April 30, 2012
Apr 30 02:16 Steve Drazkowski sets charitable gaming issue straight Apr 30 11:47 Is the SCSU Aviation department expensive?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Steve Drazkowski sets charitable gaming issue straight
Friday night, Almanac's Mary Lahammer interviewed Rep. Steve Drazkowski about the Vikings stadium bill. Several things jumped out at me but three things jumped out above the rest. Here's one of the things that jumped out at me:
MS. LAHAMMER: Why isn't it possible? Everyone's saying 'It's a new technology.' They're saying it's flashy and new. Shouldn't that attract new people?
REP. DRAZKOWSKI: All of the 2,500 sites across Minnesota that would be doing this, Mary, would have to increase by a ticket per minute, 365 days a year, 17 hours per day. An additional ticket per minute above what they're currently doing now. That's hard to believe.
MS. LAHAMMER: But the proponents of this say their estimates are conservative. They say they're not even close to aggressive.You don't buy it?
It's predictable that proponents would say that everything's fine, that there isn't a shortfall, that their opponents are way off in left field. Attempting to discredit your opponents is a time-tested technique in debating. That leads to the next thing that jumped out at me:
REP. DRAZKOWSKI: All that's interesting. The bill that existed last year was actually budget neutral, the charitable gaming bill. Now that's a night and day difference between that bill and this bill in terms of what it's expected to produce. I don't remember the numbers that were projected in terms of revenue in that bill but they were just a small fraction of what they're projecting in this one.
Rep. Drazkowski deserves praise for dragging the argument back from the theoretical into reality. Comparing apples to apples is the last thing the pro-Vikings stadium lobbyists want at this point. They want the debate focused on who's the biggest Vikings fans. The last thing the pro-Vikings stadium lobbyists want is a serious policy-based conversation.
It isn't a stretch to think that pro-Vikings stadium lobbyists are as frightened of serious policy-based conversations as vampires hate wooden stakes.
Finally, this part should be focused on by every taxpaying Minnesotan:
REP. DRAZKOWSKI: There's some fundamental problems with the financing structure behind it.
That sentence should frighten every taxpayer because of its potential impact on Minnesota's general fund budget. It's one thing to get the bonding wrong on a $20,000 project. You might not even get hurt if you get the bonding wrong on a $200,000 bonding project.
Getting the financing wrong on a $400,000,000 project is potentially disastrous for a decade or more. Friends know that I'm a passionate Vikings fan. In fact, I spent all day Thursday, all day Friday and most of Saturday watching the NFL Entry Draft just to see if the Vikings could fill the holes in their roster. (FYI- More on that later today.)
This isn't about who's the biggest Vikings fan. It's about fiscal sanity. It's about the legislature being the taxpayers' watchdog. At this point, there are some who are intent on being the taxpayers' watchdog. There are others who are intent on proving that they're great Vikings fans.
Minnesota can't afford to get this wrong.
Tags: Steve Drazkowski , Minnesota Vikings , Financing , Fiscal Sanity , Gaming , Charities , E-Pulltabs , E-Bingo , Taxpayers' Watchdog , NFL , Lobbyists
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 2:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 30-Apr-12 07:31 AM
Basing a "plan" on generating income from addictive and occasional gamblers has social dimensions beyond how much money it gets the government. Who runs the outlets, what percentage of the profit goes to the outlets vs. the government, and is it morally sound to encourage gambling - especially when it's for the unsound objective of giving free public funds to a football team.
Then, if you want gambling for a football team, you do not have in the package gambling on outcomes of football team games? That seems as if you are trying to look at a landscape with a board directly in front of your vision.
Why not, if you are saying finance Zygi with gambling, include in the equation bookmaking? Become Nevada. Why let the established casino cash flows be protected as if that were a religious fervor - it must be so, with such cash flows as sacrosanct as "charitable" gambling cash flows.
It is a big can of worms and rushing junk through the end of session is not a sound way to address the host of issues. Add to that the Republicans not wanting to deliver for Zygi until after the election so they can currently blather on about fiscal conservatism while Zygi has ants in his pants to get his Wilfare now - it is one big and ugly circus show.
That is what it is. The legislature at its very, very, very worse. And the Governor and unions are unidimensional about their objectives. "Peoples Stadium" is an invented hoax term, and one without sophistication. Dayton should know better than trying to sell that brand.
With all of that said, Gary, how much of this relates back to the last election, the third candidate for Governor, and his business allegiances? I think it's wise to look back in that direction and how the third candidacy influenced things, in terms of setting priorities and commitments.
Your last sentence. If they do it at all, they are getting it wrong, but it will not be gotten wrong until next session, at which point they will be falling over each other to puff about the "necessity" of it, and to take credit for doing it for the Wilfs by saying it is "for Minnesota."
There is only one sane answer. Let the bastards leave. It is that simple.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 30-Apr-12 09:30 AM
Fine post, Gary. I've been a Vikings fan since 1969 and I couldn't agree more. I don't like the idea of the state picking winners and losers in business to the tune of $400,000,000 of someone else's money.
Either the project stands on its own merits or falls on its own merits, and I expect elected official to make that call based on what is best for the State of Minnesota -- not one highly-visible special interest group.
Is the SCSU Aviation department expensive?
On December 10, 2010, President Potter said "Accreditors noted the deficiency of the curriculum and, for two years, no progress was made." That's an odd statement to make considering the fact that AABI, the accrediting team, didn't audit the SCSU Aviation Department until July, 2009. That means they didn't examine SCSU's curriculum until that time.
President Potter has repeatedly said, though not consistently, that the Aviation program was too expensive. Let's examine that rather than take it as Gospel truth. If a person based their opinion on this article , they'd likely think that President Potter's story isn't steeped in the truth:
' SCSU doesn't own a single plane; it's one thing that makes this aviation program really unique. We started out as an Aero club, it's a student-run organization that owns the airplanes. That's how our department started, with enthusiastic people that wanted to learn to fly and it just grew from there,' said Jessica Miller, member of the Aviation Ambassadors.
Actually, the airplanes aren't the most expensive equipment Aviation students use. The flight simulators might be. Again, SCSU didn't pay for the simulators. Student fees paid for about 90% of the cost of the newest simulator.
The new simulator cost approximately $100,000. Student fees paid for over 90% of that expense. Likewise, SCSU doesn't pay for the flight time flight students buy. That's paid for by the students, too.
In other words, the only expense that SCSU pays for are the professors and staff of the Aviation Department. During the 2010-2011 school year, the total amount spent on 4 fulltime professors and 4 adjunct professors was $275,499.
That isn't a big investment for SCSU considering the fact that there's a substantial, lengthy worldwide airline pilot shortage. It's miniscule considering the fact that MNSCU Chancellor Steve Rosenstone once said this :
One state leader put it clearly when he said: 'Changes in workforce needs are coming like a freight train, and we are very quickly going to go from high unemployment to 'Where are the workers? '
Chancellor Rosenstone, if meeting the changing workforce needs are as important as you suggest they are, why haven't you reversed President Potter's foolish decision to eliminate SCSU's Aviation Department? Boeing is forecasting the need for hundreds of thousands of airline pilots in the Pacific Rim alone. That's before considering the tens of thousands of airline pilots that will be needed for domestic flights over the next 15 years.
The bottom line is straightforward. President Potter isn't being honest about the curriculum or the cost of the Aviation Department. Chancellor Rosenstone isn't being honest about putting a high priority on meeting the workforce challenges of the near future and the now.
The time for integrity is now. Proper prioritizing of SCSU's resources should've happened ages ago. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. It isn't a stretch to think it won't happen during a Potter administration.
Thanks to President Potter's decision, alot of students will be forced to get their flight degrees from more expensive universities. It's hard to think that Minnesotans hired him to make that type of decision.
Tags: SCSU , Earl Potter , Aviation Department , Wright-Aero Club , Flight Simulator , Student Fees , Accrediting Board , AABI , Workforce , Academia
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 30-Apr-12 08:42 PM
Do you get the feeling Potter and Rosenstone are playing tug of war with each other?
Comment 2 by Tim Brion at 30-Apr-12 10:54 PM
I am a private pilot based at St Cloud Regional Airport and I am appalled with President Potter's decision. I believe that the SCSU Aviation Students are some of the best young adults I have ever had the pleasure to meet. They are mature, bright, and hard working. No leader or person with half a brain would make such a poor decision. How do you turn your back on character, passion, and integrity? It is imperative for our leaders to recognize quality and opportunity. Mr President you failed. It is time for you to be a leader...do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.
Comment 3 by IndyJones at 01-May-12 03:38 PM
I graduated from SCSC and while there was a member of the Aero Club. I never did learn to fly while at college but did maintain an interest in aviation and became an aircraft mechanic. Now pilots and managers in the aviation business earn more than I did but still I made more in a year than the combined income of both a professor and adjunct professor mentioned in the reported expenses in this article. Now what professor would not like to hear that his students were not only employeed but making more than he does...the goal of real educators. Do we really need more liberal arts graduates or do we need people with actual "go to work skills". There are only so many management jobs at Starbucks. Lets get smart and train for the future and if SCSU doesn't provide that education and training then go elsewhere. Purdue in Indiana offers a great program.
Comment 4 by Jethro at 01-May-12 10:37 PM
Aviation faculty: $275,499
Out of state marketing firm: $1/2 million
ISELF: $20 million+
Potter desperately trying to get his aviation closure story straight: Priceless!
Comment 5 by Patrick at 02-May-12 09:58 AM
Aviation was targeted by the COSE Dean for closure before the reorganization process started. MPR report (5-2-12) Dr. Malhotra, SCSU Provost and VP, says St. Cloud State has refocused on creating graduates with a broad base of knowledge, not just ones ready for a specific job. Clearly he doesn't understand the Aviation domain. By his logic many other programs should have been closed also; many that were kept open have nothing to do with the President Potter's mission "new focus on science, technology and engineering". Are Maholtra and Potter even on the same page?
Nope that I can see but hey ya gotta spin it like you see it.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 02-May-12 11:06 AM
Check out this post. It deals with those issues directly.
