April 2-5, 2015
Apr 02 06:49 MnSCU's incompetence Apr 03 03:22 Lynne Cheney vs. the College Board Apr 03 21:07 Progressive totalitarianism Apr 04 03:23 Steve Murphy vs. Bill Clinton Apr 05 02:48 Dan Wolgamott: Tom Bakk's puppet? Apr 05 10:33 Stalingrad on the Iron Range Apr 05 17:03 Pro-Israel vs. Pro-Iran
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MnSCU's incompetence
The List Your College Does Not Want To Be On!
by Silence Dogood
The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday released, for the first time, the list of 556 colleges under "Heightened Cash Monitoring" (HCM). Most of the schools (487 institutions) were under the lowest level of scrutiny (HCM1), while sixty-nine schools were subject to more stringent restrictions (HCM2). Of the sixty-nine, eleven of thirty-one were not released because there were "ongoing investigations." The twenty-one schools were placed on HCM2 status because a federal audit of the institution resulted in "severe findings." At these twenty-one institutions, Department of Education employees must manually approve each dollar that flows to the institution. The one odd thing about all of this is that the schools in the worst financial shape were not listed, which in a way makes it seem like they are not in trouble - actually the opposite of what is true.
According to Ted Mitchell, the under secretary of education, a college being on the list "is not necessarily a red flag to students and taxpayers, but it can serve as a caution light."
According to Inside Higher Education on March 31, 2015:
"colleges may be placed on either form of cash monitoring for a range of reasons, some of which are more serious than others."
"The department, for example may impose the sanction on a college for submitting its financial statements late. That appears to be the case for 43 public colleges and universities in Minnesota, all of which were on cash monitoring with the designation of 'audit late/missing'."
So Minnesota made the national news - and not in a good way! Looking at the list, it is clear that it all of the MnSCU colleges and universities are on the list that the article cites. Hopefully, it is because the financial reports were submitted late rather than for being 'missing.'
I'll go out on a limb and assume that the reports must have been submitted as a package by the MnSCU central office because it is hard to believe that at least a few of the financial reports would not have been submitted on time if they were left up to the individual colleges/universities. If it is, in fact, a fault of the central MnSCU office for failing to submit the reports on time, one is left to wonder who will be responsible for paying a fine and/or whatever sanctions that are imposed?
When asked about who was responsible for the late submissions, a VP of Finance at MnSCU in an email replied:
"MnSCU schools being on this list is as a result of the State of Minnesota financial statements being submitted late in FY2013. It was due to the conversion of state accounting systems. The schools had no control of this issue, but nevertheless have seen s the negative results of this. Below is the information I received from the system office on this matter:
It is our understanding that our colleges and universities are on this list as a result of the sanction the state of Minnesota received last year for late filing of its Single Audit. All of our colleges and universities altered cash management practices regarding federal financial aid after the state's sanction. We do not anticipate any further changes due to the publication of the list by the department."
So apparently the "conversion of the state accounting systems" is to blame for being submitted late. BUT it then goes on to state: "All of our colleges and universities altered cash management practices regarding federal financial aid after the state's sanction." If there wasn't a problem, why would it be necessary to alter the "cash management practices regarding federal financial aid"? I guess I've been around long enough to recognize 'administrative speak' when I hear it--blame someone or something else and then say the problem is fixed. Now, it isn't necessary to find out why there was a problem in the first place and no one loses their job. With all the missteps by MnSCU over the past few years, I'm a lot less likely to accept this 'story' as being entirely truthful.
If the State of Minnesota was responsible for the late filing, this also begs another question: Why weren't the financial statements for the University of Minnesota also late? I guess I'm expecting a bit more 'administrative speak' when this one gets answered.
Given the current financial conditions of the colleges and universities within MnSCU, eleven of forty-three are being required to submit "Financial Recovery Plans" to MnSCU. As a result, it is not hard to imagine that it may not be long before MnSCU's status is changed from HCM1 to HCM2 and this won't be for late filing of financial statements.
On the list from Minnesota, five institutions other than the ones in MnSCU: Brown College (Mendota Heights), Crossroads College (Rochester), Art Institutes International Minnesota [The] (Minneapolis), Regency Beauty Institute (Blaine); and Walden University (Minneapolis). Simply by association, this does not look good for MnSCU. Additionally, by their absence from the list, it is clear that the financial statements for the University of Minnesota system were submitted on time. According to an official of the U.S. Department of Education, in an email to Inside Higher Education on Tuesday states: "Given the highly competitive environment in which these institutions conduct business, any public release of the confidential financial standing of these institutions will likely cause the institutions substantial competitive injury."
Just what MnSCU needs - another reason for a student to choose attending a school that is not part of the MnSCU system - or should we now call it the "Minnesota State" system? Maybe 'rebranding' MnSCU with a new name will make all the difference!
Posted Thursday, April 2, 2015 7:47 AM
Comment 1 by Reader3 at 02-Apr-15 03:42 PM
It's an absolute outrage that this happened. All 31 institutions are on the list. As Dogood put it: what more does any student from any other state need to choose to attend a university or college not part of MnSCU.
Lynne Cheney vs. the College Board
Lynne Cheney has a bone to pick with the College Board, which she writes about eloquently in this op-ed . Here's what's got Mrs. Cheney upset:
If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
- President Ronald Reagan, speech at the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, 1987
It isn't that Lynne Cheney has a problem with President Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate. It's the context in which the College Board uses President Reagan's speech that's got her upset:
President Reagan's challenge to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev remains one of the most dramatic calls for freedom in our time. Thus I was heartened to find a passage from Reagan's speech on the sample of the new Advanced Placement U.S. history exam that students will take for the first time in May. It seemed for a moment that students would be encouraged to learn about positive aspects of our past rather than be directed to focus on the negative, as happens all too often.
But when I looked closer to see the purpose for which the quotation was used, I found that it is held up as an example of 'increased assertiveness and bellicosity' on the part of the U.S. in the 1980s. That's the answer to a multiple-choice question about what Reagan's speech reflects.
No notice is taken of the connection the president made between freedom and human flourishing, no attention to the fact that within 2 1/2 years of the speech, people were chipping off pieces of the Berlin Wall as souvenirs. Instead of acknowledging important ideas and historical context, test makers have reduced President Reagan's most eloquent moment to warmongering.
This stuff might as well come straight out of the Obama foreign policy handbook.
But I digress.
It's apparent that Mrs. Cheney thinks the College Board is filled with members of the PC Police:
When educators, academics and other concerned citizens realized how many notable figures were missing and how negative was the view of American history presented, they spoke out forcefully. The response of the College Board was to release the sample exam that features Ronald Reagan as a warmonger.
It doesn't stop there. On the multiple-choice part of the sample exam, there are 18 sections, and eight of them take up the oppression of women, blacks and immigrants. Knowing about the experiences of these groups is important - but truth requires that accomplishment be recognized as well as oppression, and the exam doesn't have questions on subjects such as the transforming leadership of Martin Luther King Jr.
The AP Test should be used to show which students have the best grasp of American history -- all of American history. It's cheating the brightest students when many of the most influential Americans aren't used in a history test.
Posted Friday, April 3, 2015 3:22 AM
No comments.
Progressive totalitarianism
This video shows how little provocation it takes to get progressive totalitarians in a tizzy:
This week's big flashpoint moment came from Indiana, when a progressive 'reporter' played into the storyline that Indiana's RFRA law was horrible. John Hinderaker's post is must reading on the subject:
Yesterday Minnesota's governor, Mark Dayton, joined the chorus of denunciation: 'I abhor the actions taken by the Legislature and governor of Indiana,' Dayton told the Star Tribune.' Dayton, like a number of other governors, says he is considering a ban on official travel to Indiana. So Minnesota's bureaucrats may no longer be able to take junkets to Terre Haute.
The hysterical reaction to Indiana's law can only be described as insane. As we noted here , there is a federal RFRA that governs federal laws, 19 states have their own RFRAs, and ten other states have adopted the 'strict scrutiny' standard of the Indiana statute by judicial opinion. Governor Dayton is perhaps unaware that Minnesota is one of those ten states. Hill-Murray Fed'n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn. 1992); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 1990).
Today, Michael Barone's article offers this explanation for what's at stake:
The Indiana law is substantially identical to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress by a near-unanimous vote in 1993 and signed with brio by Bill Clinton. It was a response to a Supreme Court decision upholding an Oregon drug law against members of the Native American Church who had claimed their religion requires drug use.
RFRA sets up a balancing test, to be employed by courts. Government cannot enforce a statute requiring people to violate their religious convictions unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so, and proceeds to do so by the least restrictive means possible.
This is in line with longstanding American tradition. The First Amendment, ratified in 1790, guaranteed Americans the "free exercise" of religion. The Framers knew that their new republic included Quakers, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, even perhaps a few Muslims. They wanted all to be free to live, not just worship, but live, according to their beliefs.
There's little doubt that this week's firestorm is purely political. These LGBT organizations know the laws on the books, though I can't say the same about Gov. Dayton. As Barone says, RFRAs impose "a balancing test" for the judiciary to follow in determining whether the government can limit a person's right to live out their religious beliefs. What RFRAs do, too, is tell government that they must use the least most intrusive remedy if they can demonstrate a "compelling interest" in limiting a person's right to practice their religion.
This isn't new. As Mr. Barone highlights, this "is in line with longstanding American tradition." I'd hope that the judiciary wouldn't take a sledgehammer to people's religious rights. Apparently, that's the remedy these LGBT activists want.
Posted Friday, April 3, 2015 9:07 PM
No comments.
Steve Murphy vs. Bill Clinton
Just when I thought it was safe to listen to former State Sen. Steve Murphy again, he said something strikingly stupid. Friday night on Almanac's Roundtable, Indiana's RFRA law was brought up. Here's what Murphy said:
I really don't think nationally that we need any laws like that.
That isn't just strikingly stupid. It's frightening that a politician wouldn't know that Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law in 1993 or that it passed the House unanimously and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, it's frightening that a politician wouldn't remember that RFRA was cited by Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision :
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the 'Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability' unless the Government 'demonstrates that application of the burden to the person - (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.' 42 U. S. C. Section 2000bb-1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers 'any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.' §2000cc-5(7)(A).
Simply put, the government can't force people to act against their religious beliefs unless the government can offer a compelling reason for restricting a person's religious rights. Even if the government can provide a compelling reason for limiting a person's religious beliefs, the government's solution must be "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Earlier in the segment, Ember Reichgott-Junge said that "the Religious Right" is wise in not introducing RFRA legislation. I'd just recommend Sen. Reichgott-Junge read John Hinderaker's post about RFRA. Specifically, she should read this part of John's post:
The hysterical reaction to Indiana's law can only be described as insane. As we noted here , there is a federal RFRA that governs federal laws, 19 states have their own RFRAs, and ten other states have adopted the 'strict scrutiny' standard of the Indiana statute by judicial opinion. Governor Dayton is perhaps unaware that Minnesota is one of those ten states . Hill-Murray Fed'n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn. 1992); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 1990).
Remember that these are prominent former DFL state senators. When they're sworn in, they swear an oath to "support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability." It's impossible to support the US Constitution if you don't know what's in it.
Finally, Sen. Murphy is the guy who said that he wasn't trying to hide tax increases in his transportation bill. He's also famous for saying this:
"Everything is fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out, and the governor just poked out my eye by vetoing this bill," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing. "I think that is a clear indication he wants a train wreck at the end of session. He wants the Legislature to fail, and he wants to blame us."
Steve Murphy and Ember Reichgott-Junge's ignorance of the Constitution and major Minnesota court cases are frightening, especially considering the fact that the DFL is the party that thinks government is the dispenser of good things. Frankly, these DFL has-beens couldn't support the Constitution they wore to uphold.
Posted Saturday, April 4, 2015 3:23 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Apr-15 08:24 AM
Gary, Gary, Gary - Why in the world would you think a DFLer would approve of a law they passed when it doesn't suit their needs or position at this place in time? Why would a liberal do any research into the subject they are railing against as it would only go to prove them wrong or at least get them some facts about the subject. The DFL twist and turn the conversation and language to best fit their desired outcome. Just look at the idiot in the white house who says he "evolved" on gay marriage.
As I have said many times before, the DFL/liberals in this state and country don't care one iota about the poor, LGBT, immigrants, etc., all they care about are the votes to keep them in power. They will do or say whatever it takes to convince their dimwitted voters that they are the best option. Sadly it seems to work more times than not.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Apr-15 03:11 PM
Chad, I'll be blunt. Just accepting the DFL as the party of outright liars isn't enough. Criticizing them amongst ourselves isn't a solution. What it'll take is people standing up & demanding that elected officials be of strong character is required. Demanding that they be solutions-oriented within the framework of the Constitution is required, too.
Compromise isn't terrible. Capitulation is terrible. There aren't enough principled people on the battle field. It's time to step forward & change the trajectory of this nation.
Dan Wolgamott: Tom Bakk's puppet?
Dan Wolgamott's editorial in this morning's St. Cloud Times sounds like he's running against John Pederson, mostly because it sounds like he's Tom Bakk's puppet. Check these chanting points out:
Our roads are aging, the congestion is getting worse and our state is falling behind on delivering the vibrant transportation options we need. We feel the bumps in our pothole-filled roads and the hit in our wallets with vehicle repairs.
It's time for us to invest in our roads and bridges, which is why St. Cloud needs better leadership than State Sen. John Pederson. As made clear in two recent articles in the St. Cloud Times, Pederson has some thoughts on the state's transportation network. As the Republican lead on the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee, he could play a vital role in providing St. Cloud the comprehensive transportation investment we need.
Instead, Sen. Pederson backs a plan that not only shifts money away from our schools and services for our most vulnerable residents, but relies heavily on borrowing for our roads and bridges, putting the costs on the state's credit card. This plan depends on action to be taken by future legislatures. However, there is no guarantee future legislatures will make those decisions. Instead of stability, this is another example of politicians promising something in the future to justify ducking their responsibilities now.
I won't waste my time refuting the DFL's chanting points because I've already done that. Instead, I'll pose these simple questions:
- Do you want the legislature to raise the gas tax that won't fix Minnesota's roads and bridges?
- Do you want the DFL to raise the metro sales tax to pay for light rail projects that don't help fix roads and bridges?
- Would you prefer that Republicans create a new fund that focuses exclusively on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges?
I'm betting that the vast majority of people reading this post will pick the option that focuses exclusively on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. I'm betting that because few people care about new light rail projects. I'm betting that because most people care passionately about fixing Minnesota's potholed roads.
We know that the DFL plan won't work because it was tried in 2008. The DFL's transportation plan is the same now as it was then. That plan failed. Why would we repeat that plan and expect different results? Einstein famously said that doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
The GOP plan learned from the DFL's failed plan of 2008. Shortly after the 2008 tax increase, revenue didn't come in like it was predicted. The DFL figured it out that more people are buying more fuel efficient vehicles, meaning less gas tax revenue. Then the DFL doubled down on their failed plan of 2008.
Republicans, though, figured it out that a different funding mechanism was needed. That's why the Republican plan creates a Transportation Stability Fund that " collects existing proceeds from dedicated tax revenues and deposits them into accounts for each of their dedicated purpose . "
There are five accounts that would dedicate a combined $3.078 billion over ten years:
- Road and Bridge Account: revenue from existing sales tax on auto parts
- Metro Capital Improvements Account: revenue from existing sales tax on rental vehicles
- Small Cities Account: revenue from existing rental vehicle tax
- Greater Minnesota Bus Services Account: revenue from 50% of existing Motor Vehicle Lease sales tax
- Suburban County Highway Account: revenue from 50% of existing Motor Vehicle Lease sales tax
In addition to the dedicated funds provided by the Transportation Stability Fund, the Road and Bridge Act of 2015 uses $1.3 billion in Trunk Highway bonds, $1.2 billion from realigning Minnesota Department of Transportation resources, $1.05 billion in General Obligation bonds, and $228 million in General Funds.Mr. Wolgamott's LTE reads like Move MN's chanting points. We don't need another robot supporting the DFL's failed policies. It also reads like the LTE a candidate seeking Sen. Pederson's senate seat.
That's quite a shift considering he ran for Tama Theis's House seat in 2014.
Posted Sunday, April 5, 2015 2:48 AM
No comments.
Stalingrad on the Iron Range
Recently, the Virginia City Council adopted the International Property Maintenance Code. I hope that Cate Stark's LTE wakes people up to this totalitarian form of government. This is frightening:
If you are found in violation of the 90-page International Property Maintenance Code with hundreds of rules, you can be cited. You will go before the magistrate. You will pay a fine, legal fees and court costs. If you cannot pay these, you can go to jail. If you have not fixed what they cited you for, they will send you the bill. If you cannot pay it, they put a lien on your house. If you cannot pay the lien, they can sell your house!
This code is arbitrary and can be subjectively enforced. It unfairly affects those who have the least money to keep a house in great condition.
What's most frightening is that that isn't the most frightening part. This is:
This is an invasive ordinance stating that the code enforcement officer or employee has the right to enter any premises for the purpose of making an inspection at any reasonable time in pursuance of such duties without warrants . This invasive ordinance encourages the code officer or employee to get the authorities if you don't let him in.
Cate Starks is right that the IPMC is unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment prevents this type of government intrusion. Here's one other totally objectionable part of the IPMC:
Section 308.1, infestation - 'all structures shall be kept free from rodent and insect infestation. If infestation is found it will be followed up with extermination. The penalty for violation is: Guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction they shall be fined up to the maximum amount allowed by state law or imprisoned up to 30 days in jail. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense . So 30 days = 30 penalties.'
I'm hoping that the first person whose house is entered by the inspector without a warrant files a lawsuit against that inspector and the City of Virginia. I'm betting that the ACLJ would accept such a case and make an example of this unconstitutional ordinance.
Posted Sunday, April 5, 2015 10:33 AM
No comments.
Pro-Israel vs. Pro-Iran
The recently-announced framework between Iran and the P-5 + 1 is an interesting situation that's having significant political consequences. What's at stake is whether senators should support a freedom-loving democracy or whether they should support a terrorist-financing nation led by aging religious fanatics that chant ' Death to America '. That's essentially the heart of this debate.
While Israel's critics criticize Israel's settlements in the West Bank, the truth is that these criticisms are pretty feeble, especially compared with the complaints Israel can make about the rockets launched by Iran-funded terrorist organizations into the heart of Israel. The Iranian-funded terrorists launch missiles into the heart of Israel. The Israeli settlers are building homes in the West Bank. The notion that there's a moral equivalence between the 2 things is absurd.
Senators supporting the deal between the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany and Iran best be ready to defend a terrorist regime whose first ambition is to terrorize America's most reliable ally in the Middle East and to create a region-wide hegemon with nuclear weapons. That's what Iran's first set of goals are. When Iran's leader shouts "Death to America", I'm certain he isn't joking. Iran's mid-term goal is to expand its hegemon into western Europe. That's because their ultimate goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate that would give people the 'option' to either obey the Iranian mullahs' dictates or die.
Here in the United States, Jewish voters are noticing who's on Israel's side and who isn't :
Republicans currently in the Senate raised more money during the 2014 election cycle in direct, federally regulated campaign contributions from individuals and political action committees deemed pro-Israel than their Democratic counterparts, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed for The New York Times by a second nonprofit, MapLight. The Republican advantage was the first in more than a decade.
The alliances in Congress that pro-Israel donors have built will certainly be tested as they lobby lawmakers to oppose the deal with Iran and perhaps even expand sanctions against the country, despite objections from the Obama administration.
Donors say the trend toward Republicans among wealthy, hawkish contributors is at least partly responsible for inspiring stronger support for Israel among party lawmakers who already had pro-Israel views.
President Obama can't hide his feelings for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lately, he hasn't bothered trying to hide his contempt for Prime Minister Netanyahu. If President Obama's hostility continues, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that Jewish support for Republicans would increase.
If you're an Israel-loving Jewish voter, there's no reason to support the Democratic Party.
Posted Sunday, April 5, 2015 5:03 PM
No comments.
