February 1-4, 2015
Feb 01 19:24 Polaris leaves Minnesota Feb 02 14:44 Which stats are right? Feb 02 16:33 Public information, private meetings? Feb 03 14:50 Charting the Future's deceptions Feb 03 15:13 SCSU's budget mysteries Feb 04 09:22 MnSCU reform & missing the point Feb 04 12:18 Are Jeb, Hillary yesterday's news? Feb 04 12:56 Gov. Dayton, stupidity & TV ads
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Polaris leaves Minnesota
Gov. Dayton and the DFL insists that their tax increases aren't hurting Minnesota's business climate. Polaris disagrees :
Polaris Industries Inc. will receive about $80 million in combined state and city subsidies when it builds its new and massive $142 million ATV plant next year in Huntsville, Ala. Kelly Schrimsher, communications director for the city of Huntsville, said Monday that the Alabama perks and tax breaks include $15 million in land and temporary office space given to Polaris by Huntsville.
It also includes about $31 million in cash and job-training assistance from the state of Alabama, as well as about $34 million in state subsidies tied to Polaris' agreement to provide 1,700 to 2,000 jobs in the state.
According to Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, taxes didn't play a role in Polaris' decision :
Sen. Bakk stated on MPR that the reasons Polaris is building a new plant in Alabama and employing 2,000 new workers instead of choosing Minnesota was the lack of housing and shortage of skilled workers here.
In the DFL's world, businesses never leave Minnesota because Minnesota's business climate stinks. It's always the case that another iconic Minnesota company left Minnesota. Cargill left. Ditto with 3M, Marvin Windows, Northwest Airlines and Nash Finch.
That isn't a coincidence. It's predictable.
It isn't a coincidence that Polaris is expanding outside Minnesota and outside the US:
The company will not disclose the exact cost for the new Huntsville facility, Polaris spokeswoman Marlys Knutson said in an e-mail on Monday. However, it is expected to be similar to Polaris' investment in its Monterrey, Mexico, factory, which opened in 2011 at a cost of about $150 million.
At the time the Mexico factory opened, the company was criticized for downsizing its Osceola, Wis., plant. The company, however, rehired some workers in 2012 and spent $1.75 million last year expanding the Osceola factory. The state of Wisconsin contributed $234,000 in tax credits. Polaris added 60 new jobs to the 200 existing jobs there.
Wisconsin, Mexico and now Alabama are the latest in a long line of growth moves for the company. In recent years, Polaris also added manufacturing space to its motorcycle plant in Spirit Lake, Iowa. In September, it opened its first factory outside North America, a new ATV factory in Opole, Poland, that has 345,000 square feet and 300 workers.
The DFL has to face reality. It's long past time that they admit that their Santa Claus act has a negative side to it.
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2015 7:24 PM
Comment 1 by Nick at 02-Feb-15 09:57 AM
I don't think taxpayer $$$ should be used to subsidize businesses. Indiana subsidized a HANGAR for United Airlines at the Indianapolis International Airport, but when United moved out, the city of Indianapolis was on the hook for rent and maintenance of the building.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 02-Feb-15 02:11 PM
I agree with Nick that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for businesses to shop around for the best deal but let me see if I understand Sen. Bakk correctly: it's not the taxes but lack of housing and a lack of a skilled work force that made Polaris move to what most enlighten progressives consider a highly uneducated and ass backwards state huh? I guess that means we need to dump more money into low income housing and failed schools so we can attract the kind of workers Alabama has. You can't make this stuff up!
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 02-Feb-15 04:58 PM
Didn't Sen Bakk see that Huntsville wanted to do job training. If Minnesota is so good at training people for jobs by now Polaris won't have that problem.
Too bad a real reporter wasn't question Mr. Bakk.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Which stats are right?
How many SCSU administrators does it take to count aviation students?
Two weeks ago, an argument on SCSU's employee "Announce" email distribution list serve revealed another attempt to spin the aviation program story with an effort to convey that aviation wasn't really the 10th largest program at SCSU prior to being elimination. An average person would expect higher education administrators could count students before making a programmatic closure decision. Apparently, the key administrator who was involved with the university reorganization in 2010 was not up to the task. The following comes from an official university document and uses data from records and registration based on the university's academic structure in December 2010. Using the following chart, it is clear Aviation was the 10th largest academic program prior to its closure.
Three months before the previous count was available, the College of Science & Engineering (COSE) Dean David DeGroote had a slightly different view of the number of aviation students. The following is an excerpt from page 7 of a letter written by David DeGroote. The paragraph below the header information is the final paragraph from the letter and by DeGroote's count there were 130 aviation students. Perhaps 62 students were admitted to the aviation program during the fall semester of 2010?
On January 19, 2015, David DeGroote sent this email in response to aviation having been the 10th largest program on campus:
"As I have tried to indicate in the past it is not a 'fact' that aviation was a top 10 major. I can only hope you will not repost my comment but take it as clarification."
Numbers are meaningless unless you define their use in the proper context of what you are trying to measure at a point in time. The counts are often compared without a standard for comparison. The "Aviation major" had 192 students as of December 10, 2010. That made it the 10th largest program at SCSU as reported in December of 2010. If DeGroote was arguing that the aviation program was not the 10th largest in terms of officially admitted majors, he should have provided the data. One day later after David DeGroote's response, Associate Vice President & Associate Provost Lisa Foss weighed in on the matter with the following email to the SCSU campus community:
Dr. Foss provided her work to the campus community via an Excel spreadsheet. The first column provided the rank based on fall 2010 headcount. In the right margin of the Excel spreadsheet, it stated, "Intended majors are not included." If admission to major is used to define student headcount without controlling for variation of admission standards, the truth regarding the size of a program can easily be hidden. If admission happens early in the student's course of study, the headcount will include a larger number of students since multiple years (Sophomore, Junior, Senior) of students are counted. If admission happens toward the end of a student's course of study which frequently happened with aviation students, the headcount will include a smaller number of students since fewer years (Seniors and second semester Juniors) of students are counted. If it typically takes 5 or 6 years as opposed to 4 or 5 years to complete the course of study, further distortion is created since programs taking on average longer to complete will appear larger than they really are and programs that take a short period of time to complete will appear to be smaller. What needs to be done to determine the size of a program is to define a standard measure that introduces the smallest bias possible. Despite the report from SCSU sources that aviation had 192 students at the end of fall of 2010, DeGroote reported there were only 130 aviation students during that year while Foss reported that the aviation program only had 61 students for fall 2010. It is possible all of these counts are accurate however they simply can't be compared and certainly can't be mixed when determining the relative size of individual programs like aviation. So how big was the aviation program in the fall of 2010 and how big was the program when the teach out began in anticipation of closing the department?
The size of the aviation program remained in doubt for six months after admissions to the major were suspended. When the program was closed to admission in December of 2010 a variety of student counts were floating around. This confusion ended following what one participant described as an emergency meeting to "get the aviation numbers right". This same source indicated that President Potter was not happy with the state of confusion. The names of those attending the meeting are shown in the informal minutes taken by the Aviation Department chair, Dr. Harl:
July 25, 2011 Aviation meeting with administration concerning Teach-out process
Attending were: Potter, Maholtra, DeGroote, Helgeson, Palmer, Bayerl, Foss, and Harl.
From the informal minutes, the following statement can be found:
'Aviation has 116 active majors and 9 minors with only 106 registered for Fall 2011."
On August 15, 2011 President Potter told the St. Cloud City Council in this video there were 125 students however there were inconsistencies in his explanation as to why aviation was closed. At the December 12, 2013 Meet and Confer meeting, President Potter handed out information showing 21 aviation major completions for 2010. Why is this relevant? When Chancellor Rosenstone was challenged by businessman Greg Jarrett as to why the chancellor only reported the smaller number of students in the professional flight track from this post , it appeared the chancellor decided to use the numbers from Dr. Foss which didn't sit well with Mr. Jarrett.
With the severe airline pilot shortage and as this recent article indicates, Air Force's Lack of Drone Pilots Reaching 'Crisis' Levels , it would be logical to reconsider the aviation closure decision. This has the potential to attract new students to SCSU in order to boost enrollments. Who knows . . . now that DeGroote is the Special Advisor to the Provost for Industry Outreach and Academic Program Alignment, there may be a chance he will reach out to this high demand field by realizing there is an ongoing threat from ISIS and subsequently recommend the reinstatement of aviation. After all, it is a security sensitive program that affects the wellbeing of our citizenry.
In the mean time, President Potter offered a long term solution by creating new programs. Unfortunately, the curriculum approval process for new programs is measured in years and there is no guarantee that any newly developed program will attract a large number of students. In the case of SCSU, short term solutions are desperately needed. Looking at the bigger picture beyond program development for revenue generation, the budget deficit at SCSU is predicted to get worse next fiscal year approaching $16 million. SCSU has now lost nearly 25% of its students in four years and layoffs are imminent.
It was reported that approximately 75% of all the courses taken by aviation students were non-aviation courses throughout the university. These non-aviation courses formed the liberal arts foundation for aviation students who came to SCSU from around the world. Most private businesses would be out of business if they lost revenue from nearly one-quarter of their customers over a four year period of time. With the severe enrollment decline and a critical demand for aviation workers, perhaps it's time for SCSU to open its doors to aviation students from around the world once again.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2015 3:49 PM
Comment 1 by Overseas student at 04-Feb-15 10:40 AM
This brings out a variety of facts to the table as to why should aviation be a concern to the community , going back to the fact that there is a school 250 miles away from st cloud is true but it is not as economical and affordable as st cloud, aviation is not just important to the military fighting terrorisim but also to the shortage of pilots in the civilian world. Airlines have been starving for pilots after the introduced their 1500 hour rule back in August.
It seems that SCSU decision makers and the world around it are not connected to see what really needs to be done.
Public information, private meetings?
Let's have a hypothetical discussion about whether it's possible to hold a private meeting where public information is being disseminated to the public. Let's view this within the context of Minnesota's open meeting laws.
Isn't it impossible to argue that an organization that accepts money from Minnesota's general fund budget isn't subject to Minnesota's open meeting laws? Isn't it impossible to argue that that institute of society isn't subject to pubic scrutiny?
Let's stipulate that a public entity that's subject to Minnesota's Data Practices Act is also subject to Minnesota's open meeting laws. If I can get information on a university's budget through a Minnesota Data Practices Act request, shouldn't I also be able to get that information by attending that university's meeting where that information is handed out? If not, why not?
Here's the specific language of Minnesota's Open Meetings Statutes :
13D.01 MEETINGS MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; EXCEPTIONS.
Subdivision 1.In executive branch, local government. All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public
(a) of a state
(1) agency,
(2) board,
(3) commission, or
(4) department,
when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting;
(b) of the governing body of a
(1) school district however organized,
(2) unorganized territory,
(3) county,
(4) statutory or home rule charter city,
(5) town, or
(6) other public body ;
(c) of any
(1) committee,
(2) subcommittee,
(3) board,
(4) department, or
(5) commission,
of a public body; and
(d) of the governing body or a committee of:
(1) a statewide public pension plan defined in section 356A.01, subdivision 24; or
(2) a local public pension plan governed by sections 424A.091 to 424A.096, or chapter 354A, or Laws 2013, chapter 111, article 5, sections 31 to 42.
Subd. 2.Exceptions. This chapter does not apply
(1) to meetings of the commissioner of corrections;
(2) to a state agency, board, or commission when it is exercising quasi-judicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings; or
(3) as otherwise expressly provided by statute.
Subd. 3.Subject of and grounds for closed meeting. Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.
Subd. 4.Votes to be kept in journal. (a) The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose.
(b) The vote of each member must be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute.
Subd. 5.Public access to journal. The journal must be open to the public during all normal business hours where records of the public body are kept.
§ Subd. 6.Public copy of members' materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.
(b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings.
I highlighted the part titled "other public body" because the other descriptions don't fit a university on point. There's no question, though, that a university is "a public body." Then there's this:
Subd. 6.Public copy of members' materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.
At this not-totally-hypothetical meeting in question, budget documents were handed out, which makes sense since it was an informational meeting on this university's budget. There's no question that I could get a copy of these budget documents if I wanted a copy of them simply by submitting a Data Practices Act request.
Shouldn't I be permitted to gather that information simply by attending this informational meeting? I'd love hearing the twisted, tortured logic explaining why I shouldn't be able to gather this public information by attending but that I could get through a DPAR.
The spin on that explanation would make a Clinton dizzy.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2015 4:33 PM
No comments.
Charting the Future's deceptions
A ton of research highlighted Charting the Future's deceptions. CtF isn't Chancellor Rosenstone's vision for MnSCU. It's a collaboration of major corporations through the Minnesota Business Partnership, a powerful trade organization (MHTA), a Minnesota-based consulting firm (McKinsey & Co.) and a well-connected former Minnesota politician (Margaret Anderson-Kelliher). Mostly, it's the work of McKinsey & Company under the title of the Itasca Project.
First, McKinsey & Company isn't " New York-based " like Chancellor Rosenstone described them as. Here's the truth:
Based on this map, McKinsey & Co. is a Minneapolis-based consulting firm. Further, MHTA is tied into CtF. Here's a little information on MHTA :
The group identified a four-part strategy:
- Align academic offerings with workforce needs
- Foster an ecosystem of research and innovation
- Form new collaborations across higher education to optimize system-wide intellectual assets and efficiency
- Graduate more students with the foundational and technical skills needed to drive Minnesota's prosperity
First, government bureaucracies don't "form new collaborations" to "optimize system-wide intellectual assets and efficiency." It'd be great if they did but bureaucracies don't do those things unless they're forced by the changing of state statutes.
That raises red flags. If CtF's goal isn't to make MnSCU more efficient, what is CtF's goal? Is there an ulterior motive behind CtF? If there is an ulterior motive driving CtF, what is it? According to IFO's letter to Dr. Rosenstone, the savings from CtF are imaginary :
In the past decade, MnSCU has spent money by the tens of millions on IT consultants that claimed they would create efficiencies that would result in efficiencies for students - student tuitions still continued to skyrocket. The only savings we have seen for students in recent years came from the legislative buy down of tuition rates.
When lobbyists, corporations and consultants put a plan together, nothing good will come of it.
According to this webpage , Margaret Anderson Kelliher is the president & CEO of the Minnesota High Tech Association, aka the MHTA. She's also the vice-chair of the MnSCU Board of Trustees Executive Committee.
In other words, McKinsey wasn't hired by MnSCU to implement CtF. They were hired by MnSCU to create , then implement, CtF. That's definitely a significant deception.
I didn't have high hopes for CtF prior to this research. I have less faith in it after doing the research.
Posted Tuesday, February 3, 2015 2:50 PM
No comments.
SCSU's budget mysteries
Budget Mysteries
by Silence Dogood
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, SCSU's FY2015 budget was publically unveiled at a Budget Advisory Group (BAG) Meeting. The document released is reproduced below:
Despite all of the information on this sheet, this document is incomplete because it only shows the general fund budget. It does not show any information about the other revenue funds. Why this is important will become evident shortly.
If you look at the bottom of the column "FY14 YTD", it appears that in FY14, SCSU had a one-year operating loss of $708,000. At the last Town Hall Budget Meeting, President Potter publically stated that because of the extremely cold weather last year the heating expenses for FY14 were $700,000 over what was budgeted. If the winter weather had been 'average,' the university would have suffered only an $8,000 loss. You can't do a better job of budgeting than that. Truly amazing!
Through April 2014, the table below represented what the Office of Finance and Administration had on its website for the university's budget:
In this document, although showing much less detail than the budget released on October 22, 2014, you can see a prediction of revenue of $146,116,203 and expenses of $146,116,203 for the general fund - thus projecting a balanced budget for the general fund. These numbers are both slightly smaller than those reported in the budget presented on October 22, 2014, where for FY14 the revenue was listed as $148,454,000 and the expenses listed as 149,162,000, which is the origin of the $708,000 deficit in the general fund budget. But, all in all, the agreement is not too bad!
In addition to showing the general fund budget, this abbreviated budget document clearly shows a column labeled "Other Funds". For FY14, the budget for these "Other Funds" shows an expected income of $64,121,985 and expected expenses of $64,121,985 thus projecting a balanced budget for these "Other Funds."
It is important to recognize that the total operating budget is the sum of the general fund budget and the revenue fund budget (i.e., the "Other Funds"). For FY14, this document projected a balanced budget for the total operating budget.
As previously mentioned, a deficit of $708,000 out of a general fund budget of nearly $150,000,000 is truly amazing budgeting/accounting. Additionally, a deficit like this is exactly what reserve accounts are intended to cover. MnSCU requires each university to carry a minimum 5% reserve. On a total operating budget of $210,000,000 this amounts to a reserve of $10,500,000. Clearly, a $708,000 loss will not greatly affect the required reserve for the university.
In the abbreviated budget document, it also shows that for FY13 that there was a surplus of $4,456,154 in the general fund. Additionally, the "Other Funds" budget shows a surplus of $100,615. Combined, the total of all funds in FY 13 show revenues of $184,415,920 against expenses of $179,859,151 for a net surplus of $4,556,769. With an FY13 surplus of $4,556,769 and a $10,500,000 reserve, the $708,000 shortfall for FY14 should not create any financial hardship going into FY15.
In the budget presented October 22, 2014, the eye-popping projected deficit for FY15 of $9,542,000 resulted in the requirement by MnSCU that Vice President of Finance and Administration Tammy McGee develop a plan to bring SCSU's budget back into balance. On January 8, 2015, Vice President McGee provided the BAG the shell document for planning the budget for FY16 and beyond, which is reproduced below:
In looking at this document, it shows that there was a Net Operating Income loss of $11,555,000 for FY14. It is important to note that this document shows that this loss results from the sum of the general fund and revenue fund. In the original budget document (for the "SCSU General Fund"), the loss shown for FY14 is $708,000 - in this budget document information about the "Other Funds" was omitted. In the abbreviated budget document showing both the general fund and the revenue fund, it showed a zero difference between revenues and expenses. How can there now be a loss of $11,555,000?
Looking back at the abbreviated budget, it showed projected revenues and expenses of $210,238,188. This latest document shows revenues of $225,749,000 and expenses of $233,152,000. As a result, the revenue prediction was $15,510,812 low and the expense prediction was $22,913,812 low. The difference between the revenue and expenses shows a deficit of $7,403,000. When added to the expenses for capitol appropriations of $4,152,000, the deficit for FY14 grows to $11,555,000. While it seemed impressive that on a budget of $150,000,000 there was only a deficit of $708,000, we now find that on the total operating budget of $225,749,000, there is actually a deficit of $11,555,000. Oops!!!
So, just where does the university come up with $11,555,000?
In looking through the audit reports from FY08 through FY14, the following figure shows the amount of "Unrestricted Cash." This is cash that can be spent for just about any purpose:
Clearly, from FY13 to FY14 there is a drop in the Unrestricted Cash of $13,000,000, which would cover the Net Operating Income loss of $11,555,000 for FY'14 with $1,440,000 left over for a couple trips to China. The part about the trips to China is only partly joking because no explanation has ever been offered of where the additional $1,400,000 went and President Potter seems to enjoy travelling to China. In fact, this is the first time the administration has publically distributed a document showing that the FY14 deficit was bigger than $708,000.
The January 8th document shows that for FY'14, when incorporating the revenue fund budget, the deficit jumped by $10,847,000 (from $708,000 to $11,555,000). At this point, what is missing from the information presented to date is a direct means to compare apples to apples. Unfortunately, President Potter continues to talk about FY14 like it is not a big deal focusing on a $708,000 deficit in the general fund when the total operational budget deficit appears to be $11,555,000. This sounds an awful lot like Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned. In a sense, there really is no problem if there is money in the Unrestricted Cash to cover the deficit. However, there is a deficit and it certainly appears to be much larger than $708,000!
Having to cover the deficit for FY14 from the Unrestricted Cash and seeing these kinds of eye-popping deficit numbers for FY15 has created a renewed sense of urgency on the part of the administration. President Potter, in his Spring Convocation address, even said: "We face some challenges ahead."
If the budget projection from the October 22, 2014 document for FY15 of a deficit of $9,542,000 in the general fund is accurate (note that this document does not disclose the revenue fund account budget), without making spending cuts, this would leave the Unrestricted Cash with a balance of only $5,758,000, which is far less than the minimum reserve required by MnSCU, which, as noted before, is in the range of $10,500,000. However, without budget information about the "Other Funds," it is impossible to know anything precisely about the true financial condition of SCSU.
What's really scary is that for FY14 the projected deficit was $0 and it ended up being $11,555,000. Now with an acknowledged projected deficit of $9,542,000, if they are off by as much as they were in FY14, will there be any of the Unrestricted Cash left to cover the deficit?
Clearly, there are financial problems at SCSU but it remains a mystery how big the problem is and why there are so many discrepancies in the numbers that have been reported. In the realm of religion an explanation that the foundation for a belief is simple a mystery to be taken by faith may work for believers, but in the realm of finance and budget cutting relying on a mystery just does not cut it.
Posted Tuesday, February 3, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment 1 by Diana at 05-Feb-15 09:14 PM
One thing that should be pointed out is that St Cloud State receives over $6 million more in state appropriation than Mankato State does even though Mankato State has 2,000 more student FYE enrollment. St Cloud State's financial picture would be even more dire if the MnSCU system allocation model didn't reward schools that had declining enrollment and punish schools with growing or stable enrollment. Look it up. You won't believe the inequity in state appropriation funding that exists because of the broken allocation model that the MnSCU system office uses.
MnSCU reform & missing the point
This Our View editorial includes some valid points but misses the big picture. This paragraph misses the big picture:
MnSCU, ultimately, needs to get its act together. Its connection with the schools that compose the system will always be a challenge, simply because of the way the system is designed - the argument that the schools don't need a central office, or at least one not nearly as bloated as it is now , will always be relevant. But the degree to which those connections are now fractured is inexcusable.The MnSCU Central Office is the central question in reforming that dysfunctional organization. If that condition isn't fixed, other initiatives will be essentially irrelevant. In talking with SCSU employees throughout the years, it's clear that MnSCU isn't liked by anyone across the political spectrum. When asked what important function the Central Office performs, I haven't heard any professor attempt to offer a justification for MnSCU's existence.
That's telling.
This will sound harsh but it's accurate. MnSCU's Central Office spends millions of dollars on itself, including significant amounts on lobbying the legislature. That's why it's headquartered only a couple miles from the Capitol.
The dispute is over MnSCU's Charting the Future plan, the internally vaunted plan that almost immediately fell apart when it left the laboratory. MnSCU put together all kinds of committees and paid a lot of money to work on the long-term strategic plan for the statewide system, all of which came under fire this fall when numerous faculty associations and student senates publicly fought the plan while calling for the end of MnSCU Chancellor Steven Rosenstone's tenure.First, "internally vaunted plan" is spin for saying MnSCU, MHTA and McKinsey & Co are hyping the hell out of this initiative. CtF isn't a spectacular "long-term strategic plan" that Chancellor Rosenstone has spent millions of dollars on. It's Rosenstone's desperate attempt to appear relevant:
The biggest concern, among many, was that the plan would erode the kind of autonomy state technical schools and universities such as Winona State University and Southeast Technical College have used to effectively and nimbly serve their unique communities, not to mention ignore or erase the kinds of great partnerships schools in the same areas have already forged.If Winona State, aka WSU, and Southeast Technical College "have collaborated to streamline back-end operations", shouldn't taxpayers, Gov. Dayton and the legislature demand that from all technical and community colleges and universities? If these institutes can put something together, shouldn't we eliminate MnSCU's Central Office and tell these community colleges and universities to put together these partnerships?
WSU and Southeast Tech, for instance, have collaborated to streamline back-end operations and ensure they're responding to the changing needs of the business community.
It's apparent that individual universities and colleges are capable of working collaboratively. Shouldn't that become the blueprint for reform?
The Winona Daily News couldn't be further from the truth than with this:
Sounds like all these folks need a mediator to provide a bit of oversight, right? How about a champion of higher education, somebody who had the foresight, experience and connections to effectively freeze tuition at all state schools the past two years, somebody who has worked hard to ensure state higher-ed money is spent on student success, not administrative salaries, somebody who dared call foul when MnSCU's entire argument for extra funding two years ago consisted of a brief PowerPoint presentation that looked like it was created on deadline by an uninspired high-school student.Rep. Pelowski was chairman of the House Higher Education Committee for 2 years. During that time, I contacted Rep. Pelowski with specific information about where MnSCU universities were ripping off taxpayers. Frequently, I called for oversight hearings. Those oversight hearings didn't happen. During the 2014 session, for example, then-Chairman Pelowski held 4 meetings of the House Higher Education Committee. One meeting was to hear MnSCU's bonding requests. Another meeting was to hear the U of M's bonding requests. A third hearing was a procedural hearing. The fourth meeting was to approve a supplemental funding bill for MnSCU.
So here's our nomination - and we know how much Rosenstone will like it - Rep. Gene Pelowski.
Rumor has it that Rep. Pelowski isn't a fan of MnSCU. Unfortunately, there's no proof of that. What's worse is that there's ample proof that Rep. Pelowski is willing to pull his punches. Apparently, he isn't the tiger he professes to be when political allies pressure him.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2015 9:22 AM
No comments.
Are Jeb, Hillary yesterday's news?
If there's a headline for these polling results , it's that Jeb's frontrunner status is disappearing a little bit each day:
Bush, who leads with moderate Republicans, is falling out of favor with the party as a whole. His favorability rating has dropped 16 points among GOP voters since December.
That isn't the only bad news from PPP's polling:
The biggest story is Walker. This marks the first time PPP has found the Wisconsin governor in the lead pack in a 2016 poll. Despite his success, Walker is relatively unknown in North Carolina - 49% of the general population and 41% of Republicans have no opinion of him. He performs well with both very conservative and somewhat conservative voters, however, coming in second and third, respectively. Ben Carson leads with both groups.
It appears as though President Obama and Gov. Walker are right that voters want someone fresh in 2016. If that's true, which I think it is, that's terrible news for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats nominate Hillary and the GOP nominates Bush, this will be a low turnout election. If, however, Republicans nominate Scott Walker, Republicans will have a significant enthusiasm gap advantage on their side.
When a candidate is well-known but his approval/disapproval rating is underwater, it's proof that voters have rejected him. When a candidate has a positive approval/disapproval rating and they're relatively unknown, that usually means that he's got room to grow. The more people hear about him, the more likely it is that he'll gain in popularity.
For better or worse, Jeb and Hillary are known quantities. They won't excite the nation. They're mostly check-the-box uninspiring candidates. Scott Walker is one of the 'X-Factor candidates' in the race. Hillary has a ceiling. Ditto with Jeb. Scott Walker's ceiling is definitely higher. Whether he reaches that higher ceiling hasn't been determined yet. That will be determined by whether he runs a strong, positive campaign.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2015 12:18 PM
Comment 1 by WALTER Hanson at 05-Feb-15 07:15 AM
Gary:
Three thoughts about your post.
One, what helped to bring Hillary down in 2008 is that there was a desire for a fresh face. Thus when Obama showed up that there was a fresh face and that helped carry him to victory.
Two, you mentioned excite the base. In 2012 Hillary will have a problem with two of the bases the blacks and the Hispanics. The reason being the black pride that might have bought out large number of blacks in 2008 and 2012 which sat the 2010 and 2014 elections won't be there. As for Hispanics unless they are voting illegally their percentage is likely not to increase let alone vote the rate they voted for Obama. Especially if the Republican courts those part of the base.
And three, both in 2008 and 2012 I went out voted for McCain and Romney even though in theory they didn't excite me. In 2016 the right candidate like a Walker will be appealing and trying to get the base to want to vote by talking about their issues. That gives as you said an upside to most of the Republican candidates in the general. Jeb won't have it!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gov. Dayton, stupidity & TV ads
Gov. Dayton is criticizing Wisconsin's tourism ads that feature former NBA superstar Kareem Abdul Jabbar and actor Robert Hays:
Gov. Mark Dayton, who rarely misses a chance to bash Minnesota's neighbors to the east, has branded a TV ad campaign for Wisconsin tourism as "one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen."
The ads play off the 1980 disaster movie spoof "Airplane." Actor Robert Hays and former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who appeared in the film, are reunited in the cockpit of an airplane that's flying low over scenes of Wisconsin tourism.
That's rich, especially coming from the buffoon whose signature accomplishment, MNsure, ran this ad:
I wrote this article to highlight MNsure's Paul Bunyan ads at the time. Running whimsical ads on a serious subject is the definition of idiotic. Running a whimsical ad on a subject like tourism is clever. Running a whimsical ad that highlights a state's biggest celebrity and picturesque scenes of the state is smart advertising. What's not to love about this?
When it comes to public displays of foolishness, it's difficult to find a public official who has 'accomplished' more than Gov. Dayton.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2015 12:56 PM
Comment 1 by WALTER Hanson at 05-Feb-15 07:07 AM
Gary:
Simple theory for why Governor Dayton is attacking it. The ad works! And at the same time he ignores his ad didn't work.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 06-Feb-15 05:42 PM
ROFLOL that is cute. And the left says conservatives are "joyless scolds....."
LL
