December 12-16, 2013
Dec 12 02:07 Hannity can't grasp concept of divided government Dec 12 13:27 MnSure's problems continue Dec 13 09:49 Referendum questions abound Dec 13 11:02 Dayton defends Costa Rican vacation Dec 14 11:35 Deconstructing the Democrats' straw man arguments Dec 15 10:59 How the DFL abandoned miners Dec 16 05:33 Questioning SCSU's official budget Dec 16 10:38 Seifert: Abolish Met Council Dec 16 16:00 Met Council: Unelected dictators?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Hannity can't grasp concept of divided government
Throughout Sean Hannity's interview with Paul Ryan, it was painfully obvious that Mr. Hannity didn't grasp the concept that divided government means one or both sides hate the deals they strike. Here's the video of Hannity's interview:
Throughout the interview, Hannity kept complaining that conservatives don't like this deal much. Througout the interview, Chairman Ryan told Hannity that the budget would've looked much different had Patty Murray agreed to his budget and President Obama had signed it into law.
It's unrealistic to think that President Obama would even momentarily contemplate signing such a budget. It's absurd to think that Harry Reid would let Chairman Ryan's budget to get a hearing, much less a vote in the Senate. That wasn't going to happen.
What conservatives have to remember is that winning elections is the only way that the Ryan balanced budget proposal has a chance of becoming law. While Hannity and others kept insisting that Chairman Ryan had forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse, Hannity didn't understand that Ryan technically had the power of the purse but he didn't have the power of the purse without there being a steep political price to be paid.
People like Hannity have forgotten that the balanced budgets of the 1990s didn't happen because John Kasich, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton instantly had a come-to-Jesus moment and they all lived happily ever after. Conservative incrementalism is the only reason we had 4 straight balanced budgets.
It's important to remember that there's a huge difference between President Clinton and President Obama. President Clinton had run something before getting elected. He knew the value of being practical when it was required. President Obama never ran anything as challenging as a lemonade stand. He grew up in a radicalized world. President Obama never thought that compromise was a worthwhile thing. He still doesn't.
Let's stipulate that the Ryan-Murray plan isn't a great deal because it isn't. It's important for whining conservatives like Hannity to understand that, though it isn't agreat deal, it's the best deal available. It's equally important that consertvatives like Mr. Hannity and others to understand that this deal has significant benefits.
First, there won't be another shutdown, which means the spotlight stays of the disaster of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. That's a huge win for Republicans. If that's all that the Republicans got out of this, that'd be enough to chalk this up as GOP victory.
Second, there's agreement in this legislation that opens up more oil and natural gas exploration. That's a significant win for the GOP. Most importantly, it's a major victory for the American people in the form of stabilized home heating bills and gas prices at the pump.
Third, it's a win for Republicans because Democrats won't get traction when they accuse Republicans of not having the ability to govern. Instead, Chairman Ryan has stopped the Obama form of governing. That form of governing meant jumping from one crisis and/or deadline to another. That method of operation gave President Obama a major advantage in negotiations because he had the bully pulpit and Republicans had a gun pointed at their head.
People like Erick Erickson need to get their facts straight. He didn't get his facts straight in this post :
Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It's a return to pre-sequestration Washington - spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.
According to Chairman Ryan, Erickson isn't close to being right. The offsets in "autopilot spending", aka entitlements, start immediately. In exchange for some 'sequestration relief', Chairman Ryan won some minor changes in entitlement spending.
The Erick Ericksons of the world will never be satisfied with anything other than total, immediate victory. If Republicans want to rebuild credibility in their brand, however, it's important that they show apolitical people that they can be principled without being obnoxious.
Chairman Ryan's budget provides that platform for Republicans.
Posted Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:07 AM
No comments.
MnSure's problems continue
Tom Steward's article should infuriate Minnesota's taxpayers. Here's what happened:
As thousands of frustrated Minnesotans were notified about glitches and errors in their applications on the state insurance exchange, April Todd-Malmlov took a two-week break.
Problem is, Todd-Malmlov is MNsure executive director. Her vacation, in November, included a trip to tropical Costa Rica.
Watchdog Minnesota Bureau obtained an out-of-office email reply from Todd-Malmlov's state account, stamped Nov. 24. The email was from an applicant, who contacted her after trying for more than a month to obtain insurance coverage through the state's online exchange.
Todd-Malmlov's automated email reply stated she would be out of the office until Monday, Dec. 2. MNsure staff confirmed Todd-Malmov was out of the office for eight business days before the two-day Thanksgiving Day holiday for state employees.
Let's be clear about this. Ms. Malmlov disappeared when MnSure problems were continuing. Here's Ben Golnik's statement about the things that were happening while Ms. Malmlov vacationed:
As problems continue with the Obamacare roll-out in Minnesota, troubling information came out today that MNsure Executive Director April Todd Malmlov took a two week vacation, traveling to Costa Rica. In recent weeks, among the new problems with MNsure: serious security issues with the MNsure website, 60 minute average wait times with MNsure call centers, and possible incorrect information provided to 30,000 consumers over tax credit eligibility.
I don't begrudge public employees their vacations. It's just infuriating to see the leader of an important department disappear while there's a crisis. Leadership is required when there's a crisis happening. Ms. Malmlov gets paid pretty well. In the private sector, when there's a crisis, the director gets called back from their vacation or, if they haven't left yet, their vacation is denied.
Ms. Todd-Malmlov's actions are unacceptable. Real people who've received cancellation notices are worried MnSure won't be working properly, causing these people to not have health insurance on Jan. 1, 2014. While Minnesota taxpayers are worried that they won't have health insurance, Ms. Todd-Malmlov reacted by getting a fantastic tan in Costa Rica.
I won't ask what's wrong with that picture because everything's wrong with that picture.
Posted Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:27 PM
No comments.
Referendum questions abound
This article about the SCSU student referendum on whether to use student fees to fund the Athletic Department brings tons of questions to mind. First, this part bothers me:
Downing said in an interview that rules were violated at the election table. She said she witnessed numerous times in which student-athletes were encouraging voters to vote yes on the first question and no on the second. Downing said she recommended the vote be invalidated and that another referendum be conducted in the spring.
'If a student were to have been running or a senator had come to a table, they would have been removed from the ballot instantly,' Downing said.
The issue is not clear cut, said Adam Hammer, a spokesman for the university. No one documented the alleged violations and it is unclear whether the students who might have been campaigning too close to the voting booth were athletes, Hammer said.
The rules are also not clear because the vote was conducted by computer and cell phones, and it is difficult to determine what constitutes a polling place. The student government set a table with a computer in the student union where students could vote.
'There is no absolute validity to these claims and that is part of the problem,' Hammer said.
The first question I have about Hammer's statement is this: why is he making statements about a vote administered by the student government? There's no question that the administration has a lot riding on the vote but that doesn't mean they're making informed statements. Last week, Hammer made a different statement :
To maintain the integrity of the review, causes for the review will not be released. 'This is a learning community,' said Adam Hammer, director media relations and publications. 'Student organizations help our students learn how to be part of a representative democracy.'
If "student organizations" are helping the students conduct the election and if the review process was conducted by the Student Government's Election Committee, why did the administration feel the need to have Mr. Hammer make these statements? Here's what was posted over the weekend:
The reality is that this administration wanted this outcome...badly. With enrollments declining...Who am I kidding? They're falling off a steep cliff. Let's start over. With FYE enrollment falling off a cliff and tuition revenues sharply dropping and especially after signing the ill-advised contract with the Wedum Foundation that's costing SCSU an average of $1,000,000 a year, SCSU isn't far removed from retrenchment and significant budget cuts, cuts that will dwarf this year's announced cuts of $2,861,000.
President Potter's administration couldn't sit on the sidelines with this much riding on the vote. Perhaps next time, they'll fix the enrollment problem and eliminate the foolish spending so they can afford to support the basics.
Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen.
Posted Friday, December 13, 2013 9:49 AM
No comments.
Dayton defends Costa Rican vacation
While April Todd-Malmlov took a 2 week Costa Rican vacation, MnSure, the organization she's theoretically running, was experiencing several crises. That point isn't disputable, though Democrats, including Gov. Dayton have tried defending Todd-Malmlov's actions . Yesterday, MNsure's media relations coordinator, Jenni Bowring-McDonough made this statement :
"Our leadership here works very, very closely with April, and the rest of the MNsure staff are deeply trusted and have the full faith and trust of our executive director and were at the helm in partnership with April even when she was out of the office.
"It certainly was not a case of any gap in forward motion or any gap in work that needed to be completed and attended to because our commitment every day is to making the improvements that we need to make so that people can have the coverage they need starting Jan. 1."
That last paragraph can't go unchallenged. I quoted Ben Golnik, the founder of the Minnesota Jobs Coalition, in this post about all of the difficulties MnSure was dealing with:
In recent weeks, among the new problems with MNsure: serious security issues with the MNsure website, 60 minute average wait times with MNsure call centers, and possible incorrect information provided to 30,000 consumers over tax credit eligibility.
This morning, I spoke with the Lady Logician about the 60-minute average wait time issue because she's worked at call centers for as long as I've known her. She brought up the important point that, in addition to that being too long of a wait time, management has to be on the ball to increase staffing.
She said that it isn't just about conducting the interviews. It's also about doing the background checks so people with criminal histories don't get hired to take families' most personal information.
With that long of a laundry list of fires to put out, it's all-hands-on-deck time. In the private sector, it's the type of time when the entire leadership team is working 12 hour days to get everything fixed. By comparison, in government, it's apparently the type of time when 2 week Costa Rican vacations are in order.
Gov. Dayton sent out conflicting messages in defending Ms. Malmlov:
On Thursday, Gov. Mark Dayton defended Todd-Malmlov's right to take a pre-scheduled vacation. He made no attempt to defend MNsure's ongoing problems.
'I know that the executive director worked extraordinarily hard for months now, probably all of last year and my understanding was this was a long-planned vacation where financial commitments were made,' Dayton said. 'I don't know enough of the details, but it was obviously a critical time for MNsure and it is ultimately her responsibility.'
What scrambled mind would defend a person taking a vacation while their organization is dealing with multiple crises, then dump on her and say that "it is ultimately her responsibility"? Gov. Dayton's spineless 'leadership' is discouraging. What's worse is that, ultimately, it's his responsibility because a) he's Ms. Malmlov's boss and b) he signed the HIX (health insurance exchange) into law.
Ms. Malmlov's first responsibility is to get MnSure fixed. That means hiring additional staff for the call centers, making sure that all the background checks are completed, then making sure that the security issues are resolved. I haven't seen proof that Ms. Malmlov accomplished any of those things.
Posted Friday, December 13, 2013 11:02 AM
Comment 1 by Foghorn Leghorn at 13-Dec-13 11:46 AM
Wait, according to our Democrat leaders MNSure and Healthcare.gov are "working very well for the majority of people". But now we are hearing otherwise? Which is it? Not sure what Democrat lies to believe anymore.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-13 12:51 PM
Foghorn, the trick isn't in figuring out which DFL lies to believe. They're lies after all. The trick is to believe verified facts, which rarely come from the MSM.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 13-Dec-13 04:41 PM
Gary:
I think you might want to highlight something that governor Dayton said and spin it on other things. The press release said, "And my understanding that this was a long planned vacation where financial commitments were made."
Um so if he knows about the importance of financial commitments why sign a stadium bill where the source of the revenue isn't guaranteed?
Um so if he knows about the importance of financial commitments why isn't he demanding that the warehouse tax (which the state claims they don't need now) so businesses know they won't have that commitment?
Um so if he knows about the importance of financial commitments why is he sinking state money into bad things like billion dollar train systems compared with roads?
I can go on.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 13-Dec-13 06:01 PM
Another datum for my observation that people with multiple last names seem to cause a disproportionate amount of trouble in the world, particularly in the public sector.
Comment 4 by MtkaMoose at 15-Dec-13 01:10 AM
My guess is that MNSure worked as well or better without April Todd-Malmlov in the office. Better yet, let's send Kathleen Sebelius to Costa Rica and see if things improve, or at least don't get worse at HHS!
Deconstructing the Democrats' straw man arguments
This editorial includes the usual collection of straw man arguments, which I'm about to deconstruct. This paragraph is especially worth demolishing:
The individual mandate was a Republican idea as well as set forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989. It was supported by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley who also introduced bills promoting this legislation. Newt Gingrich was also for this idea.
There's no disputing the information in that paragraph. These senators supported the Heritage Foundation's idea. What's important, though, was that people started making the argument that the individual mandate wasn't constitutional in the early 1990s. That's when Republicans, generally speaking, stopped supporting the individual mandate.
Now all these individuals oppose the ACA because it is Obama's and the Democrats' signature piece of legislation.
What a stupid statement to make. First, it's pure projection. There's no proof of that. Allegations aren't proof. Allegations is the writer has. Argument? Dismissed as foolish. Second, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Hatch oppose the Affordable Care Act because, in the words of Sen. Baucus, it's "a train wreck" happening in slow motion right before our eyes.
The Democrats' arguments are built on the shaking sand arguments that the ACA is working fine or will soon be working fine and that the policies bought through the ACA's exchanges will be significantly better than the policies families had prior to implementation of the ACA. That's demonstrably false. Networks have shrunk. Premiums are significantly higher. Facilities that offer cutting edge medical treatment are either being excluded from the exchanges or they're opting out because the reimbursement rates will drive them into bankruptcy.
Those are legitimate explanations for why Republicans oppose the ACA.
The letter stated Republicans were mostly shut out of the planning and development of the ACA. However, for years, the Republicans were arguing for legislation exactly like the one that passed.
That's a non sequitur argument. It's possible for Republicans to be shut out of crafting the ACA after previously supporting similar legislation years earlier. During the 2012 campaign, all of the GOP presidential candidates made substantive arguments against Romneycare.
The biggest difference between Romneycare and the Affordable Care Act is that Romneycare's rollout wasn't the disaster that the ACA's rollout is.
The letter also infers Democrats' recent dominance of the U.S. House, Senate and presidency contributed to the polarization that now exists in Washington, DC.
This isn't disputable. The Democrats' arrogance for which they're currently getting crucified contributed to DC's polarization. It isn't the sole cause of DC's polarization but it certainly contributed to it.
At the end of the day, though, what's important is that Democrats not named Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Wasserman-Schultz aren't arguing that the ACA is great legislation that is helping families. It's true that the ACA helped people who couldn't get insurance because they had pre-existing conditions. It's equally indisputable that the ACA caused millions of people to get cancellation notices of quality health insurance policies that paid for life-saving treatments at the world's finest research hospitals.
There's no doubt that some health insurance policies were junk. That's proof that state health insurance commissioners didn't do their jobs. They shouldn't have approved those policies for sale in their states. Likewise, there's no doubt that some policies that President Obama, Jay Carney and Frank Pallone say are substandard are actually pretty good policies.
Posted Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:35 AM
Comment 1 by Matt Dean at 14-Dec-13 04:16 PM
Great work! Can not assume people know this or believe the truth of it.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Dec-13 11:22 PM
Thanks Matt. This is the type of BS that we'll be fighting now through Election Day. The best news is that the Democrats can't honestly say that Obamacare is helping Minnesota families.
How the DFL abandoned miners
Baird Helgeson's article doesn't do the greatest job highlighting the inevitable split in the DFL but it's a start:
All sides are closely watching as Gov. Mark Dayton's administration faces a crucial decision on the project that could come near the election.
At risk is a political coalition that has made good on a string of high-profile DFL priorities like same-sex marriage, higher taxes for the rich and expanded union influence around the state. Dayton is depending on that same coalition to help him press for a second term and keep the state House in DFL hands.
'We are going to go through some hard times,' predicted Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township. 'This may be the signature event in the decades-long battle between jobs and the preservation of the environment. This battle determines what kind of a Minnesota Minnesotans want.'
Democrats are scrambling to contain the conflict and prevent another 'massacre' of 1978, when Republicans capitalized on similar outrage over the creation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Rivals divided the DFL over the issue and allowed Republicans to make historic electoral gains, claiming the governor's office and both U.S. Senate seats.
It's anti-climatic to say that the DFL left blue collar workers. That happened when the DFL, like Democrats nationally, decided militant environmentalists were a more important special interest group to be coddled than the miners. This paragraph is incomplete, perhaps intentionally:
A copper mine that could provide hundreds of high-paying jobs on the Iron Range also is threatening to crack the fragile alliance of blue-collar Democrats up north and the environmentalists that are an influential part of Minnesota DFL's base.
Let's include what's missing from that paragraph. Here's how it would read:
A copper mine that could provide hundreds of high-paying jobs on the Iron Range also is threatening to crack the fragile alliance of blue-collar Democrats up north and the Twin Cities-based environmentalists that are an influential part of Minnesota DFL's base.
The so-called Metrocrats tossed the Tom Rukavina wing of the DFL under the bus long ago. Here's what then-Rep. Rukavina said about mining just about a year ago:
I'm perplexed. I sent an email to the three who voted no, I'm awaiting a reply. Frankly, if Gov Dayton is pissed off at the DNR (hell, Ranger's have been pissed off at them forever), he should fire some top dogs over there. But don't take it out on the good people of the Range who have been mining for 130 years and playing by the rules that some folks now want to change.
Perplexed and pissed off would better describe my reaction. But hey, I'm a has been but I have been wondering why I'm the only member of the Range delegation who seems concerned about this. Perhaps it's because I'm the only member of the Range delegation who represents the real Iron Range and has never represented any other constituents in my 26 year tenure.
This sentence stood out for me:
But don't take it out on the good people of the Range who have been mining for 130 years and playing by the rules that some folks now want to change.
The DFL is playing a game with these miners' lives. Increasingly Republicans are coming to these miners' assistance. Chip Cravaack's loyalty to the miners is exceptionally well-documented. Other Republicans, including Stewart Mills, are taking up Chip's fight.
Here's what happens when the DFL treats this issue as a political issue :
Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it's fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan's position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he's against it, then he's for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it 'comes anywhere near close to becoming law.'
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan's responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as 'incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.
Rick Nolan is the ultimate politician. The best way to expose Nolan's phoniness is to tape him while he's talking mining with the United Mine Workers, then tape him talking with militant environmentalists. The contrast would be sharp. In fact, he'd look like 2 different people.
That's the DFL's dilemma. It's inevitable that something earth-shaking will happen to settle the issue once and for all. The split between the Metrocrats and the blue collar Iron Rangers is inevitable. I just hope I'm here to watch the collision.
Posted Sunday, December 15, 2013 10:59 AM
No comments.
Questioning SCSU's official budget
Where oh Where is the SCSU's Budget?
by Silence Dogood
On the morning of December 12, 2013, the website for SCSU's Office of Finance and Administration looked like this:
The important thing to notice is that, as of morning of December 12, 2013, there is not a single financial document for FISCAL YEAR 2014 FINANCIAL INFORMATION despite the fact that it is over five months into the fiscal year.
During the afternoon of December 12, 2013, the website was updated and information regarding Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Information appeared:
If you click on the link, you get the following MS Word document (which represents the public budget):
I'm certainly not a CPA but I've seen better budgets for student organizations on campus. This is the public budget for a $210 million regional comprehensive university. After seeing this document, my first thought was to ask the Accounting Department to look at this budget and make suggestions because even an undergraduate accounting major would likely come up with a more thorough document.
Recently, there has been some confusion as to the exact size of the SCSU budget. Since no budget was available until now, it's a fair question. In an email to faculty on September 19, 2013, Provost Malhotra stated: "With a total operating budget of more than $210 million: " Later, in an article written by Dave Aeikens appearing on November 21, 2013 in the Saint Cloud Times, the following was written: 'The university has a budget of about $150 million." Clearly, these two different numbers gives rise to some confusion. Is St. Cloud State's budget $150 million or $210 million? That's a $60 million dollar question.
On November 27, 2013, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget responded to a university listserve "If there is confusion, St. Cloud State has a total Annual Operating Budget of $210 million. This is comprised of a General Fund Budget of $150 Million, and an Auxiliary/Enterprise budget $60 million." The $60 million dollar question is now resolved.
From MnSCU Board Policies 5.10 Reserves and Year-End Balances, it states:
"Part 2. Overview It is the policy of the Board that the Minnesota state colleges and universities shall maintain an appropriate portion of general fund balances designated as a reserve for which no use is presently planned."
"Part 3. Accountability/Responsibilities The president at each college and university is responsible for maintaining a portion of the college or university resources as a reserve. A college or university general fund reserve should be five to seven percent of the previous year's general fund operating revenues."
Based on the SCSU budget document, the general fund reserve should be a minimum of $7,316,431 to a maximum of $10,243,003.
At Meet and Confer a budget document was presented, a part of which is shown below:
This document lists a reserve of $10,500,000. So it looks like the university is $256,886 above the recommended maximum amount allowed by MnSCU policy.
From MnSCU Board Policies 5.10 Reserves and Year-End Balances, it states:
"Part 4. Level of Reserves. Any college or university with a general fund reserve below five (5) percent shall report to the vice chancellor - chief financial officer information on current fiscal conditions with a detailed plan to achieve a minimum level. Any institution seeking to maintain reserves above seven (7) percent must have a plan approved by the vice chancellor-chief financial officer." As of yet, no plan has been shared.
However, there is another perhaps even more serious problem. If the reserve is $10,500,000 and as shown in the FY 2013 Ending Balance and Carry Forward Decision FY 2014 Document, this represents 6.31% of the total budget, the total budget would then be $166,402,536. So is the budget $166,402,536 or $146,116,203? However, if the budget is actually $210,238,118 then $10,500,000 represents 4.77%, which is below the minimum amount required by MnSCU Board Policy. Clearly, simply deciding on what the budget is and what the percentage the reserve is of that budget is confusing!
In looking at the public budget, it is clear that the document has serious problems.
First, in FY13 it shows that the university had an operating profit of $4,556,769. But it doesn't show where that money went or where the $10,500,000 listed at the September 5, 2013 Meet and Confer is located. Also, where are the reserves prior to FY13?
Secondly, for FY14, there is $64,121,985 in "Other Funds" Revenue compared to $38,087,298 for "Other Funds" Revenue for FY13. This is an increase of $26 million dollars and represents a growth of 68.4%. Further, of the total revenue for FY14, $73,317,472 out of $210,238,188 or 34.9% comes from "Other Funds". Maybe someone was really lucky at the casino. With the budget information presented here, this seems almost as likely a scenario.
Finally, personnel costs increased from $121,061,147 in FY13 to $140,582,832 in FY14. The difference is $19.5 million dollars and represents an increase of 16.1%! So there should be either an awful lot more faculty and staff walking around campus or the ones that are walking around got a pretty nice pay raise. At Meet and Confer on December 12, 2013, President Potter responded that the increase was due to increases in salary. Yes, faculty and staff certainly got raises amounting to slightly more than 5% in salary. The cost of benefits also went up slightly. Additionally, some faculty were promoted leading to a slight increase in costs as well. Maybe, these increases can explain 8%(half) of the 16% increase. Where's the remaining 8% or $9,750,000? It is also important to note that the budget for the last biennium included money that was set aside for salary increases and this should have been accounted for in the Carry Forward but the public budget shows a "Carry Forward of "0". The document presented at Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013 shows $3,298,409 in "Income account carry forwards". Again, there is a multi-million dollar inconsistency.
At Meet and Confer, President Potter also said that this budget was the budget that was sent to MnSCU last Spring. However, this budget never came to the Budget Advisory Committee and was not presented to the faculty at Meet and Confer. It is very easy to check the veracity of this statement because the agendas and minutes for Meet and Confer are available for review on the SCSU Faculty Association website. The Budget Advisory Committee agendas and minutes are available for review on the website for SCSU's Office of Finance and Administration.
If you click on the information tab for the budget document, the following information is obtained:
Clearly, it shows that the document was created on Thursday, December 12, 2013. Maybe some of this information came from some earlier document but it certainly is not the document that was presented last Spring. This seems to contradict what the President stated at Meet and Confer.
Several important questions come to mind about the financial information that has been provided by the university. Why isn't the university sharing complete and accurate budget information with the faculty as required by Article 6 of the Master Agreement? Why was it more than five months into the fiscal year before any kind of budget was presented? Is there really no "Carry forward" in the budget? Why did the budget information that was presented at Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013, again at Meet and Confer on October 9, 2013, and the Budget Advisory Committee Meeting on October, 30, 2013, all show a deficit and the need for budget reductions when the budget supposedly submitted to MnSCU last Spring showed a balanced budget?
The Figure below presented by the administration at Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013 and again on October 9, 2013, clearly shows a deficit.
Tammy McGee, as Vice President for Finance and Administration, who only been on the job since November 18, 2013 certainly faces a daunting task. Will Tammy be allowed to be truly "open and transparent" with budget information or will the budget obfuscation of the past continue?
Posted Monday, December 16, 2013 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 16-Dec-13 06:53 AM
Silence Dogood to SCSU is what Deep Throat was to the Nixon Administration...a very credible source. SCSU is ripe for an audit.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 17-Dec-13 12:38 PM
First the budget and now there is controversy including bullying and intimidation surrounding a student vote at SCSU for athletics? And the judiciary committee can no longer meet to verify the vote? Wow! You couldn't get this out of a textbook in a classroom. Nothing like OJT for our young people. http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=15728
Seifert: Abolish Met Council
GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert is running on a reform-minded platform. One of the reforms he'll push is elimination of the Met Council. Here's Seifert's statement on why the MC should disappear:
Dear Fellow Minnesotan,
As the start of a new year approaches, we can look forward to the opportunity for new leadership in our state in 2014. My campaign for governor is less than a month old, but our message of restoring leadership at the State Capitol is resonating across Minnesota.
Part of leadership is offering bold ideas to address critical problems. The Metropolitan Council is a major problem for the people of Minnesota and I am calling for it to be abolished. For far too long, the Met Council's unelected bureaucrats have imposed higher taxes, burdensome regulations and "urban planning" without representation and against the will of local governments. This weekend's Star Tribune called the Met Council a "master of imposition" - I encourage you to read the editorial.
I hope you will visit my website , learn more about the issues I am focusing on, and consider making a small donation to help our campaign finish this year strong. I'm asking for your support to dramatically downsize the size and scope of state government, reverse harmful taxes and regulations, bring real job growth to our economy and halt the damaging implications of Obamacare in Minnesota.
From my family to yours, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Marty Seifert
No taxation without representation was one of the principles that started the Revolutionary War. Nearly 250 years later, Minnesota politicians think that taxation without representation is a great idea. The DFL and the Met Council's lobbyists will fight against abolishing the Met Council if Rep. Seifert is elected. In fact, they're likely to fight him to prevent him from becoming governor.
Here's what Rep. Seifert said about abolishing the Met Council on his issues page:
Abolishment of three cabinet departments, in addition to complete elimination of the Metropolitan Council. Over a one-year period, the functions no longer required will be eliminated and needed functions will be transferred to local units of government or other cabinet departments.
Assuming that each part of the Met Council is essential is foolish. Ditto with cabinet offices.
Republicans should run on a positive, pro-growth reform agenda next year, whether they're runnning for the legislature, governor, Congress or the US Senate. Telling the people how electing Republicans will lead to more prosperity with more disposable income and more representative government will sell.
Just telling people that the next Republican administration won't rationalize a bureaucrat going on a 2-week vacation while her agency is in crisis will highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Posted Monday, December 16, 2013 10:38 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 16-Dec-13 07:44 PM
I received this via an email, and I was impressed with its unconditional directness. Right or wrong, Mr. Seifert needs to overcome allegations of needless moderation and this goes a long way toward that goal with me. I'd further urge a follow-up message for the other 80 counties who may not realize just how much of their money our little Met Council clique is spending.
Met Council: Unelected dictators?
Yes, the title of this post uses a bit of hyperbole. Still, the case that Katherine Kersten makes in this article tells a disturbing tale:
The Met Council intends to change that in its 30-year plan for the seven-county metro area: 'Thrive MSP 2040,' due out in 2014.
Some of us, of course, prefer to live in a condo above a coffee shop on a transit line. But the rest of us likely won't enjoy lugging rock salt home on the bus, getting the kids to soccer practice on the light rail or pedaling to the dentist on our bikes. Nevertheless, the council has announced that 'transit-oriented development' (TOD) will be the guiding principle for development in the metro area for the next 30 years. In its 84-page 'TOD Strategic Action Plan,' released in June, it held up Portland and San Francisco as enlightened places we should emulate.
TOD will be an 'enormous undertaking,' the council acknowledged. No kidding. To remake our metro area around transit, the council will do all it can to steer new jobs, homes and economic development in our region to areas within 'easy walking distance' (one-half mile) of major transit stops - primarily in the urban core and inner-ring suburbs. In these favored places, tax dollars (mostly from people who live elsewhere) will be lavished on high-density housing, bike and pedestrian amenities, and subsidized retail shops.
If you think that's hyperbole, you haven't read this part of the TOD's Executive Summary :
Transit-oriented development (TOD) provides the opportunity to enhance the transit investment by shaping regional development around transit. The working definition of TOD, as defined by the Metropolitan Council and partners at regional think tanks in September 2012 and February 2013, is: A moderate to higher density district/corridor located within easy walking distance of a major transit stop that typically contains a mix of uses such as housing, jobs, restaurants, shops, services and entertainment. These districts/corridors enable people of all ages, backgrounds, and incomes abundant transportation choices and the opportunity to live convenient, affordable and active lives.
In other words, the Met Council and a litany of progressive special interest organizations will do their best to establish these hubs, then, through time, force people to tolerate being told where they'll live and how they'll get from where the Met Council tells them to live to where the Met Council tells them to work.
There's no denying that, theoretically, that's efficient. Dictatorships and kingdoms are the most efficient forms of government in the history of the world. The Founding Fathers hated that type of efficiency. They established the Constitution in the way that they did to prevent autocratic boards like the Met Council from exercising this type of autocratic control over people.
The Met Council needs that type of control because their ideas run contrary to the American spirit. We love going wherever we want to go whenever we want to go there. The only way TOD becomes reality is through force. Here's why abolishing the Met Council is imperative:
The TOD Strategic Action Plan has many parts, all emanating from the Metropolitan Council mission, goals and policies. Each component builds off the other and all lead back to the Council's mission to 'foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region.'
This unaccountable council has put together a plan that forces lifestyle changes on people who are content with where they live, where they work and how they get from one to the other. That's irrelevant to the Met Council and their progressive special interest groups allies. They know what's best and they'll do whatever it takes to force their vision down other people's throats. Ms. Kersten's article shows the foolishness of the Met Council's vision:
The council forecasts that, by 2040, the population of Minneapolis and St. Paul will grow 24 percent and jobs there will grow a whopping 47 percent, while suburban growth on both measures will parallel each other. Such core city growth is strongly counter to historic trends both locally and nationally and seems unlikely to occur, despite TOD policies that attempt to engineer it.
The last census showed how foolish this prediction is. People voted with their mortgages to abandon the Twin Cities for the bedroom communities. They moved away from liberal mayors like R.T. Rybak and Chris Coleman. They moved away from progressive representation in DC and St. Paul. The most conservative congressional districts grew like wildfire while the most liberal districs shrunk rapidly. Thus far this census cycle, that pattern isn't reversing.
What is TOD's track record in Portland, the nirvana of TOD enthusiasts? Portland has poured huge sums into light rail, streetcars, and developments around transit stations. Now its streets are crumbling, and it can't afford to repave them until at least 2017.
In other words, the Met Council's vision is a verified failure. That figures. This part of the Executive Summary shows why TOD will be a failure:
Each strategy is ranked as high, medium or low priorities based on the impact and ease of implementation. The highest priority recommendations are collaboration strategies or relate to the creation of a TOD policy:
- Establish TOD staff capability within the Council to work with partners to deliver high-quality TOD outcomes.
- Create an internal Council TOD working group and dedicated TOD program staff to improve internal coordination and collaboration across the organizational divisions.
- Continue talking with regional partners and begin the process of creating a regional TOD Advisory Group to work with the Council on implementing the Action Plan recommendations.
Nowhere in that strategy is it mentioned that the Met Council or the TOD working group hold actual town halls to hear from businesses and other citizens. Nowhere is it mentioned that local units of government should take the lead. In fact, the only thing that's mentioned is an unelected group of bureaucrats creating another layer of bureaucrats without the consent of the governed.
No taxation without representation and government without the consent of the governed started a revolution 200+ years ago. Under the DFL's 'leadership', taxation without representation and government without the consent of the governed is apparently the norm.
Originally posted Monday, December 16, 2013, revised 17-Dec 2:50 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 16-Dec-13 04:36 PM
Sounds like the Met Council rulers have been reading
Agenda 21 - United Nations Sustainable Development http://tinyurl.com/l49af2n
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 16-Dec-13 07:26 PM
This op-ed ranks as one of KK's best, which is saying something. Further, if you read it on the Strib site, you'll find a number of excellent follow-up points in the reader comments. Just ignore the usual liberal sneering and sniping in between, which of course only further supports her argument.
