January 21-22, 2014
Jan 21 00:59 MnSCU's 'thorough' investigation? Jan 21 08:21 Top-down health care, Part II Jan 21 22:01 Bakk's day of reckoning? Jan 22 04:05 The Anything But Affordable Care Act? Jan 22 14:12 NFL offseason arrives
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
MnSCU's 'thorough' investigation?
Would You Call This A Thorough Investigation?
by Silence Dogood
After it was announced that the aviation program at SCSU would be closing, five aviation majors requested a meeting with SCSU President Earl Potter Jr. to discuss the closure. The meeting took place on August 31, 2011. One of the students attending the meeting sent an email on October 5, 2011 to a faculty member in the aviation department informing him of how the meeting went.
The following text is quoted exactly from the student's email and reproduced with his permission:
I never felt so embarrassed knowing we have a university president who acts like this. As soon as we sat down in the conference room (his office) we were told that and I quote, "I just have this to say about the aviation program being closed, the decision has been made, the chancellor signed off on that decision, and Dr. Johnson has been reluctant to accept that decision and I have held back from filing insubordination charges, because I find his actions to be insubordinate..."
Furthermore, later as the meeting progressed President Potter yelled at myself, as well as another student. He raised his voice at me and mentioned, "do not take that tone with me..." while he leaned over the table with both hands on the table. At this point I literally shut down as the other 4 individuals resumed the meeting. He also yelled at another student with the same tone and words.
On October 24, 2011, Dr. Jeff Johnson, a professor in the Aviation Department, emailed Vice Chancellor Lori Lamb a copy of the student's email that he had received along with a student's email granting permission to share his original email and requested that a formal investigation be conducted by the MnSCU central office regarding President Potter's behavior.
A university president yelling at students may be bad form and makes a university president look pretty petty but discussing taking possible personnel actions against a faculty member with a group of students is something that, if true, clearly violates the data practices act.
http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/hr/tennessen/datapractices.pdf
Basically, the relevant part of this eighty page document is that state employees (let alone university presidents) cannot talk about private personnel matters regarding other state employees to unauthorized third parties; that includes students, until after the disciplinary process has been concluded.
Lori Lamb responded on October 26, 2011 "Thank you for the information. I have received the same and will follow up as appropriate."
On January 5, 2012, Dr. Johnson received the following email from Sheila Reger, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources (she replaced Lori Lamb):
In conducting an investigation, you would expect that the students directly involved in the incident as well as the faculty member submitting the complaint be contacted as part of an investigation, if for no other reason than to decide "if a release of private information" occurred or not.
When Dr. Johnson again inquired how an investigation could have been completed without talking to the students, he received the following reply from Mark Carlson (he replaced Sheila Reger):
From: Mark Carlson [mailto: Mark.Carlson@so.mnscu.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:28 pm
To: J Johnson
Subject: RE: Complaint Follow up
Dr. Johnson, This is in response to a complaint you sent to Vice Chancellor Lori Lamb on October 24, 2011 and subsequent emails to Ms. Reger and myself. As you were previously advised, the allegations against President Potter were unsubstantiated. In a further investigation of the records, we believe that the initial review of the matter was sufficiently comprehensive and appropriately concluded; no further action will be undertaken.
Mark Carlson
The revolving door in the human resources office at MnSCU is perhaps an issue all by itself. However, the best that can be surmised is that the sum total of the 'investigation' conducted by MnSCU was perhaps a phone call to the person whom the complaint was filed against. No interviews were conducted with the students who were present in the room at the time of the incident nor the faculty member who filed the complaint. Is this what qualifies at "sufficiently comprehensive?" Without a real investigation being done, it seems that MnSCU is more concerned about protecting its presidents than seeing that MnSCU policies and State Law are followed.
This only follows a pattern that is quite clear on the part of the SCSU administration and apparently tolerated by MnSCU. The administration can say anything it wants and then make up the data later. Case in point: In the aftermath following the announced closing of the Aviation Program at SCSU, many reasons were given for the decision to close the program. Besides the argument that the aviation program was losing money, the single biggest reasons given for the closure were "serious curriculum deficiencies" that had been unresolved for more than two years and the need to "hone the message." Part of a freedom of information request that was made by a former faculty member to the SCSU administration is reproduced:
All reports, memos, email, minutes and/or correspondence (COSE, university and Aviation Department) from June 1, 2006 to the present date that shows the steps, processes and efforts you took to help the Aviation Department in the effort to "hone the message" and respond to 'serious curriculum deficiencies.'
No correspondence, email or reports listing any curriculum deficiencies was returned to the requestor and the response from Judith Siminoe, Special Advisor to the President, stated: "Previously I have advised that Dean DeGroote's efforts to help the Aviation Department hone the message were verbal rather than conveyed in written documents."
So there were no curriculum "deficiencies" as cited in the justification for closing the aviation program and all of the other information was given orally!
Excuse me! And to think SCSU, a $210 million dollar a year enterprise, is closing the only accredited four-year program in the state, losing five faculty members and an office manager without documentation of any kind for key pieces of the data used to justify closing the program is almost unbelievable. I think I'm becoming as embarrassed as the student who sent the original email. We deserve better from our university and system administrators.
Posted Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:59 AM
Comment 1 by Wonderer at 21-Jan-14 09:02 AM
The community leaders and citizens of the St Cloud area should be upset about all this. But where is the strong persuasion from the business community and travelers to address the importance of the Aviation program to our city and region? Amazingly, most of them don't know the facts. Why? The local news media REFUSE to to look into this. Even as city committees/commissions work to lure air service, the SCSU administration pulled one of the supports from under the effort without a reaction. Questioned after the fact, EP responded that his mind was made up and to reverse a decision would make his administration "look weak." Is that from his military background? I think wise commanders revise strategy in the best interest of their troops and the mission rather than refuse to reconsider based on ego. Even video games teach that.
Top-down health care, Part II
I wrote this post about why the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA, is failing. Here's part of the explanation for the ACA's unpopularity:
The problem is that the Obamcare plans aren't attractive to consumers. They were designed in Washington to suit political prerogatives rather than being designed in the marketplace to meet the demands of consumers.
Simply put, the ACA's biggest problem is that politicians imposed their will on health care consumers rather than finding out what people wanted. Keep that in mind while reading this LTE :
Why are so many afraid of a single-payer program that would save them money and provide better care? Why do they cling to a for-profit system that leaves 47 million Americans with no insurance and millions more with substandard coverage that lets insurance companies choose which procedures to allow and which to deny?
There are 4 questions contained in that paragraph. Let's take them in order:
Q: Why are so many afraid of a single-payer program that would save them money and provide better care?
A: People heard that claim before. Specifically, that's the promise President Obama and then-Speaker Pelosi made to the American people. Another thing they promised was that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, would cost less than $1,000,000,000,000. Still another thing they promised is that it wouldn't "add a penny to the debt." I could go on but the point's been made. Something that's too good to be true shouldn't be trusted.
Q: Why do they cling to a for-profit system that leaves 47 million Americans with no insurance?
A: Profits make the world go round. The notion that government will treat people with care is foolishness. That isn't to say that the system we had until the ACA's implementation was flawless. Nothing was done to help people with pre-existing conditions, aka PECs. A solution for that was clearly needed. The dirty little secret, though, was that a solution to that problem could've happened without tearing the previous system apart.
Q: Why do they cling to a for-profit system that leaves 47 million Americans with no insurance and millions more with substandard coverage?
A: Who determines what's substandard coverage? I certainly don't want this administration determining that. They're the idiots that insisted that 30-somethings buy policies with ambulatory coverage. They're the idiots that insisted that 60-year-old men needed policies that included pregnancy coverage. The question that this LTE doesn't answer is why people, after meeting with their physician, shouldn't make those decisions. The answer is simple. Health care reform, whether it's the ACA or a single-payer system, isn't about health care reform. It's about getting control of a major part of every person's life.
Q: Why do people cling to a system that...lets insurance companies choose which procedures to allow and which to deny?
A: In a system that has insurance companies competing for people's business, people always have the option of opting for a different company if their insurance company says no. When government is the only game in town, they can tell people which procedures they'll pay for and which ones they won't. In that system, there aren't options if (when?) the government says no. At that point, the patient doesn't have another option.
If you think that couldn't happen, think again. The ACA empowers a panel called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, aka IPAB, to make those determinations. IPAB's determinations are made based on QALYs, aka Quality-Adjusted Life Years. If these bureaucrats decide you're old and the treatment costs more than the government says you're worth, the procedure is denied.
That isn't speculation. It's part of the ACA.
Does that sound like the actions of a benevolent government? I'm not defending the insurance companies. I'm just highlighting the fact that government is just as dictatorial as the insurance companies.
Look at the IRS's recent history of asking conservatives for transcripts of the speeches they've given at TEA Party rallies. Look at the administration's lies that the IRS scandal only involved agents at the Cincinnati office. Think about how the Justice Department threatened a reporter with a felony indictment if he didn't tell the DOJ who leaked the information to him.
Those aren't the actions of a benevolent government. They're the actions of a vindictive administration that's willing to use the government's tools to suppress their political opponents.
That isn't the exhaustive list of reasons why we shouldn't trust a single-payer plan but it's certainly an extensive list of why we shouldn't trust government to run America's health care system.
Here's the other reason we shouldn't trust them:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton's MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father's employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy skyrocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent's consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife.
There isn't a chance that an employer would pick a plan where the insurance company offered this awful of a plan. Only the government could offer a 'solution' like that, then insist that the policy the family had before was substandard. What are the odds this family would agree with the government that they're better off now than they were prior to the ACA? I'd rate the odds as nil.
Posted Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:21 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 21-Jan-14 08:49 AM
For those who worship at the altar of "single payerism" I ask that they only look at the VA health care system. The VA instituted rationing because they said it was too expensive to cover all veterans as the previous laws had stated.
Bakk's day of reckoning?
This morning, Judge Lezlie Ott Mareck will hear the lawsuit Jim Knoblach, former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, filed challenging the constitutionality of Sen. Bakk's Omnibus Tax Bill. Specifically, Chairman Knoblach's lawsuit argues that the 2013 Tax Bill violates Article IV, Sect. 17, informally known as the Single Subject Clause. Article IV, Section 17 states that bills can only be about a single subject.
For example, if the plain letter of the law is followed, it would be unconstitutional for a bill funding veterans programs to also include tax increases to raise money for Minnesota's general fund. Funding veterans programs obviously is a different subject than setting marginal income tax rates.
The purpose of the Single Subject Clause is clear through this. Minnesota's Constitution was written to prevent people from putting an unpopular provision on one subject into a popular bill of another subject.
Chairman Knoblach's attorney, Erick A. Kaardal, stated the purpose of this lawsuit clearly when he said this:
Believing that a separate bill could not have survived the scrutiny of both houses, or taxpayer wrath, the leadership simply avoided the state constitution, rules of both houses and responsible fiscal policy and put the senate office measure within the tax bill that had to pass to balance the budget within the last days of the 2013 session.
Kaardal is exactly right on each part of his statement. Sen. Bakk knew that a standalone bill building a Taj Majal monument to Sen. Bakk wouldn't pass the House. That's why he put the funding in the Tax Bill. He knew Speaker Thissen wouldn't torpedo his provision in that context.
Next, Kaardal is right that a standalone bill would've incurred the taxpayers' wrath. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if taxpayers took out their wrath on DFL legislators this time if they find out about Sen. Bakk's gimmick.
Third, Sen. Bakk's gimmick attempts to skirt the Single Subject Clause. That doesn't guarantee the courts reaching the right ruling. It just says that they'll rule against Sen. Bakk's gimmick if they follow Minnesota's Constitution. FOOTNOTE: If Judge Mareck rules against Sen. Bakk, that will essentially finish Sen. Bakk's funding for what I'm calling the "Politicians' Pork Palace." There isn't a chance Sen. Bakk will want to appeal that ruling because that will raise the profile of the lawsuit. That's the last thing Sen. Bakk wants to do going into a political campaign.
Finally, Sen. Bakk knew that his gimmick wasn't popular. That's why he didn't propose it earlier in the session. Had it been proposed in February as a standalone bill, it wouldn't have passed any committees because of the toxic nature of the bill. That's why he's attempting this end run around Minnesota's Constitution.
Sen. Bakk is a nasty man when it comes to ignoring the Constitution :
Recent laws struck down under this single subject provision include:
1) a prevailing wage provision authored by then Rep. Tom Bakk in the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill (Associated Builders and Contractors v. Ventura; Minnesota Supreme Court, 2000);
Apparently, trusting that Sen. Bakk will follow the Constitution isn't a safe bet. The courts have already ruled that he ignored this same provision before. Apparently, Sen. Bakk just won't learn.
Posted Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:01 PM
No comments.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act?
President Obama and his apologists have alternated between calling their health 'reform' legislation the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare or "the health law" depending on what the focus groups say works best. Republicans should simplify matters by calling it what it is. The moniker that fits best is the Anything But Affordable Care Act.
This article doesn't deal with new names for this terrible law. It just talks about the terrible effects it's having on people:
'When the Affordable Care Act came out with this mandate, the initial reaction was, 'OK, we're doing that already for the most part,' said Brandon Nelson, director of labor relations and benefits for Anoka-Hennepin District 11.
But 'the penalties get your attention, so we're just making sure,' he said.
The district is analyzing employee data over a 12-month look-back period to determine which employees currently work more than 30 hours and are not offered health insurance from the district.
As the largest school district in the state, Anoka-Hennepin has nearly 6,000 employees; 145 of them, about 2.5 percent, are full-time employees and are not offered health insurance from the district, according to Nelson.
Of those employees, Nelson estimates that the district will offer 75 of them insurance by 2015 and adjust assignments for the remaining 70 to ensure they are working less than 30 hours each week.
That's the first part of the statistics. Here's the most troubling of the statistics:
The district typically contributes $648 each month toward single health insurance plans and no more than $1,042 per month on family plans. If employee counts and insurance pricing stay constant, the district could incur anywhere from $583,200 to $937,800 in additional expenditures next year if all 75 employees elect to get insurance through the district.
That the Anoka-Hennepin district is thinking they'll see an additional "$583,200 to $937,800 in additional expenditures" should send the signal to taxpayers that their property taxes will jump significantly. That's the type of thing that will quickly sink the Anything But Affordable Care Act.
That's a newly mentioned problem for the bill. Already, young people visiting the MNsure website are noticing that their insurance premiums are a rip-off. Young families are noticing that their insurance situation just got dramatically worse . If that isn't terrible enough, the Anything But Affordable Care Act apparently will lead to higher property taxes, too.
Whether you're Sen. Franken who voted for this bill or Gov. Dayton who campaigned for creating the MNsure monstrosity or the DFL legislators who voted for the legislation creating the health insurance exchange, the reality is the same. The Anything But Affordable Care Act will force school districts across the state to raise property taxes while cutting some of their employees' hours.
Let's see the DFL explain that mess away.
Posted Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:05 AM
No comments.
NFL offseason arrives
Now that the NFL season is down to the Super Bowl, the offseason has arrived for the other 30 teams. A major part of the NFL offseason, if there is such a thing anymore, is Senior Bowl week. The past few years, scouting was best broken down into sections, starting with the college football season, followed by the minor bowls, followed by the BCS games. Next up after that is the Blue-Gray Game, the Senior Bowl in Mobile, AL, the NFL Combine in Indianapolis, IN, then the top prospects' pro days at their college. This Saturday, they'll play the Senior Bowl.
In addition to scouts descending on Mobile, lots of people who cover the draft converge to watch the workouts and report on who's creating positive buzz for themselves. One of the people covering the Senior Bowl, as he's done for years, is Scott Wright of DraftCountdown.com. Follow this link to read Scott's daily reports from the practices. They're some of the best in the business. Scott does a daily podcast from Mobile, too.
Thus far, Scott's reported that Derek Carr, the top QB at the game, has stood out during the South squad's practices and that Ra'Shede Hageman of the University of Minnesota has stood out defensively for the North squad. The reason I mention these players is because the Vikings need a new QB, just like they need to start restocking the talent on their defensive line. While it's unlikely that they could get both of these players, rest assured that new Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer will be paying extra attention to these players this week.
Another sportswriter who's covering the Senior Bowl is Viking.com's Mike Wobschall. Follow this link to read Mike's reporting from Mobile. Hint: Carr has stood out for Mr. Wobschall, too.
Finally, the Vikings are perfectly positioned for a quick turnaround. Whether that happens still remains to be seen. Still, they've got high draft picks in each round of the draft, plus a third round pick they got in the Percy Harvin trade with the Seahawks. Couple that with GM Rick Spielman's stellar draft record recently and there's reason for optimism for Vikings fans. (Yes, he made a mistake with Christian Ponder but he's more than made up for that since by drafting Pro Bowl LT Matt Kalil, FS Harrison Smith, and Pro Bowl PK Blair Walsh in the 2012 draft, followed by drafting Sharrif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes and KR/WR extraordinare Cordarrelle Patterson in the first round of last year's draft.
Other standouts from the Spielman draft classes include former Pro Bowl MVP Kyle Rudolph, DEs Brian Robison and Everson Griffen and RB Toby Gerhart. While it's true that Griffen and Gerhart are eligible to become free agents this year, there's no denying the fact that they're top talents that Spielman found the last day of the draft.
That's what separates good drafts from great drafts.
If you're a football fanatic like I am, you won't want to miss Scott's and Mike's reporting from Mobile.
Posted Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:12 PM
Comment 1 by shoebox at 22-Jan-14 02:23 PM
IMHO (and now being a Kentuckian with a heart for the Vikings), the best QB in the draft will be Terry Bridgewater. He's shown the mental/defense reading capabilities in college that many QBs can't figure out at the pro level. Plus, while a strong competitor, he has some humility which is something a couple of the other rumored top draft QBs sorely lack.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-14 02:39 PM
Bridgewater is definitely talented. Unfortunately for the Vikings, he'll likely be gone long before they pick. According to the reports I'm reading, Carr has a strong arm, reads defenses well, has consistent mechanics & a great set of intangibles. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 22-Jan-14 04:56 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget one reason why the Vikings got Ponder was that they didn't trade up (even a couple of spots) to get one of the QB's they really wanted. They then took what at the time they thought was the best available QB.
The Vikes might have to be willing to trade up. Given the fact that they were willing to do that to get Cordell last year I think they will be willing to trade up.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-14 11:39 PM
Walter, It's important to remember that they picked 12th that year. Another point worth thinking about is that the only QBs in that draft class that've had any success are Cam Newton & Andy Dalton. Newton went first overall & the Panthers certainly weren't going to trade that pick.
