February 11-13, 2015
Feb 11 08:04 Potter's Dorm Occupancy Lies Feb 11 08:37 Environmentalists: Minnesota's transportation experts? Feb 11 22:47 The (DFL's) transportation hustle Feb 11 23:11 Potter making things up Feb 12 14:30 Gov. Dayton's fixation Feb 13 01:12 Old-fashioned dishonesty Feb 13 02:37 St. Cloud Times and axe grinding Feb 13 12:50 Highlighting the Dayton-Bakk Fiasco Feb 13 15:53 Bakk's tightrope act
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Potter's Dorm Occupancy Lies
Dorm Occupancy Lies
by Silence Dogood
Just because someone says something repeatedly doesn't make it true! Last November at a Town Hall Meeting, the following slide was shown documenting the decline in the occupancy in the residence halls:
Clearly, the number of students electing to live in a university residence hall has been declining. If that was the goal, "Mission Accomplished." However, also shown in the graph is the FYE enrollment. If you determine the percentage of the number of students in the residence halls (including Coborn's Plaza) of the FYE enrollment, you obtain the following figure:
What this figure shows is that, as a percentage of the total FYE, the percentage of students living in university housing is certainly not decreasing but actually might be slightly INCREASING! Repeatedly, the administration has said: "we don't have the type of accommodations wanted by students." The data clearly shows that this statement is not true. It has also been said: "more students are electing to live at home." Again, the data seems to contradict this statement as well. Further, the administration has said: "with more part-time students, there are fewer students wanting to live in university residence halls." If this or the two prior assertions were true, the percentage in residence halls should be declining. It is not.
In the FY15 Financial Recovery Plan released on January 28, 2015, there is the statement:
"The majority of individuals living in residence halls are freshman students."
What the administration has failed to recognize is that the decrease in occupancy in the residence halls is due almost entirely to the decrease in the number of new entering freshmen students (NEF). The following figure shows the NEF enrollment by Fall Term from Fall'08 to Fall'14.
The administration's plot of the residence hall occupancy showed data from FY2010 to FY2014. From the data from the NEF Headcount Enrollment for this same time period, the NEF enrollment dropped from Fall'09 (2,390) to Fall'13 (1,703) by 687 students, which translates into a decline of 28.7%.
Using the data in the administration's plot of the residence hall occupancy shows the number of students in residence halls dropped from 2,888 in FY2010 to 2,296 in FY2014, which is a decline of 592 and corresponds to a decrease of 20.4%.
The NEF enrollment declined 28.7%. The number of students living in residence halls declined 20.4%. Clearly, the decline in residence hall occupancy is a simple fact that there are fewer NEF students enrolling in SCSU. As a result, the decline in dormitory occupancy has NOTHING to do with students not wanting to live in traditional dormitory style housing or more students wanting to live at home or even wanting to go to school part-time and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the NEF enrollment at SCSU has fallen off a cliff.
At some point, the administration should stop repeating the mantra about demographics, part-time students, the lack of desirable housing, etc: and recognize that the enrollment decline at SCSU is a failure on the part of the administration to market SCSU and recruit students. Everything else is just trying to find someone or something to blame.
Real leaders accept responsibility. Rather than accepting responsibility, this administration just prays it's coated with Teflon.
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:04 AM
No comments.
Environmentalists: Minnesota's transportation experts?
This statement from this fluff piece is stunning:
"Although there is a lack of data on all the health impacts and the exact risk to specific communities, that lack of data should not keep us from acting," Kristin Raab, climate and health program coordinator for MDH, said in a statement.
TRANSLATION: Just because we can't prove that climate change is impacting people's health doesn't mean you shouldn't trust us.
You'd think that Kristin Raab is an MD based on that statement. According to this , she isn't:
KRISTIN RAAB
BA in Political Science, University of Minnesota
MPH in Epidemiology, University of Minnesota
MLA in Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota
Now that we've determined that Ms. Raab isn't a doctor, it's time to determine what she is.
Ms. Raab isn't just employed by the Minnesota Department of Health. She was a presenter at the ASLA-MN conference in May, 2013 . For those who didn't know, ASLA stands for the American Society of Landscape Architects. Here are some things that ASLA advocates for:
Transportation :
Landscape architects help communities by designing multi-use transportation corridors that accommodate all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, people with disabilities, and people who use public transportation. These multi-use transportation systems reduce reliance on a single-use automotive transport, which in turn reduces traffic, improves air quality, and promotes a sustainable way of life. Join ASLA in urging our policymakers to support transportation for all.
Another thing ASLA advocates for is " community design and development ":
ASLA actively encourages communities to create or improve access to places that enable physical activity, including parks, recreational facilities, bicycle paths, walking trails, and sidewalks.
Ms. Raab hasn't hidden the fact that she's an environmental activist. That puts her opinions into question. It's apparent that she believes in the green lifestyle. That, in turn, raises the question of whether she's questioned any of this study's findings.
It isn't a stretch to question whether there's anything objective about her.
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:37 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 12-Feb-15 04:48 PM
We have far better evidence that minimum wage increases inhibit economic growth, disproportionately so for the young and minorities. But facts here matter less if (at all) than unsupportable hysteria on climate.
The (DFL's) transportation hustle
Terry Stone's LTE highlights what's wrong with how transportation issues get settled. Here's what happens that inevitably leads to chaos:
Currently, state transportation planning is done by various counties, cities and the Met Council. Then the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the Port of Duluth, the Port of St. Paul and a slug of lobbying groups chime in. Minnesota Department of Transportation and the University of Minnesota have their own ideas and the Legislature has theirs. The federal government uses money to push its own agenda. Intelligent planning for efficient pipelines and safe, efficient railroad infrastructure are largely left to the private sector.
When the transportation suggestions from this gaggle of transportation planners hit the Legislature, the lobbyists descend upon St. Paul like a hungry horde of locusts. Frequently, the special interests with the most effective lobbyists end up with the transportation projects they want.
What could possibly go wrong with so many people wanting their slice of the transportation pie? This isn't a failure of too few dollars to meet Minnesota's transportation needs. It's that there's too few dollars to fund the special interests' wish list items and too little time spent prioritizing Minnesota's transportation needs .
Why isn't the DFL putting the highest priority on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges? Why is the DFL paying any attention to increasing transit funding? What proof do we have that transit ridership is increasing dramatically?
The DFL had complete control of Minnesota government in 2013 and 2014. They could have created a state planning agency to develop a plan for building and funding transportation intelligently. Instead, they chose the politically expedient status quo. Now we are being herded and asked to believe that only massive tax increases can allow Minnesota to perform a core function of government; building and maintaining roads and bridges.
I'll just add that we're being railroaded into thinking that our transportation needs have dramatically increased since the DFL held total control of government in 2013-2014. In 2008, Steve Murphy pushed through a massive tax increase that was supposed to solve this problem. At the time, Sen. Murphy bragged that he wasn't "hiding anything. There's lots of taxes " in his bill.
At the time, the DFL, with Sen. Murphy leading the way, told Minnesota that our roads and bridges were crumbling and only a massive tax increase could fix the situation. It's 6 years later and the DFL is telling us that our roads and bridges are crumbling and only a massive tax increase will fill the potholes and fix Minnesota's bridges.
When I went back to my original post about Sen. Murphy's quote, I noticed something that I'd forgotten. Sen. Murphy wanted the gas tax increased, then indexing the gas tax with the CPI. Before another step is taken, the first thing that needs to happen is determine what Minnesota's transportation needs are. I'm totally disinterested in what's included in the lobbyists' wish lists. I'm just interested Minnesota's roads being in good repair and Minnesota's bridges being safe.
This is great advice:
It's time to think twice before buying into this transportation panic scenario. The Minnesota House has a thoughtful, calm plan to fund roads and bridges without raising a dime of new taxes. The plan deserves our careful consideration.
The DFL's manufactured transportation crisis should be ignored. The DFL had the opportunity to fix Minnesota's highways and bridges last spring when they controlled all of the levers of political power. They didn't get it done. In fact, they adjourned several days before the constitutional deadline.
It's time to focus solely on roads and bridges. Everything else is a nicety.
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:47 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 12-Feb-15 07:36 AM
How about spending all money derived from gas taxes, vehicle taxes, and vehicle licenses on roads and bridges and let mass transit get their own money? Too simple I know.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Feb-15 02:36 PM
I've advocated for that for years.
Potter making things up
Just Make Up The Numbers As You Go Along
by Silence Dogood
At the Meet and Confer held on Thursday, February 5, 2015, President Potter praised the accuracy of the Data Analytics Group's enrollment projection--specifically stating that they were only a few students away from the projected unduplicated headcount enrollment of over 19,500 students. Unfortunately, President Potter is mistaken because the enrollment projections deal with FYE enrollment, not headcount, which perhaps is a small (but important) detail.
The figure below is reproduced from the website for the Office of Strategy, Planning and Research:
As stated, it is a day-to-day comparison of the FYE enrollment for each term in FY15. The middle table shows the enrollment projections compared with the current enrollment for the corresponding term. Since Summer 2014 and Fall 2014 are now final enrollment numbers, the only number that can change is the current term - Spring 2015. With the 30th Day Enrollment approaching, the numbers will increase by only a small amount as the rest of the Senior-to-Sophomore students for Spring Semester are registered.
Clearly, the middle table shows that the projection for the year is within 7 FYE of the current enrollment. In fact, the current enrollment is 7 FYE higher than the projected enrollment. Unfortunately, all of this fails to recognize that the Data Analytics Group's original enrollment projection, the number upon which the budget was based last May, was for a 3.2% decline.
The administration wants everyone to believe that AFTER Summer 2014, when the enrollment was 15 FYE higher than projected, it was necessary to increase the projected decline from 3.2% to a decline of 4-5%. What's more likely is that the Summer 2014 enrollment was far below their projection and the Fall Semester registration last April and the new first-year student orientation numbers during the summer were below expectations so that it was clear that the fall enrollment was going to be declining more than 3.2%. Clearly, it is illogical to believe that if the summer enrollment was actually larger than the enrollment projection that it was necessary to increase the projected decline.
What you see here is an example of revisionist history. The enrollment projections were simply changed to suit the desired outcome. In September, the administration issued a revised projection for a decline of 4-5% and, like back-dating a check, were made to appear as if they were the original projection. This is quite clear when you look at the final table, where the enrollment projections are compared with last year's final enrollment number, it clearly shows a projected decline of 5.2%. The obvious question is why would the administration repeatedly say that the 'revised' enrollment projection in September was for a decline of 4-5% when if it is to be believed that the last table was "Based on projection generated on May 6, 2014?"
If the administration was projecting a decline of 4-5%, you might expect to see the data in the table show a projected decline of 4.5%, which is in the middle of the projected decline - not 5.2%, which is outside of the projection's range. This simply doesn't make sense unless you live in Wonderland. However, many strange things seem to happen at SCSU. After losing $6,400,000 in the first four years of operation, in an interview with the St. Cloud Times editorial board last February, President Potter stated that Coborn's Plaza was a "success." The follow up question should have been "Just how do you define success?"
The three public enrollment projections for FY15 were for declines of 3.2%, 4-5% and 5.2%. Just like a stopped watch is right twice a day, given enough guesses, I'm sure President Potter will eventually end up with a projection that matches the actual outcome and he can feel good about the accuracy of the Data Analytics Group's projections. Too bad, random chance is just as likely to be right.
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:11 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's fixation
Gov. Dayton's justification for his pay increases is a novel approach:
Gov. Dayton's documents show Hennepin and Dakota County administrators make more than Minnesota's highest paid Commissioners, who earn $154,000.
Hennepin County's top administrator earns $194,750; Dakota County's administrator, $165,776. City managers in St. Louis Park, Edina, Woodbury and Eden Prairie all make more than top state commissioners.
So do Department directors in Minneapolis, Bloomington and Hennepin County.
Here's a partial list:
St. Louis Park Manager - $162,240
Edina Manager - $157,602
Woodbury Administrator - $157,227
Minneapolis Public Works - $156,997
Bloomington Public Works - $156,148
Hennepin County Transportation - $156,000
Eden Prairie Manager - $155,584
In Plymouth, the City manager makes $142,800, about the same ($144,991) as the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Agriculture, Civil Rights, Commerce and Labor.
Apparently, Gov. Dayton's justification for overpaying his commissioners is that poorly run cities and counties are overpaying their employees even worse. Here's the job description of the Hennepin County Administrator:
The county administrator makes recommendations to the county board, implements its policies, provides leadership to the organization and assures effective delivery of county services.
That's worth $200,000 a year? That's insulting. Further, cities and counties that overpay their administrators, directors and managers have to pay for that somehow, most likely with higher property taxes.
That means Gov. Dayton is justifying his pay increases by citing city and county employees that are driving up cities' and counties' property taxes. Further, where's the proof that these cities' and counties' employees are actually doing a good job? That's got to be part of the discussion, doesn't it?
I won't even get into that with Gov. Dayton's commissioners. Myron Frans is the highest paid commissioner at $154,992. Frans is the corruptocrat that accepted the gambling lobby's estimate that e-pull tabs would bring in $35,000,000 per year, which was supposed to pay for the public's share of the Vikings stadium. The estimate Frans approved fell just $32,600,000 short of what was needed. Based on his incompetence-to-salary ratio, we'd need to pay commissioners $500,000 a year, not $155,000.
Finally, if these cities want to pay their employees these salaries, then it's time to question whether they need LGA.
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:30 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 12-Feb-15 04:39 PM
A LTE in the Strib today makes the point that public sector employees quit at one third the rate of the private sector. Which means the pay is just fine, perhaps even too high. And why should they quit when given platinum benefits, well-appointed facilities, and far better job security?
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 12-Feb-15 04:49 PM
Used to be public employees made less than private sector employees but had better benefits and didn't have the fear of losing their job due to poor performance hanging over their heads. Now they are paid just as well if not better, still have great benefits and retirements, and you still can't get rid of them when they perform poorly. And if we are successful at removing them, the just end up in some other public sector job making even more money.
If these commissioner and the like don't like what they are paid, they can go to the private sector and see if they can make as much. Paying public sector employees top dollar does not get the state the best and brightest talent out there.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 13-Feb-15 02:36 PM
I remember when a high profile, well paid, well respected non-profit Executive Director resigned, planning to pick a nice Public Relations plum from among our many large corporations. This was 20+ years ago, times were good, and - no offers. Not one. The Strib even ran a sympathetic B section piece on him, as puzzled as he was. The "public" class doesn't quite get what we grunts in the private sector value. I dare these "underpaid" commissioners to try working without a net. Would you buy a used car from Myron Frans?
Old-fashioned dishonesty
At Some Point, It's Just Dishonesty
by Silence Dogood
President Potter has repeatedly praised the Data Analytics Workgroup for the accuracy of their enrollment projections. Does his praise actually match with the facts? The figure below is reproduced from the website for the Office of Strategy, Planning and Research:
In following the enrollment for Spring semester, each day I looked at the enrollment report available through SAMS2. On January 3, 2015, I took a screen shot of one of the enrollment tabs:
Interestingly, this particular link has subsequently been removed. However, note that the FYE Projections in the two tables do not match. For Summer 2014 (918 vs. 903); for Fall 2014 (5,806 vs. 5,799); and for Spring 2015 (5,074 vs. 5,033). In each case, the projection that was supposedly "generated on May 6, 2014" has been made smaller. The total difference is only 63 FYE out of 12,381 FYE, which corresponds to an error of only 0.51%. So, the number is almost insignificant. However, this is clear proof that the projections have changed!
Can projections change? Absolutely. However, it's simply dishonest if you change them and then say that they were the projections all along.
It is also interesting to note that last table in both figures shows the comparison of the FYE Projection vs. the Previous Year Final FYE. In the first table, the enrollment is down -646 FYE. Out of an enrollment of 12,381, the decline is -5.2%. In the second table, the enrollment is down -583 out of an enrollment of 12,381 is also down -5.2%. I guess you can tell what they wanted the projection to show. However, unless this is an example of 'new math,' the math simply doesn't work out correctly. It should have been down -4.7%, which would more closely match the administration's prediction in the Fall of being down in the range of 4-5%.
Changing the enrollment projections and passing them off as the original numbers is dishonest. If this type of deception had been committed by an SCSU student, it might have triggered a review under SCSU's new Academic Dishonesty Policy. As it is, it will likely go unchallenged and attributed to the ravings of a few disgruntled faculty.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2015 1:12 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud Times and axe grinding
Accepting the "Axe Grinding Challenge" from the St Cloud Times
By Jeff Johnson, Ph.D.
Last weekend, I took another opportunity to grind my ax. I just can't help it...it's what I do. That's because a freshly sharpened ax blade is much more efficient and safe. You will spend less time at the wood pile and decrease your chances of injury.
Not long ago, the Times Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Our View: Johnson, set down your ax or quit council . It's apparent that not everyone has an appreciation for ax grinding.
Let's start this conversation with some additional background information about me. For some time, I had multiple responsibilities, starting with my responsibilities as an aviation professor at St. Cloud State. Later, I gained additional responsibilities as a member of the St. Cloud City Council. Because I was both a professor in St. Cloud State's aviation program and a member of the St. Cloud City Council, I had a unique insight into things.
For instance, as an aviation professor, I knew the flight training operations conducted by SCSU aviation students greatly impacted the airport's bottom line. In March 2011, the St. Cloud Regional Airport Manager Bill Towle was involved in an airport usage study. According to Towle's report, 45% of the total airport operations (a takeoff and landing is an operation) were attributed to SCSU aviation students. One airport advisory board member said the results were actually closer to 49%.
As an aviation professor, I knew that flight training costs were paid by the students, not SCSU. Since the St. Cloud Regional Airport is under the jurisdiction of the city, it became apparent that, of all the departments on the SCSU campus, the aviation department had the greatest economic impact on the city.
An argument could be made that my dual role presented a conflict of interest. Perhaps, but does this translate into a personal agenda that benefits me at the expense of the taxpayers? The Times Our View editorial made this statement:
"Either stop using elected position to push his personal agenda or step down from council"
After making that assumption, the Times' editorial board didn't explain how I'd personally gain from the questions I've asked.
Although some people simply dismiss me as being a disgruntled employee who lost his job teaching aviation, there is more to the story. Although I have never questioned the authority of the Chancellor of MnSCU or St. Cloud State's president to close academic programs (which are ultimately owned by the Minnesota taxpayers), I have questioned the fact that MnSCU policies weren't followed in closing the aviation program. There were no public hearings beyond the university walls in closing aviation. In the fall of 2010, then-Provost Devinder Malhotra answered questions during the open microphone part of the University's town hall reorganization meeting. Here's what happened:
SCSU Provost Devinder Malhotra has reorganization hearings (Oct. or Nov.) with the campus community. During an open meeting in the Atwood Ballroom, Jeff Johnson asked Provost Malhotra if the administration was planning on consulting with community members "beyond the university walls" such as the Chamber of Commerce, business leaders & the public at large prior to closing academic programs because of the impact on the community. After describing the mission of MnSCU, Provost Malhotra stated, "No."
Making a decision to close a program and then "informing" the public of your decision is disingenuous. MnSCU policy requires the university to follow a specific set of steps in closing a program. Each of these steps includes written documentation. Failing to document these questions is irresponsible.
Perhaps the genesis for the aviation closure can be traced back to the City Council Study Session on August 15, 2011 when a university official got recorded giving misleading reasons as to the closure. Despite the fact the Times is aware of this video , they have refused to engage in any investigative ax grinding. This post aptly captures a summary of the conflicting rationale of the aviation department closing.
In this post (February 2, 2015), it is readily apparent that confusion amongst SCSU administrators still currently exists as to how many aviation students were in the program. As of fall 2010, it was the 10the largest program that served students from around the world. One would think that a university with declining enrollments approaching 25% FYE over a span of 4 years and a Composite Financial Index (CFI) in the toilet would be willing to at least consider reinstating a high demand program. There is presently a desperate need for regional airline and drone pilots. In this year alone, I have seen pilot job postings for 13 out of 15 crew bases for SkyWest Airlines including Chicago and Minneapolis. Despite the reduction of air service to nationwide rural markets due to pilot shortages including Minnesota (e.g., Rochester), I have never seen a community like St. Cloud who has been so excited about getting and keeping an airline blatantly disregard the severe workforce shortages.
Back to the ax grinding. I grind my ax because . . .
- the aviation program was closed in a manner not consistent with closure policies
- the aviation program was targeted before reorganization began
- the cover-up and spin from videos and other media sources nauseates me
- students came to St. Cloud from around the world to study aviation
- there is a critical demand for regional and drone pilots
- high risk youth and minorities no longer have an opportunity to study aviation at SCSU
- Mayor Dave Kleis in 2012 was told by Chancellor Steven Rosenstone that he would not discuss the aviation closure but would be open to doing lunch
- military SCSU aviation graduates protect our citizens from terrorist threats like ISIS
- military SCSU aviation graduates protect our freedoms including the Time's right to free speech in criticizing me of grinding my ax for personal gain.
According to the Times:
"Collectively, it's clear Johnson has a personal ax to grind with St. Cloud State and MnSCU."
What actually is clear to me is that the Times hasn't investigated what's happening at St. Cloud State. Why didn't the Times point out that aviation students, not the University, paid for their flight lessons? Why didn't the Time highlight the fact that the airplanes that Aviation students used for their flight lessons are owned by a small business, not the University? Why didn't the Times tell its readers that it was Aviation students, not the University, that brought in revenue to the airport? I'm waiting for the Times to tell me how my work with aviation military students and graduates in protecting their freedom is personal ax grinding, though I'm not holding my breath.
Take the "Grinding Your Ax" Challenge
Grinding your ax gets a bum rap. It's not for everyone. It takes time, commitment, fortitude and a thirst to uncover the truth. I believe in the saying "Say what you mean and mean what you say." I leave you with this pearl of wisdom from scripture. Proverbs 27:17 in the New Living Translation says, "As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend." Minnesota nice, PC silliness, personal attacks and emotional feel-goodism is not a recipe for solving complex problems.
So I challenge you to pick up your ax and take the "Grinding Your Ax" challenge. Grind it hard, grind it long, grind it openly, and grind it with American pride. Dip it in the ice bucket and watch the steam sizzle from the freshly sharpened blade. It's inspirational! Besides, no one anywhere ever said, "I had a fulfilling day changing the world by drinking the Kool-Aid!"
Posted Friday, February 13, 2015 2:37 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 13-Feb-15 05:59 AM
BRILLIANT
This should be "Our View"
Comment 2 by Silence Dogood at 13-Feb-15 06:22 AM
What's clear is that the knee-jerk response to attack the individual has become necessary because they have no answers to the questions being raised.
Comment 3 by Dave Steckling at 13-Feb-15 08:24 AM
DOUBLE BRILLIANT
May the gleam of your sharpened blade shed perpetual light on the REAL FACTS!
Comment 4 by Wanderer at 13-Feb-15 10:50 AM
Humans are strange. There is a big problem, affecting a whole community. But for some reason it is more important to "save face" by not admitting mistakes and changing course. Instead there is a tendency to plunge forward, committed to a destructive decision (or set of decisions) rather than to clearly examine consequences and reconsider in the face of new information. Let's see, I am a leader and I say we cross the frozen river here. Oh, there could be thin ice, but I've already made my decision and changing it on the basis of the warnings and debates by others would make me look weak. Oops, the ice is cracking, but I am not changing my mind. The public press will believe and uncritically share positive assertions, so I am still looking good as long as I can tap dance on the ice. Oops, still holding my course across the river but 25% of the members of my party have fallen through and been swept downstream, including one with direct positive benefits, both present and future. There have been serious consequences to the community economy. Still, the press doesn't recognize it as a consequence of any leadership decisions, so I am ok. So far the press hasn't been critical about the impact of my decisions on the larger community. They still believe that I can get across, so as long as "belief" trumps "thinking" I am ok. I don't need to reconsider, make an assessment based on the new information, and backtrack to a better crossing. This is starting to get to me, though. I am tired and despondent in my private moments. Maybe another dose of bricks-and-mortar activity will be therapeutic. Our income stream is devastated, we are financial straits, and the community is suffering, but the rationale can be developed and it will be a distraction from complex and frustrating internal problems. It will be ok, the public press has my back. The citizens, their elected representatives and appointed committee and commission members so far haven't connected the dots. They don't like bad news, but won't make waves. It will be ok if we just stay the course and they believe what they are told.
Comment 5 by Mike Sieverding at 18-Feb-15 02:40 PM
I am proud to be a 1969 graduate of SCSU. I received a fine education from extraordinary instructors and gained many new friends. While at SCSU, I was always envious of the students enrolled in the Aviation Training program, and after graduation was always proud that SCSU had such a program. After graduation I joined the Air Force and spent the next 42 years working for and with Air Force flight training and simulation programs. I was surprised to have learned that the SCSU Aviation Training program was cancelled.
After reading Dr Johnson's excellent post where he not only ground his axe, but he also presented very good reasons for the program to continue, I'm left with a nagging feeling that the Aviation Training program was deemed too militant for a too progressive school administration, and was cancelled for that reason. Of course, that reason cannot be stated, as the administration would deservedly be subject to harsh rebuke and criticism!
It's a shame to see the program cancelled, and I think less of the SCSU administration because of it...unless they can give good reasons for the cancellation and address Dr Johnson's reasons for keeping it in the curriculum. Dr Johnson's list of reasons to keep the SCSU Aviation Training program omitted a critical one...flight training is very complicated, very demanding, but oh, flying is so darned much FUN!
Highlighting the Dayton-Bakk Fiasco
Gov. Dayton is pitted against Tom Bakk, a fellow Democrat, in a spitting fight over Gov. Dayton's pay increase for commissioners :
Gov. Mark Dayton erupted in anger Thursday in a dispute with the DFL Senate leader over a weeks-long controversy surrounding pay raises the governor gave to his cabinet. "To have a majority leader of the Senate come in and stab me in the back and blindside me is absolutely unacceptable," Dayton said.
Dayton's ire came after Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk led the Senate in voting to suspend the salary increases for state commissioners. All but two members of the DFL-controlled Senate voted with Bakk in favor of the proposal. The friction between the Capitol's two most powerful DFLers threatens to cast a cloud over the rest of the 2015 legislative session. The two have tussled before, but Dayton indicated Thursday that their relations now were beyond repair.
Dayton said Bakk, a former ally, has proved himself untrustworthy because he brought forth the salary smackdown without any warning. "I'm confronted with two hostile bodies of the Legislature, one with a leader I believe I can trust (Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt) and one I know I can't trust," Dayton said. "I certainly learned a brutal lesson today that I can't trust (Bakk.) I can't believe what he says to me and connives behind my back."
My initial reaction is "Wow!" My next reaction is 'That's what happens when a spoiled brat gets criticized.' From a strategic standpoint, I hope Speaker Daudt brings the Senate bill up for a vote ASAP. When Gov. Dayton vetoes the bill, then the legislature should vote to override Gov. Dayton's veto.
If House Democrats vote to sustain Gov. Dayton's veto, Republicans could use that in their 2016 campaign, arguing that the DFL is in the pocket of the government employee unions and not in the favor of the taxpayers. It's a perfect wedge issue.
More importantly, it's a positive issue for Republicans because they'd be on the right side of the issue.
Dayton said he will no longer negotiate with Bakk without witnesses.
Bakk declined Thursday afternoon to comment on Dayton's rebuke but earlier in the day said he had spoken to the governor Wednesday about the options the Senate might have regarding the salary increases. Bakk, DFL-Cook, indicated one of the options he mentioned was delaying the pay hikes through June. "I laid this out," Bakk said.
I don't doubt that Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton will work together on the budget. That being said, I'm certain that Gov. Dayton's relationship with Sen. Bakk will be icy:
Dayton said he would veto the entire funding measure, which his administration had requested, if it comes to him with the Senate's salary-suspension intact. The governor said, unlike the House plan, the Senate proposal would negate his legal authority to increase commissioners' salaries. He accused Bakk, who ran for governor against Dayton in 2010, of meddling in his administration.
" The people already voted and they gave me the authority last fall," Dayton said. "The balance of power is the legislative and executive branch."
Gov. Dayton is right. This has been voted on. In fact, here's a list of DFL senators who voted to give Gov. Dayton that authority:
Sen. Bakk voted to give Gov. Dayton the authority to raise these salaries, then voted to delay those pay increases. Patricia Torres-Ray and Sandy Pappas voted to give Gov. Dayton the authority, too. The difference is that they voted to not strip that authority from Gov. Dayton.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2015 12:50 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 13-Feb-15 01:17 PM
If additional money for commissioners were to actually be used to recruit the finest in each field, some sense could be made of the argument for massive raises.
In reality, Dayton fills his leadership positions with political activists and campaign contributors. On any other planet, these commissioners would be paying us to achieve a position of such power and access from which to pursue their political agendas.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 13-Feb-15 02:41 PM
I think Bakk has boxed himself out of his leadership post. The DFL is already in need of a goat to blame for the excesses of the SLOB. Bakk is rural, not metro. And now this. Not seeing any serious anti-Dayton faction out there for him to lead, his future as Senate Majority Leader is in serious doubt.
Bakk's tightrope act
Sen. Bakk's controversial amendment to an emergency spending bill has put him in a precarious political position. This article includes some Bakk quotes that indicate he knows he's put himself in a delicate position:
'If the governor signs the bill he can do whatever he wants to do. All we did was suspend it for a five-month period. I believe the data we'll see will support what he did,' said Bakk. 'In a vote of 63 to 2, it's obvious people want to see the information. We have some questions to ask. But I don't doubt for a minute that every single penny is supported by the data he has .'
There's no doubt that Sen. Bakk knows the commissioner pay raises aren't popular. With the Senate up for election in 2016, he can't afford to look too supportive of Minnesota's public employees. At the same time, he can't distance himself too much from Minnesota's public employees because they're a significant part of the DFL's base.
It's impossible to know if Sen. Bakk's amendment has permanently damaged his already-contentious relationship with Gov. Dayton. It isn't impossible to know if it's done significant damage to their ability to work together in the short-term:
'I am confronted with two hostile bodies of the Legislature, one with a leader I believe I can trust,' he said, referring to GOP House Speaker Kurt Daudt, 'and one I know I can't trust' he said of Bakk.
It's only fitting that the relationship between Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk are frosty considering the fact that International Falls is part of Sen. Bakk's Senate district. Carly Melin didn't miss the opportunity to walk the tightrope:
Rep. Carly Melin, DFL-Hibbing, said although she supports more competitive pay raises, the increases Gov. Dayton is proposing are somewhat concerning. 'I'm not necessarily opposed to any governor making pay raises for their commissioners, but I think we were caught off-guard by the height of these pay raises,' said Rep. Melin. 'Most people in private and public sectors don't get a thirty-percent pay raise overnight.
That's a fine job of walking the tightrope between taxpayers and the people who support the DFL with their checks and their GOTV work.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2015 3:53 PM
No comments.
