when bargaining with UE Local 896/COGS (Campaign to Organize Graduate Students) . . ..
Aside from the occasional violations of the few pro-employee laws that do exist in Iowa, legislators and their campaign contributors do, of course, have the right to make the laws whatever they want them to be -- within the limits of the Constitution.
But they can't have it both ways.
They can't do everything in their power to block the efforts of workers to engage in collective action, and to drive down wages (including benefits, health care, safety, retirement, and so forth), and then complain of a "worker shortage," bemoan the fact our young people want to leave the state, and wonder at the mystery of why nurses seem to be disappearing.
The Register didn't go so far as to appear pro-union this morning, but it did forcefully recognize in an editorial that pay may have something to do with the ability of a state to attract and retain workers:
For the past decade, the state generally has pursued a two-pronged approach to economic development: Encourage creation of more high-wage jobs and expansion of amenities to enhance quality of life. That emphasis should continue, paired with commitment to creating world-class schools to better prepare Iowa's students for the rigor of college or other post-secondary training. . . . Businesses must be willing to pay more competitive salaries, too. A January report from the Generation Iowa Commission blamed lagging wages as a key reason young professionals leave.
Project Vote Smart I also want to give the Register credit for its endorsement of Project Vote Smart the other day.
It's that time of year when schoolchildren and college students are facing big tests as the school year winds to a close. Political candidates across the country are facing a test, too, and the only way to flunk is to refuse to participate. Yet, in Iowa in recent years, the overwhelming majority of state legislative candidates have done just that.
We can write letters to the editor of our local papers, urging them to use their much longer and stronger levers of power to pry participation out of our local candidates.
We can write the candidates themselves, and ask them in open meetings why they haven't participated.
We can help support the work of Project Vote Smart.
And given [the newspapers'] commendable focus on this issue over time, I'd like to politely suggest that [they] might want to turn some reporters' resources, and space in the paper, to reporting -- by name -- which candidates are refusing to participate, along with the positions on the issues of those who do.
The party's over It's time to call it a day They've burst your pretty balloon And taken the moon away It's time to wind up the masquerade Just make your mind up the piper must be paid
The party's over The candles flicker and dim You danced and dreamed through the night It seemed to be right just being with him Now you must wake up, all dreams must end Take off your makeup, the party's over It's all over, my friend
It's the "party" that is her party, her dream of the nomination, that "must end." It's the results from North Carolina and Indiana that have "burst your pretty balloon/And taken the moon away." "It's time to wind up the masquerade;" "Take off your makeup, the party's over."
Who "won" Indiana? If Senator Obama gets 50.89% of the vote in Indiana on November 4, it would be accurate to say that he "won" and Senator McCain "lost" Indiana. Why? Because he would get all 11 of Indiana's electoral votes; the election is "winner take all." A primary is not. The prize is delegates and they are allocated proportionately. Many still refer to Senator Clinton having "won" Texas. But when all the votes were in from the primary and caucuses Senator Obama actually "won" more delegates than she did. In the most immediately preceding primary, in Guam, Obama got more popular votes and thus "won" Guam by that analysis -- but in fact they split the 4 delegates 2 and 2.
As the Washington Post reports, "At stake yesterday were 187 pledged delegates -- 115 in North Carolina and 72 in Indiana. That made yesterday the third-biggest day of the long nomination battle in terms of delegates, but more important, it was the last big day on the calendar." I don't know if the 72 Indiana delegates will end up being split 36-36, but it shouldn't vary by more than one from that -- meaning that nobody really "won" Indiana, and it's both misleading and kind of silly to say that Senator Clinton "won."
Nor did Senator Obama "win" North Carolina. What he did do was to win a good many more delegates from North Carolina than Senator Clinton. But he sure didn't get all 115.
[Again from The Post, "An additional 217 pledged delegates remain to be chosen in the final six contests between now and June 3: primaries in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Obama entered the day with 1,745 delegates to Clinton's 1,608, according to an Associated Press tally. Included in that count are superdelegates -- elected officials and party leaders who are automatically granted a vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Among those superdelegates, Clinton led Obama 270 to 255."]
The only real "win" is in November. Moreover, for those who care about who becomes the next president -- and, in that sense, which party "wins" -- it's almost irrelevant how Senators Clinton and Obama come out when they run against each other. That's not how the results are determined in the election.
For example, it makes little difference how white women. over 50, without college degrees, earning less than $50,000 divide their votes between Clinton and Obama in a primary. The question is, how will they divide their votes between Obama and McCain next November? Given that choice they may well vote their economic interests and go with Obama. Or, they may join the ranks of the "bitter" (to use the word hung around Obama's neck) and sit it out. That's the issue, the question.
The election will turn on how the Democrats' candidate runs against the Republicans' candidate. If you want to take a guess at that now there's not much to go on in polls showing match-ups between Clinton and McCain and Obama and McCain. Each, and sometimes both, win against McCain -- sometimes; they also lose sometimes.
Electoral College votes. Finally, it's not the national, popular vote split between the Democrat and Republican candidate November 4 that matters, it's the electoral vote. I've earlier made a effort at predicting those results (Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain). See, Nicholas Johnson, "Electoral College" in "Process: Parental Leave & Project Vote Smart," May 1, 3, 2008.
Media and spin. There is, of course, another contest that goes on in parallel with the delgate hunt, and that is the game of "expectations," the ebb and flow of the chattering classes' preferences, the false charges and spin. Most immediately, the question was whether Senator Obama -- knocked off his high ground with the media focus on his absence of a flag lapel pin (notwithstanding the fact that neither McCain nor Clinton have one either), his use of the word "bitter" regarding disaffected Americans, and the words of his Pastor (from which Obama had repeatedly and forcefully distanced himself) -- could continue to function as a candidate and actually continue to gain delegates. So, delegates aside, the returns from Indiana and North Carolina were such that he "won" this contest as well.
But however you slice it, Senator Clinton's "party's over." She cannot possibly catch Obama in elected delegates (or popular votes; not that they should matter) between now and June 3. The last 100-plus super delegates to declare their preference went 10:1 for Obama -- nor is there any reason to believe that margin will change, or that he will not soon surpass her in super delegates as well.
Finish the remaining handful of primaries; but after last evening it's now long past time for the Party to begin the process of closing ranks and preparing for November.
GO Iowa! If you have any interest at all in clean water, conservation, or the G-reat O-utdoors of Iowa generally, you'll probably enjoy getting to know the Web site GO Iowa! -- http://www.resourcesforlife.com/goiowa.
GO Iowa! is not a new organization, it doesn't hold meetings, doesn't ask for money, and doesn't have advertising.
It has two purposes. First and foremost, it's simply a resource for those involved in Iowa's outdoors, its land, water and natural quality of life. It lists the organizations that could be helping each other in these pursuits. It references the media coverage of relevant issues. It posts a calendar of forthcoming events -- when known. And it provides useful textual information and links about the greenbelt movement.
Second, the number and range of its listed organizations -- roughly 120 -- and news stories -- roughly 70 during the three months from February through April -- make a point in very dramatic fashion.
The "Resources" (organizations) Web page on the GO Iowa! site groups the 120 links by such categories as Land Trusts, Conservation Organizations, Outdoor Recreation Associations, Hunting and Fishing Organizations, Agricultural Organizations, Policy and Political Organizations, University Departments and Organizations, "Smart Growth" Organizations -- plus, of course, relevant Government Organizations and "Links to General Information Regarding Greenbelts."
These are odd bedfellows in some respects. For example, some are interested in just watching birds, or creating wildlife refuges; others want to hunt and fish. But all know that without woodlands and prairies no one will be satisfied. All know that wetlands, trees and the right vegetation can filter carbon from the air, and pollution from reaching our rivers. All know the value of outdoor recreation for our souls as well as our bodies. All see the need for the "commons" represented by public lands and parks -- and recognize the urgency of improving Iowa's rank near the bottom of all the states.
If you've ever done anything in politics you'll immediately recognize that this is a potential coalition the likes of which has seldom existed. Not only does it involve large numbers of individuals, the diversity is as broad as America itself: young and old, rich and poor, Mayflower descendants and recent immigrants, Democrats and Republicans, atheists and fundamentalists, Ph.D.s and high school dropouts, backpackers and RV drivers.
This is an assemblage of people for newspapers to recognize as actual and potential readers -- as The Gazette does (four or five stories from its May 4th paper are referenced in the GO Iowa! Web site's "Media" section).
The Web site is an obvious resource for those promoting the proposed $20 million bond issue in Johnson County, Iowa for the acquisition of more conservation land (the group is called, "Our Land, Our Water, Our Future").
It's something for developers to welcome -- as land values increase along nature preserves.
It's relevant for those pushing Iowa's economic development -- a major factor in attracting new businesses and the professionals to staff them that Richard Florida identifies as the creative classes.
Oh, and not incidentally, we're going to have to do it anyway to preserve our water, land, and life on Planet Earth.
Take a look at GO Iowa! If your organization isn't listed, its forthcoming events aren't noted, or a story about your group has been left out just let me know -- we'll add it.
Letting Business Pay for (and Profit from) Economic Growth
Believe it or not, I'm always looking for and celebrating what is, by my standards, good news from the world of business.
My critiques go primarily to business' requests for, and government's willing compliance in providing, taxpayer subsidies of various kinds to for-profit enterprises. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - VIII," April 19, 2008 (with links to the prior seven).
I think "the marketplace," "free private enterprise," and "competition" is what business does best -- not joint enterprises with government. I also think government can do best what governments have traditionally done, governments in this country and elsewhere: roads, schools, parks and other public lands, libraries, police and fire protection, and so forth. It's only the combination I find self-defeating and problematical -- especially for the taxpayers who end up picking up the bill. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Time to Learn From What Works,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "Growing Iowa's Economy the Right Way," April 27, 2008.
Even more self-reliant, Jay Honeck, owner of the Alexis Park Inn, posted a comment on the Press-Citizen's Web site explaining how he and his wife have built their business in Iowa City in the face of government subsidies for his competitors but not for him. Needless to say, he's not enthusiastic about the prospect of the City of Iowa City transferring taxpayers' money to the Sheriton -- as the title of his piece suggests: "Please, not again!" Here are some excerpts:
In 2002 my wife and I bought the old Alexis Park Inn next to Iowa City's airport. It was in bad shape, with a checkered reputation, but we knew a diamond in the rough when we saw it.
Since then we have spent these last six years remodeling and refining our service, until we now have the top-rated hotel in Iowa City. We have seen double-digit increases in both revenue and occupancy throughout that period -- a result few would have predicted.
The lesson? Offer a great lodging experience at a fair price, and you will prosper.
During those six years we never applied for nor accepted government assistance. We did not incur any debt, choosing to fund the renovations with the cash flow from the business. This is MUCH harder to do, and takes much longer -- but, in the end, it's the only way to assure success in a business with razor-thin margins.
"Venture capital" and "venture capitalists," as the names imply, involve the provision of "capital" (money) for "ventures" (new business ideas) by investors who are in the business of taking risks -- risks beyond those that banks are willing to take -- knowing they'll lose on many, but more than make up for those losses with the enormous returns that sometimes come their way from the winners. Venture capitalists were much of the driving force behind the 1990s' "dot com boom" in the Silicon Valley of California, where many are still located. (If you'd like a quick overview of more information, "Venture Capital," Wickipedia.org, is fairly good.)
The Gazette's story begins,
Two venture capital firms are making a $4 million investment in a 4-year-old Eastern Iowa agribusiness.
Asoyia of Iowa City grows and processes 1 percent ultra low linolenic soybeans to produce specialty trans-fat-free oils.
St. Louis-based Prolog Ventures, the lead investor, was joined by Life Science Partners of Boston.
Now let me make clear at the outset that all I know about this business transaction is literally "what I read in the papers." There could already, or also, be tax breaks and government subsidies involved that the story doesn't mention. The venture capitalists could be taking a disproportionately and unfairly large share of the ownership in exchange for their investment. Without knowing more I'm not prepared to be giving this deal any awards.
I just cite it as an example of venture capital.
And why?
Because some of those who advocate intertwining government and business with tax breaks, subsidies, TIFs, earmarks and other deals make the argument that unless "we" bribe the company in question ("we" meaning the taxpayers of Iowa, or Johnson County, or Iowa City) no businesses will ever come here; they'll just take some other place's bribe and go elsewhere. "Everybody else is doing it, so we have to do it, too." The free private enterprise system will collapse without corporate welfare from government.
Well, I don't believe it, and from this story it would appear that Prolog Ventures and Life Science Partners don't believe it either.
There are lots of other ways than corporate welfare to get a business economy up and running: The entrepreneurs. Investment from their family and friends. Shareholders. Bank and other loans.
And, if even all of those sources are not enough there are always the venture capitalists, looking for an opportunity to invest in "the next big thing" -- in this case, a $4 million investment in "ultra low linolenic soybeans to produce specialty trans-fat-free oils."
"In point of fact, none of this [Senators Clinton's and Obama's shares of elected and super delegates, popular votes, or states "won"] matters.
What matters are electoral votes. Just as the delegate count is how the Democratic Party's rules provide for the nomination of a presidential candidate (though there is some remaining argument about the appropriate degree of independence super-delegates can properly exercise), so do the electoral college votes determine who gets elected president.
In short, the question is not how Clinton and Obama do when running against each other, the question -- for those who put "winning" first in their selection of a nominee -- is how each will do running against Senator McCain in November.
Since then, using the latest polling data from each state, I've put together my own spreadsheet of states, their electoral votes, and in match ups between Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain who gets a given state's electoral votes.
As you might suspect, there are some states that will be won by either Clinton or Obama -- or lost to McCain -- regardless of who the Democrats' nominee may be, and some where the nominee makes a difference. Other states are too close to call -- for either Obama or Clinton, or for both.
Obviously, what folks say to pollsters in February, March and April is of only limited predictive value in guessing what they'll do in casting a secret ballot in November. But it's of some use, especially if you toss out (as I have) those instances in which the polls indicate it's pretty close. (There are many sources of this data; the one I relied on mostly is Electoral-vote.com.)
Anyhow, at this point in time (May 1):
(1) All the states have 540 electoral votes; so it takes 270 (or 271) to win.
(2) Deleting the results in states too close to call, or won by McCain, Senator Obama is now leading in states with 213 electoral votes and Senator Clinton in states with 194.
(3) Senator McCain wins states with 172 electoral votes running against Obama, and wins 268 electoral votes running against Clinton.
May 3 Update: Incorporating the data from Rasmussen Reports into the spreadsheet of what I already had from Electoral-vote.com the match-ups now indicate Senator Obama would have 229 to McCain's 196, and Senator Clinton would have 181 to his 322.
Again, to remind, in addition to polls' weaknesses as predictors of future events, they also change over time; a couple weeks from now we'll have some new and different numbers. Moreover, we still have more primaries to go -- most immediately, Indiana and North Carolina next Tuesday, May 6.
Some candidates complain about the media's focus on elections as a horse race. They're right -- there isn't much issues coverage. But when candidates are invited by Project Vote Smart to disclose their positions on issues via the Internet, it might surprise you to find out who refuses.
The Gazette editorialized the other day about Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test. It's a non-partisan, "good government" effort to provide voters information about the positions of their candidates for public office. (The organization's page for Iowans is here.) Editorial, "Voters Want to Know," The Gazette, August 31, 2006.
The Gazette reports that "Both major political parties are advising candidates not to take the test. Party officials say the candidates will lose control of their campaign messages and they will be exposed to opposition research." That's one awful commentary about our major political parties -- both of them. What's worse, for a Democrat, is who did, and who did not, take "the test."
The Republican candidate for Iowa governor, Congressman Jim Nussle, did. The Democratic candidate, Secretary of State Chet Culver, did not. Moreover, apparently he has always refused to take it even as Secretary of State.
Republican incumbent Congressman Jim Leach not only takes the test, he was actually one of the founding board members for the organization. His Democratic Party challenger, Dave Loebsack, has so far refused to take it. [Note: (May 1) He subsequently responded to the criticism and took the test.]
This morning The Gazette is back on the topic again:
[S]adly, the number of state legislative and congressional candidates who took the Iowa version of the national survey, carefully composed by the respected Project Vote Smart organization, has dropped steadily over the past decade. In 1996, 40 percent of Iowa’s candidates for state legislative offices took the survey. In 2006, a paltry 7 percent did so. As for congressional candidates, two-thirds responded in 1996 but just one-third . . . did in 2006. The response rates from Iowa candidates are among the nation’s lowest. . . .
[W]hy do the vast majority of candidates refuse to participate?
Most cite pressure from their political parties and professional advisers, who tell candidates not to answer questions about positions on issues because opponents may use the information against them.
Oh. ... Then it seems they’re telling us that running for office is only about winning — that taking a position on major issues affecting their constituents isn’t important to the campaign process.
I wish The Gazette, I, and the many others including the Project Vote Smart folks who are trying to do something about all this could have a greater impact, rather than having to raise the issue every two years.
I'll have some suggestions at the end of this section, but as for this morning I'm feeling pretty much the same way I did when I wrote,
"Ya don't play-a da game . . . ya don't make-a da rules"
That was the reaction the Des Moines Register's beloved humor columnist Donald Kaul once offered to those religious leaders who practice celibacy but want to regulate the sexual behavior of everyone else. (Kaul's still writing; see Minuteman Media.) . . .
I've expressed in this blog my disappointment with Democrats (and Republicans) who refuse to disclose their positions on the issues to Project Vote Smart and others. See, "Taking a Stand" in Nicholas Johnson, "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.
Elections are an opportunity for "continuing education" on the public policy choices confronting our country. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class,"Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004. Project Vote Smart exists to encourage that education and public dialog. See, Project Vote Smart.
President Clinton said something to the effect that "we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried." However important you may think the issues of "God, guns and gays," or the "war on terrorism" (and Iraq), may be, there is a lot more we need to talk about.
There's no room to list everything, but universal health care (and basic public health measures), reversing the ever-increasing multi-trillion-dollar debt and adverse balance of trade, energy policy (including global warming), and attempting to rebuild positive international relations come immediately to mind as examples.
When candidates deliberately try to avoid the "teachable moments" provided by the campaign season, when they demonstrate their willingness to put their own election or re-election above the interests of the nation (or state), they are doing all of us a grave injustice -- if not, indeed, demonstrating their lack of qualifications to hold office.
At a minimum, when they refuse to participate in Project Vote Smart they should at least have the decency not to attempt to use to their partisan advantage the positions of their opponents who have participated.
"Ya don't play-a da game, ya don't make-a da rules."
We can write letters to the editor of our local papers, urging them to use their much longer and stronger levers of power to pry participation out of our local candidates.
We can write the candidates themselves, and ask them in open meetings why they haven't participated.
We can help support the work of Project Vote Smart.
And given The Gazette's commendable focus on this issue over time, I'd like to politely suggest that it might want to turn some reporters' resources, and space in the paper, to reporting -- by name -- which candidates are refusing to participate, along with the positions on the issues of those who do.
Parental Leave. The University of Iowa has created (or expanded) its leave-with-pay policies for new parents. It's not necessary for me to get into the details for purposes of this commentary (which is fortunate, since I don't claim to understand them). State29, "Be Bold," May 1, 2008, does that -- and suggests the policy should be extended from the first six months of life to the first 18 years.
Intuitively it strikes me as, at worst, an acceptable idea. UI professors will still do some research and writing from home (which is supposed to be roughly half of what they're getting paid for anyway); it will help retain faculty; and it's undoubtedly good for the kids. On the other hand, someone will have to be hired to teach their classes, and there are some equity issues if the perk is not given to all UI employees.
No, the aspect of this I want to address is "governance," the relationship between the Regents and the UI administration, the "process."
The way this faculty leave issue has been handled indicates to me that it may well be possible that there's still a little more work to be done by both sides with regard to their "governance model."
Former Regents' President Michael Gartner is reported to have sent an email to the current President, David Miles, indicating that Gartner first learned of this decision from the newspapers and that, in his opinion, it should have been discussed and approved by the Regents before being implemented: "I would like to raise the issue of process: Should a far-reaching policy such as this first be approved . . . by the Board of Regents?" Brian Morelli, "Regent Questions New UI Leave Policy for Parents; Raises Concerns About Whether It Sets Bad Precedent,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2008, p. A1.
UI President Sally Mason took a different view of the process:
[She] said the policy codified what has existed in the operations manual at UI for the past eight years. Some departments have been allowing the modified duties already, and staff and 12-month tenure-track faculty already have reaped the benefits as well, she said. The new policy only applies to nine-month time tenure-track faculty, she said.
Mason said she didn't mind if the regents wanted to discuss the policy or have it explained to them, but she did not expect them to intervene.
"It would be interesting, perhaps precedent-setting, if they get involved at this level. It would be a little curious," Mason said.
The Gazette reports, "Regarding that policy, UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval at the university. Mason said UI officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it." Diane Heldt, "New UI Policy Prompts Broader Benefit Questions," May 1, 2008, p. B3.
And,
"Susan Johnson, the U of I's associate provost, told the Register that she did not think the university's policy change required the regents' approval.
"For many years, university policy has authorized modifications of employee work schedules and duties to help reduce conflict with parental obligations," Johnson said.
So now let's see what we have here. A Regent would like to have the policy discussed and approved by the Regents. An associate provost "did not think" the policy required Regents' approval. Unnamed "UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval." Apparently the UI President felt the governance relationship with the Regents was such that it was necessary that "officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it" and that, having done so, "she did not expect them to intervene." She also thought relevant the fact that related policies had been a part of UI regulations for eight years.
Now there are many approaches to governance besides that of John Carver -- though his is widely used and is very good in my experience. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," with links to full text of some of John Carver's writing. It's probably not so important which governance model is used by a board-CEO as that the matter of governance has been thought through and some model established.
Carver talks in terms of "ends policies;" what most of us would call "measurable goals." Figuring out what those should be for a university, not to mention a statewide system of universities, is not easy; it's the kind of thing that makes your head hurt if you do it right. We're not talking about vague, general "strategic plans" or "mission statements." If you're interested in what we are talking about read Carver.
Carver says most boards (and he's worked with everything from NGOs to Fortune 500 corporate boards to school boards) are somewhere along a continuum from "micro-managing" to "rubber-stamping" when, in his view, there's no proper place along that continuum for them to be. Much of the literature, in his view, just explains to boards -- which he calls "incompetent groups of competent people" -- how to do the wrong things better.
It's tough to summarize more than one book in less than one paragraph. But I'll try anyway. A major part of his model is that it is the board's responsibility to come up with the "ends policies" (measurable goals) and then the CEO's responsibility to figure out how to achieve them. Those ends policies are both the CEO's job description and the standards by which her or his annual performance is evaluated.
Otherwise expressed, this creates a relationship in which the board says to the CEO, "go until we say stop," instead of "stop until we say go." There are "executive limitations" established by the board. But so long as the ends are attained, and the limitations are not violated, it's totally up to the CEO to choose the means.
How would such an approach have applied in this instance?
I think Gartner was right to "spot the issue" -- the governance ambiguity. But, without knowing more, my instinct would be to have ends policies such that the details of faculty leave policies would probably be considered "means" for a CEO (i.e., in this instance the UI president) rather than something for the Regents to address in an ends policy.
Were the ends policies clearly laid out, a Regent would know that this is not a matter with which Regents need concern themselves. An associate provost would not have to think, she would know that the administration did, or did not, have authority to move ahead. Officials would not be acting merely on their understanding. The President would not need to have an aide contact the Regents before implementing the new policy, nor think that because the university had already done something similar that therefore this variation need not come from the Regents.
So let me repeat, I do not think the policy is substantively flawed, nor that the Regents should have discussed and approved it before it was implemented. That's not what I'm writing about -- one way or the other.
All I'm suggesting is that it would be smoother and more efficient and effective for everyone involved if a governance policy had been clearly and precisely thought through, articulated, put to paper, and followed.
This faculty leave policy change just seemed to me a useful case study of that "process," of governance models (and their absence) -- not because it was an example of the results of necessarily erroneous administrative decisions.
Process. So today's theme is "process." Process in evaluating the progress of primaries and elections, process in making it possible for voters to know something of their candidates' positions, and process in board-CEO relationships.
Senator John McCain is coming to Iowa tomorrow (Thursday, May 1). With increasingly angry Clinton and Obama supporters threatening to vote for McCain if their favored candidate is not nominated at the Democratic National Convention, it's time this blog gives a little more attention to the Republicans' choice before he lands in Des Moines.
Once again the Press-Citizen's Bob Patton has saved me from having to write, and you from having to read, hundreds of words to make a point he can put in a single editorial cartoon.
In case the reproduced text is too small to make out, over the caption "Extremist Speech: A Study in Black and White," there is a small black panel and a much larger white panel. In the black panel is "Jeremiah Wright" carrying a sign reading "After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 'America's chickens are coming home to roost.'" In the white panel are, from left to right, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Rush Limbaugh -- each with an "OK" ribbon awarded them. Their signs read, in the same order (Hagee has two): "9-11 was caused by 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians," "I totally concur," "Jewish 'disobedience' caused the Holocaust . . . Those who live by the Islamic Qur'an are mandated to kill Christians" and "Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against New Orleans for gays and sin," "There should be riots at the Dems' convention in Denver."
_______________
Meanwhile, while Senator Obama is spending much of his time and skill evading these knives thrown by the media and Senators Clinton and McCain, Senator McCain -- with no remaining primary opponents -- seems to have little to dodge except his own statements, including those expressed with a seemingly uncontrollable anger. Michael Leahy, "McCain: A Question of Temperment,"Washington Post, April 20, 2008, p. A1; Michael Gerson,"McCain's Anger Management,"Washington Post, April 23, 2008, p. A21.
Sensing this vacuum, the MoveOn.org staff decided to begin the task of filling it. (And don't forget to check out State29, "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain," April 30, 2008, in his effort to do MoveOn.org one better.) And thus was created MoveOn.org's . . .
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)
. . . complete with footnotes.
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be.
Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here: http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/ ?id=12407-8126720-pcACZw&t=232 Thank you for all you do.
–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Now here are some excerpts from commentary about Senator McCain's own words . . .
It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit.
McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."
There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."
"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."
But suppose, dear reader, that John McCain becomes president and Joe Lieberman doesn't bunk with the McCains on a nightly basis. How easily should the rest of us sleep? It's anything but an academic question after McCain's bizarre performance in Jordan last week.
There, he told reporters that he was "concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back" to Iraq. "That's well known," he continued -- at which point Lieberman whispered a correction in his ear. "I'm sorry," McCain then said. "The Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
What are we to make of this moment? Was it a senior moment? A jet-lagged moment? Or, worse, was it really a moment at all? After all, the evening before, McCain had told listeners of Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show that "there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."
So the al-Qaeda-Iran alliance wasn't just a passing thought. It was a thought that had taken up residence in McCain's brain for at least a day, possibly longer. Whether it was a simple mistake, a neoconservative delusion or a habit of mind that lumps together all of America's enemies (either sincerely or calculatedly, to build public support for military action), we cannot say. What we can say is that the idea of any or all of these options is profoundly disquieting. The very thought of a president who deliberately conflates or erroneously confuses our adversaries with each other is appalling, though not without precedent. We're mired in a war that has its roots in George W. Bush's both imagining and fabricating an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Do we really want to perpetuate these habits of mind in the next administration? . . .
As early as 1999, McCain was recommending "rogue state rollback" as our policy toward such nations as Iraq. He remains an unabashed advocate of preventive war, as his comments on bombing Iran have made clear, and of permanent war, as his comments on remaining in Iraq have made clear. . . .
Hard to say what's more dangerous -- McCain's approach to the economy or McCain's approach to the world. The thought of him answering the red phone at 3 a.m. fills me with foreboding. Hell, I don't want him answering the red phone at 3 p.m.
So what do you think? However appealing the option may seem to them in April and May, come next November are 25% or more of the Clinton, or Obama, supporters really going to end up voting for Senator McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination? I doubt it.
In part, of course, it will turn on how the process unfolds.
If by early June Senator Obama is still the candidate who has won the most elected delegates, most popular votes, most states, and nearly as many super delegates as Senator Clinton -- and Clinton is perceived to have "stolen" the nomination by unfairly beating up on Obama with a the-ends-justify-the-means, mean spirited, win-at-any-cost, race-tinged campaign, with the suspicion that she wants him to be a nominee who loses to McCain so she can run in 2012, regardless of what it may do to the Party -- there will be hostile Obama supporters for sure.
They may not vote for McCain. They may vote for Ralph Nader or some other candidate. They may stay home. Some might even hold their noses and vote for Clinton -- but they're sure not going to go out and work for her as they have been, and would continue to, for Obama.
The better she does between now and June 3 the more this reaction will be softened: if she continues to win primary after primary by double digits, exceeds Obama's popular vote totals, comes closer to him in elected delegates.
And if the polls continue to indicate (as the AP poll did yesterday) that she runs stronger against McCain than Obama does. But the significance of even that, of course, turns on a state-by-state analysis of a McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama match up, and the resulting electoral vote totals. (For example, if polls indicate that Clinton would win California by a larger margin than Obama, but that he would also beat McCain, and that Obama would also win more electoral votes than Clinton because of the smaller states he could win that she could not, then her national margins and vote totals mean much less.) See, Nicholas Johnson, "It's the Electoral College, Stupid!" April 22, 2008.
I hear the constant refrain from the Clinton and Obama campaigns that John McCain can't be allowed to win, because that will be just 4 more years of the Bush Administration. It's not an implausible argument, given that McCain has started to repudiate some of his past views on taxes, for example.
However . . . this is focusing purely on political issues. Now, I'm not downplaying the importance of issues, since for many people, such things as Supreme Court appointments, tax policy, Iraq, and so on are key points. But I can't escape feeling that on a procedural level, the candidate who would represent 4 more years of the Bush Administration is . . . Hillary Clinton."
He persuasively develops this assertion.
In effect, what Professor Yin is telling us is that there are two considerations here.
(1) One, for Obama supporters, is whether they are willing to forgive Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their staff members and supporters, for the tactics and character they've displayed during the campaign in the event Senator Clinton were, in the end, to get the nomination. Would they vote for Clinton in the general election anyway, "come together as Democrats," and "let bygones be bygones." Or, would they be so "bitter" (to use Senator Obama's ill-fated word) that they would be willing to "punish" her (and many would say, "themselves") by staying home, or voting for Senator McCain (or some other candidate)?
(2) But there is now another and much more significant issue. If Professor Yin is right, all voters -- Democrats (whether supporters of Clinton or Obama), Republicans and Independents alike -- need to at least think about (whether it affects their ultimate vote or not) the qualities of character attributed by him to Senator Clinton, and the weight they as voters would assign to them, in evaluating who they wish to vote for in November. This is not a matter of retribution or anger, or judgment about what tactics are, or are not, acceptable and to be expected in a campaign. This is not about the effect of her "high negatives" on her ability to win an election. This is a judgment to be made as to the qualities of character one wishes to have in a president -- in light of what we've all learned about their relevance from 8 years of George Bush.
Note: If you are a present or potential law student who finds this blog entry of interest, you would probably also enjoy (and perhaps even benefit from) Nicholas Johnson, "So You Want to Be a Lawyer: A Play in Four Acts."
How to Pick Your Law School: Random Thoughts on U.S. News' Law School Rankings
When the U.S. News' college rankings came out a couple of weeks ago some of our law students expressed concern to the Dean that the University of Iowa College of Law had dropped a couple of places.
Now that some time and temporary panic has passed, here are some random observations about the issue.
A couple of caveats: Obviously, these thoughts are mine alone; I know less about these matters than most of my colleagues, and I certainly don't speak for the UI or law school administration or faculty (none of whom has seen these comments before they appeared here). Moreover, I'm going to break from my usual practice and not even try to make the effort this morning to footnote (i.e., for a blog, "link" to) sources and data for all of the assertions and opinions that follow. (If you want more, a little bit of Google searching will bring up lots of material.) [For a consistent, 2010, analysis, see Jack Crittenden and Karen Dybis, "How Important is a School's Ranking," Back to School 2010, PreLaw Magazine].
_______________
Altogether too much is made of these U.S. News' rankings. For reasons discussed below, while the rankings can't be dismissed entirely -- largely merely because others give them disproportionate attention -- they really don't tell you much of value.
U.S. News' monopoly (of law school ranking systems) contributes to its disproportionate weight. For example, there are many sources of rankings of business schools. As a result, there are always some sources that any given business school can look to that will position it higher than other sources. Therefore, there is no single ranking that carries the public relations impact for business schools that U.S. News' does for law schools.
Iowa was a good law school, is a good law school and will continue to be a good law school. (a) Iowa's law school is doing just fine. While we're always agonizing over how we can improve, as individual faculty members and as an institution, there's no need to be defensive or apologetic for what we are -- in terms of the quality of our graduates, teaching, writing program, library, faculty research and writing, contribution to the global, national, state and local community, and so forth. (b) Iowa's overall ranking has fluctuated over the years, up and down -- as have the rankings of other good law schools. A single year's change is no cause for a law school's either dismay or cheering. (c) More significant, perhaps, is that Iowa's rank among public law schools has remained relatively consistently at number 7 over a number of years. (In other words, changes in Iowa's ranking is not so much a result of its comparative position among public law schools as it is the improved ranking of private law schools.)
The weight accorded various factors makes a dramatic difference in ranking. There's a Web site somewhere that dramatizes the impact on rankings of even slight shifts in the weighting of various U.S. News' factors. So (a) this enables anyone to find the schools with the best rankings on the factors they think most important, and (b) demonstrates how relatively irrational the composite rankings are.
The rankings have distorted law schools' decisions, and led to "gaming" the system -- and therefore unreliable and misleading results. (a) Because a law school's ranking is, in part, a function of its general and vague "reputation" among those included in the U.S. News' survey, money is diverted -- often in the $100,000 to $1,000,000 range -- to "marketing" the school, money that might be better used elsewhere.
(b) Data reported by law schools can be (has been and is) manipulated -- sometimes from outright misrepresentation, and sometimes from gaming the system. (None of the following, so far as I know, is being done at Iowa.)
[1] Average GPA/LSAT score numbers can be raised by only admitting the top half of the applicants normally admitted, reporting those scores, and then accepting lower-scoring transfer students (whose scores need not be reported) to fill up the seats -- and the tuition coffers. If night law school students don't count in the GPA/LSAT numbers, a school can admit lower GPA/LSAT students into their night law school program while the counting is going on, and then "transfer" them into the day program when they will no longer drag down the averages.
[2] A similar, but more unfortunate, strategy involves diverting scholarship money from quality students who genuinely need it to afford school, to those "merit" students with the highest GPA/LSAT numbers -- regardless of their need -- in a kind of bidding war.
[3] What percentage of a law school's graduates have jobs when they graduate? Virtually all of them -- if the school "hires" every graduate who doesn't yet have a job elsewhere at that time -- and then counts them as employed (as some do). Or the school can redefine what is a "job" -- counting waiters and taxi drivers as well as those employed as lawyers.
[4] How can a school improve its faculty-student ratio? Simply require all faculty to take their semesters of leave in the spring semester rather than the fall; count and report them in the fall, thereby improving the school's reported faculty-student ratio numbers, and let them go on leave in the spring when nobody's watching or counting.
[5] "Resources per student" can be manipulated by including the "free" access to Westlaw provided by the company for law students -- not at the amount of the blanket license charged the law school, but at what would have been the commercial value of the service if purchased by a law firm.
[6] Once "grade creep" learns to walk, and then run, all of a law school graduates' grades are "above average." See Catherine Rampell, "In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That,"New York Times, June 22, 2010, p. A1.
Given that the only limit on such manipulations are those imposed by the limits of the human imagination, the results obtained from the data used (as the old computer programmers' "GIGO" had it: "garbage in, garbage out") can be very misleading.
So what's a student to do when choosing a law school?
Distinguish between the "superficial" and the "substantive." Education, indeed life itself, can be measured by both the substantive and the superficial. I don't use the word "superficial" in a pejorative sense. What's on your resume, the schools you attended, the grades you made, the work experience you've had, all have their impact -- in getting that first interview. But how you do in that interview -- and, more significantly, on the job and throughout your career -- are a function of "what you know, not whom you know," your knowledge, your skills, your work habits, your performance -- in short, "substance," not "superficiality."
Substance: You have to "teach yourself the law" -- and you can. Coming away from a legal education with knowledge and skills, like coming away from poetry with a sense of its meaning, is 90% a matter of what you bring to it and how hard you work at it. An architect I know says he was told by his drawing teacher, "I can't teach you how to draw. I can try to teach you how to see. But you're going to have to teach yourselves how to draw." Or, as President Johnson used to say, "They call me 'Lucky Lyndon,' but I always found the harder I worked the luckier I got."
There was a time when some of our nation's best judges and lawyers "read law" in a lawyer's office, rather than going to "a law school," before entering the bar.
There's not that much difference between casebooks, and most any law school library will have access to the basic statutory material and other sources -- even if the school doesn't give you access to Westlaw and Lexis.
You can go to one of "the best" law schools on the U.S. News' rankings, and if you don't go to class, read the assignments, take notes, make your own outlines, learn to "think like a lawyer," write persuasively, argue, know cold the basic stuff and be able to figure out the rest -- you can tell everyone you graduated from whatever school it is, but you won't be able to function very successfully as a lawyer. (Not incidentally, you learn legal skills by making outlines, not by reading those of fellow students or commercial firms.)
On the other hand, if you do all those things, take your legal education seriously, and really put in the hours (President Richard Nixon once said that what it takes to get through law school is the "iron butt" one develops sitting for hours in the library), you'll do just fine as a lawyer. Wherever you went to school you'll know more law, and have more skills, than most of the 19th Century lawyers who "read law" -- and probably most of the graduates of other law schools.
Superficiality: How to pick the best law school for you. (a) If you have your heart set on getting a U.S. Court of Appeals (or Supreme Court) clerkship, or a job with one of the nation's largest and most prestigious law firms, you might want to give more attention to the top, say, half dozen law schools on the U.S. News' ranking -- if that goal is realistic for you, given your GPA/LSAT scores and the school's admission standards. But you might also want to keep a number of things in mind. [1] Your odds of getting a Supreme Court clerkship are about as good as your being picked to play basketball with an NBA team just because you were an OK basketball player in high school. [2] Your odds of graduating number one in your class (or even in the top 10 percent) are not terrific either -- regardless of your law school -- remember, all your classmates arrived at law school with about the same credentials you did. [3] And, in that connection, at least consider (I haven't figured this one out, and therefore don't have a recommendation) whether you would be better off (superficially, in getting that first job interview) to have graduated in the top 10% of a school ranked 15th to 30th -- or in the bottom 20% of a school ranked among the top six -- when you go out looking for a job. (You can't predict your ultimate class standing with precision, but how you rank among your classmates going in (where your GPA/LSAT places you relative to the others; your percentile ranking) can give you a very imprecise notion of where you may rank coming out.)
(b) If you don't have the GPA/LSAT to get into one of the top half-dozen or so schools -- or you have the scores, but you're neither a "trustafarian" nor the offspring of wealthy parents -- or you genuinely prefer smaller firms and towns -- what do the rankings mean to you? Not much. For all the reasons outlined above, while there may be at least a superficial difference between the top half-dozen or so and those ranked, say, 15-30, there is little if any meaningful difference between a school ranked 16th and one ranked 27th. There is certainly no reason to pick the former over the latter because of the difference in their rankings. Most of the top 30 schools would be considered "national" law schools, fully capable of giving you a legal education with both the substantive and superficial qualities you seek.
(c) In addition to changing jobs, most of us change careers a half-dozen times during our lifetime. So picking a state you're going to live in all of your life when you're just in your twenties is problematical. But, for example, if you can say with certainty that you know you're going to live in Montana the rest of your life, taking care of the ranch and other family businesses, there might very well be a point to attending the law school in Missoula. (And no, I have no guess as to how it's ranked.) There may be an occasional Montana quirk in the law you'll pick up. More important, your classmates will be the lawyers, judges and business people you'll be working with during your professional career.
(d) If you're choosing from among national law schools, you might also want to consider such things as the size of the student body and the town where the law school is located. At least I think when you get more than 600 or so students you begin to lose a valuable sense of community; and being in a major metropolitan area can offer more distractions, not to mention the sheer stress of getting about, than is most compatible with law study.
(e) Don't be blinded by factors that contribute to a school's superficial reputation, but may add little to the substantive quality of your education. To avoid the suspicion this is "sour grapes" on my part because Iowa scores poorly, I'll use a couple examples where it is (or has been) near top in the nation.
A few years ago the Iowa faculty was ranked (in an independent study run by neither U.S. News nor the Iowa law school) the most productive in research and writing of all public law schools, and second only to Yale among all law schools. (Needless to say, that ranking, were it done annually, also would go up and down over the years; and Iowa probably would not be ranked that high today.) Our law library is by any measure -- number of volumes, number of titles, and especially focus of the collection -- number one, two or three in the nation (depending on whom you ask) -- thanks largely to Professor Arthur Bonfield. Both the faculty's scholarship, and the library -- and other things Iowa could claim -- are nice "Iowa brags" of both substantive and superficial significance. They are important to the overall mission and contribution of the law school. Both contribute something to the faculty's teaching and law students' learning; I'm just not sure how much.
You may be attracted to a law school because of a superstar professor you've seen on TV, only to find once you get there that he or she is devoting so much time to television appearances, book writing, congressional testimony, litigation, and public lecturing that you will seldom if ever see him or her. Indeed, by the time you get to that law school he or she may have died, retired or moved on to a school or other position elsewhere.
What about the "quality" of the student body? At the outset, for the reasons detailed above, reports of average GPA/LSAT scores may be unreliable. To the extent they're accurate, and vary significantly, there's probably a marginal value to being surrounded by bright colleagues. There's some value to having a fellow student who always comes up with the right answers in class. But I'm not so sure that's more valuable to you than your coming up with the wrong answer, and working your way through, with a professor, to the right answer. You may benefit from a "study group" of fellow students. But my experience as a law student was that I learned more, better and faster studying alone.
So those are some random morning thoughts about law school rankings.
Bottom line: chill. Law school rankings don't tell you much, and can be and are manipulated. Rankings are of very little significance in terms of the substantive quality of the legal education you'll get, especially because you're going to have to teach yourself the law anyway. Superficially, rankings in the top half-dozen may make some difference -- if you're set on getting into the places where they can help open doors -- but even by that standard you may be better off with a higher class rank from a lower ranked school than a much lower class rank from a higher ranked school. And between schools ranked, say, 15th to 30th, there really isn't much basis for choosing one school over another.
Good luck -- and don't forget to apply at Iowa!
For consistent counsel regarding the rational selection of colleges for undergraduate education, see,
[F]or too many parents and their children, acceptance by an elite institution isn’t just another challenge, just another goal. A yes or no from Amherst or the University of Virginia or the University of Chicago is seen as the conclusive measure of a young person’s worth, an uncontestable harbinger
of the accomplishments or disappointments to come. Winner or loser: This is when the judgment is made. This is the great, brutal culling.
What madness. And what nonsense.
For one thing, the admissions game is too flawed to be given so much credit. For another, the nature of a student’s college experience — the work that he or she puts into it, the selfexamination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed — matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it. . . . Education happens across a spectrum of settings and in infinite ways, and college has no monopoly on the ingredients for professional achievement or a life well lived.
Midway through last year, I looked up the undergraduate alma maters of the chief executives of the top 10 corporations in the Fortune 500. These were the schools: the University of Arkansas; the University of Texas; the University of California, Davis; the University of Nebraska; Auburn; Texas A & M; the General Motors Institute (now called Kettering University); the University of Kansas; the University of Missouri, St. Louis; and Dartmouth College.
Growing Iowa's Economy Without Corporate Welfare: Bob Patton & David Miles
Iowa City's pride, Bob Patton, has put pen to paper to portray, as no mere words can do, Sheraton's request for Iowa City taxpayers' money.
Bob Patton, "Share and Sheraton Alike,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 26, 2008, p. A12; posted April 25, 2008, 3:14 p.m. (Elephant with "Sheraton" on its rear is carrying a sign reading, "This white elephant is now under new ownership." A street cleaner with "RBD LLC" (the new owner) on his sleeve and "TIF Request" on his wheeled container -- presumably cleaning up after the elephant -- is handing a street broom to an unnamed woman labeled "City of Iowa City.")
I guess the City Council is concerned that if it didn't bribe RBD LLC with enough taxpayers' cash RBD might just move the Sheraton to Chicago or somewhere.
And what's this "new parking agreement" deal? All we get from the Press-Citizen's report is that the demands "included asking for a new parking agreement in the Dubuque Street Parking Ramp, taking out the public access point through the center of the hotel and tax incentives to make repairs." Kathryn Fiegen, "Sheraton's case presented to city; Economic committee asks for more information on TIF,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 23, 2008. It's RBD's and the City's responsibility, not the Press-Citizen's, but what are the details? Will Iowa City's taxpayers be paying not only the Sheraton's property taxes, but the parking fees for its employees and guests as well? Aren't citizens entitled to know that?
As for the "public access point through the center of the hotel," that was embodied in the physical structure of the building as well as the contractual agreements surrounding the removal of Dubuque Street (one presumes). One of the best proposals I've seen -- on the assumption that anything needs be done -- is in a comment on the Press-Citizen's editorial,
I think the best option with the Sheraton walkway would be to tear out the doors on either side [of the walkway, north and south] and make it an outside covered breezeway. Drunks would have little incentive to congregate there and it would still provide access between the hotel and the restaurant/bar and the public wouldn't feel put-off when passing through.
Nor is this the only giveaway in Iowa City these days. Although the Sheraton robbery has overshadowed the story, the City is also in the process of selling off public land near the local airport -- with no obvious benefits to local residents. Kathryn Fiegen, "City in Talks to Sell Land Near the Airport; Nearby Business Worried About Looks,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 18, 2008, p. A1 ("Jay Honeck, who owns the nearby Alexis Park Inn & Suites, told the council Monday he thought the rezoning to make the land suitable for heavy commercial use would be a "catastrophe." He said the proposed facility could make the area even more unattractive with exposed storage areas and heavy equipment everywhere. . . . Honeck told the council he didn't think the city was monitoring the condition of its south entrance. "I want them to be held to the same high standards we are when it comes to handling their property," he said. "Just look at the city-owned land next to us -- are they following their own rules?").
In my op ed column, Nicholas Johnson, "Courage, Councilors,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 3, 2007, p. A12, I itemized a number of categories of reasons why corporate subsidy, including TIFs and other forms of tax breaks, simply don't make practical sense -- regardless of what you think of the hypocrisy of the get-the-government-off-my-back crowd's asking for them. One of the 11 categories was,
Alternative approaches do work. Businesses look for more than taxpayers’ bribes; things like an educated and skilled workforce, transportation and communication infrastructure, and quality of life – schools, parks, theaters, neighborhoods, restaurants and natural settings. Those investments will both attract business and benefit the public.
So I was especially pleased to hear Iowa's pride in its new Board of Regents' President, David Miles, express a comparable view yesterday in Iowa City:
"We need to make the case that there is a very real public good for Iowa, the nation and the world to have an educated citizenry," [Iowa Board of Regents President David] Miles said. The way to attract businesses to the state is not through tax credits, but through having educated workers, he said.
And note that Miles is not some "ivory tower Liberal." (I don't know whether he drinks lattes.) He's a business person -- in addition to his Board of Regents responsibilities he is the managing director of the Miles Group (investment business) and the former CEO of Countryside Renewable Energy (consolidating ethanol plants). So he knows what he's talking about when he says "the way to attract businesses to the state is not through tax credits."
I'd be inclined to give a lot more weight to his opinions on the subject than those of an Iowa legislator or city council member.
But wait, there's more.
We can't gamble our way to riches. I've often expressed here my skepticism regarding the wisdom of Iowa's legalization and promotion of gambling as a component of economic development. Recently there was a little confirmation in the report on 2007 gambling revenues: "Overall, revenue increases at the state's 17 racetracks and casinos fell 1 percent to 3 percent last year. . . . Some [casino managers] . . . said they planned to build more hotels and restaurants, or improve entertainment." Associated Press, "Gaming Revenues in Iowa Grow Little in 2007,"The Gazette, April 19, 2008, p. B7.
"Build it and they will come" really works -- in the movies. There were many missing links in the chain of reasoning regarding the proposed indoor rain forest project. See Nicholas Johnson, Earthpark (2001-2007). Among them was the myopic focus on the costs of construction (for which not one dime was raised) to the exclusion of the challenge of creating and maintaining a cash flow adequate to keep it going. It's a common oversight when a community permits local booster enthusiasm to blind citizens' ability to see the need for basic business plans.
Now that perspective has been picked up by another author in another context -- the proposed Coralville venue:
Many communities build a performing arts center and then grow frustrated when it can't pay for itself. These centers can improve the quality of life, they can attract new businesses, they can provide both art and entertainment, but they can't turn a profit. . . . Like the race for new stadiums, communities often fail to factor the long-term costs required to make these projects successful. . . . If the people of Johnson Country want Coralville's proposed center to succeed, they will need to support it -- not just through its build, but also in every year of its operation.
And taxpayers continue to fund for-profit businesses.
HUSCO International was awarded incentives to renovate, expand and equip an existing building in Maquoketa in an action by the Iowa Department of Economic Development board in Des Moines. . . .
The incentives included $800,000 from the Economic Development Set-Aside program and Enterprise Zone benefits.
The IDED board separately approved incentives for plants to produce wind turbine components, decorative metal containers, structural steel assemblies, ethanol and seed corn. They include:
-- Tax benefits and direct incentives to Trinity Structural Towers to convert a 300,000square-foot manufacturing building in Newton for assembly of wind turbine towers. Trinity is expected to qualify for $649,100 in state tax credits for the project under the High Quality Jobs Creation program, in addition to a $630,000 forgivable loan from the Physical Infrastructure Assistance Program. . . .
-- Tax benefits and direct incentives to Independent Can Co. for building and equipping a $5 million plant in Fort Madison to expand production of decorative metal containers. The IDED board approved $100,000 from the Community Economic Betterment Account program, tax benefits to expand in an Enterprise Zone, and the Targeted Jobs Withholding Tax Credit. . . .
-- Tax benefits and direct incentives to Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont subsidiary, for multiple projects. They include a $4 million investment in a warehouse expansion and a new dryer at the Durant seed plant. The project is expected to create one job . . ..
-- Tax benefits and direct incentives to Golden Grain Energy in Mason City for a facility to produce biodiesel from corn oil byproducts of ethanol production. . . .
Does this kind of corporate welfare pay? The answer is, at best, not clear:
One of the incentives used by Iowa . . . is the Research Activities Credit. . . . designed to offset some . . . research and development [expenses] . . ..
Even if the research tax credit amounts to more than a company’s state income tax liability, the state pays back — “refunds” — the difference. And the tax credit may be doubled (supplemental credit) if the business meets standards for high-quality job creation.
That seems like a generous incentive. . . .
Trouble is, we don’t know the true impact.
The Iowa Department of Revenue can tell you the total research tax credits awarded. From 2000 through 2005, there was an average of $29.7 million in annual claims. Most of it, $27.2 million per year, was paid out in “refunds.” However, by law, the specific amount each company receives is confidential . . .. Also, there appears to be no requirement to document whether the research tax credit actually works — as any public subsidy policy should.
The Department of Revenue . . . recently attempted to study the impact of the research tax credit in Iowa.
The analysis found no conclusive evidence that it increased research expenditures, research-related employment or patent activity.
[T]he Iowa Fiscal Partnership . . . noted this week that 85 percent of the tax credits went to just 10 companies in 2005. . . . Rockwell Collins of Cedar Rapids could be receiving an annual research tax credit of $8 million, the most of any company in the state, while its income tax liability may be less than that amount. . . .
[T]he program’s lack of transparency is troubling. So is the dearth of information verifying whether this subsidy is justified at present levels. The Legislature should review and consider changes that are more accountable to taxpayers.
Nor, of course, is this disparity in government's response to the needs of the poor and of the wealthy limited to cities and states -- as we've recently seen with the disparate response by the Congress and Federal Reserve to the plight of the Wall Street financial community on the one hand and that of homeowners being foreclosed against on the other . . .
If you are unable to read the text, there are two panels, "The Prodigal Son" and "The Not-So-Prodigal Son." The Prodigal Son is saying, "Father! I got filthy rich in risky loans and then the real estate market tanked." The father replies, "My son has returned! I'll kill the fatted calf and bail you out!" "The Not-So-Prodigal Son" is saying, "Father! I defaulted on one of those risky loans and lost my house!" To which the father replies, "Life's unfair, Kid. Deal with it."
