January 30, 2015
Jan 30 10:10 SCSU admits failure, Part I Jan 30 10:52 Mitt isn't running Jan 30 11:20 MNsure isn't sustainable Jan 30 14:04 Hillary's coronation
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SCSU admits failure, Part I
For years, SCSU's failures have been visible for those willing to see what they actually saw. That required President Potter and then-Provost Malhotra to pretend that they didn't see what they were seeing, at least when they talked with reporters or with the public. They don't have a choice anymore. Facing a multi-million dollar deficit, SCSU finally has to admit that they aren't right-sizing. SCSU has to admit that the school's finances have been mishandled.
A frequent reader of LFR sent me a copy of a document that became public this morning. The Executive Summary portion of the report is particularly interesting. Here's one of SCSU's admissions:
First, rising enrollments during the recession masked inefficiencies and poor practices that were revealed as enrollments began to decline in the economic recovery. These practices included a failure to pursue market opportunities, inefficient scheduling and faculty assignment adjustments, elective offerings beyond what was required, and ineffective program review process that did not encourage innovation in our academic programs.
TRANSLATION: SCSU didn't identify "inefficiencies" or make recommendations that would strengthen the University. Instead, SCSU hired consultants that recommended papering over SCSU's inefficiencies with an expensive rebranding effort.
During SCSU's rebranding effort, LFR was accused of hurting SCSU's image :
Even more concerning, they found that negative perceptions from many outsiders who control the 'blogosphere' are not grounded in reality. In their language, we have a 'brand gap', a gap between perception and reality.
LFR relied on verified information from credible sources on campus. The things I reported, like the transcript fraud scandal or the enrollment decline, were later written about by so-called real journalists at MPR and the St. Cloud Times. LFR was the first media outlet that reported on ISELF's empty rooms, a story that KSTP found compelling enough to assign Tom Hauser to.
SCSU's problem wasn't that there was a gap between my reporting and reality. SCSU's problem was that there was a huge gap between President Potter's spin and reality. Now that SCSU's finances are in the crapper, SCSU is (grudgingly) admitting that they've made lots of major mistakes.
This sentence shouldn't be overlooked:
Secondly, leadership transitions during the last three years made it difficult to maintain focus on essential changes.
While morale on campus dropped precipitously, key administrators left the sinking ship. There's no polite way of putting this. Even if there was, it shouldn't be sugarcoated. These administrators were hand-picked by President Potter. If administrators left, it's because President Potter either made poor choices or the administrators left because of the poor morale on campus.
Either way, it's a challenge of President Potter's own making.
This chart is somewhat deceptive:
Compare the FYE enrollment drop in that table with this chart:
In the chart published by SCSU, FYE enrollment is down 15%. That's because it's based on FY2009's FYE enrollment. The chart put together by Silence Dogood highlights the FYE enrollment by fiscal year. SCSU's high in terms of FYE enrollment was in FY2010. Since then, FYE enrollment at SCSU has dropped by 18%, not 15%.
It's sad that President Potter can't resist being dishonest with enrollment.
Posted Friday, January 30, 2015 10:10 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 31-Jan-15 08:46 AM
In business, too, there is a tendency to get "sloppy" when sales are good, focused on top line growth. But when business levels off and profits drop, business then corrects, re-examining the cost structure top to bottom.
It strikes me that public institutions like SCSU with a historically stable franchise seldom enter that second world of cost reduction and process improvement. So in a way, this downturn - whether Administration's fault or not - can be a good, overdue thing for SCSU.
From your articles here, as supported by public documents and occasionally other media, it's pretty clear that Mr. Potter is not and will never be part of the solution. Replacing him won't work if Mr. Rosenstone simply hires another of his ilk, however, so I further conclude that given the MNSCU-wide dissatisfaction with him, he has to go as well.
But such firings do no real good unless the mood and focus in St. Paul changes. Until it does, at a minimum meaning then Governor Smith loses re-election in 2018, we need to keep turning over the rocks to find what else has been going wrong the past 20 years or so.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 31-Jan-15 09:25 AM
Well said, Rex. A voice of reason. A major systemic change is badly needed. Rosenstone has been so busy charting the future to the detriment of overseeing the day to day operations at SCSU.
Mitt isn't running
This morning, Mitt Romney officially announced that he isn't running for president :
Mitt Romney announced Friday he will not run for president in 2016, after briefly flirting with a third White House run -- a decision that only slightly narrows the crowded field of potential Republican candidates.
"After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I've decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee," Romney said in a written statement. He also was announcing his plans on a conference call with donors Friday morning.
Though this is a bit of a surprise, it might be as simple as Mitt being unable to put together a national organization rather than him not wanting to run. It might also be that he's finally accepted the fact that he's history in the eyes of GOP activists.
Lots of people, myself included, think he would've been vastly superior to President Obama. Obama's national security policies are a disaster. President Obama's economic policies have revived terminology like new normal. President Obama's economic policies haven't revived talk about a booming economy.
Mitt won the nomination in 2012 against a weaker field than this year's field of candidates. Adding to Mitt's worries is the fact that he started talking like a liberal. That isn't how to win the GOP nomination. Mitt was a compromised candidate in 2012, too. He couldn't take the fight to President Obama on President Obama's biggest failure, aka Obamacare. This time around, Mitt would've had to fight against the economic accomplishments and conservative reforms of people like Scott Walker and Rick Perry.
The simple fact is that Mitt couldn't win.
Posted Friday, January 30, 2015 10:52 AM
No comments.
MNsure isn't sustainable
Based on Heather Carlson's reporting , MNsure isn't sustainable without substantial taxpayer bailouts:
Lackluster enrollment in private plans and drying-up federal funds may force Minnesota to pick up more of the tab for its health insurance exchange. MNsure would get another $11.7 million of state money under Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed budget for technological improvements, a necessary change because public-plan signups have far outpaced private-plan enrollments.
The governor is also recommending the state assume costs the federal government covered until this year, such as $1.3 million over the next two years for staff to review rate submissions from insurance companies and another $558,000 to investigate complaints. Most federal funding has expired as Washington's aim is to make state-run health exchanges self-sufficient.
Together, those changes would bring the state's running costs for the exchange to at least $23.5 million since it was set up in 2013.
The only way the ACA is sustainable financially is if a large number of young healthies buy qualified health plans, aka QHPs. According to Ms. Carlson's reporting, that isn't happening:
Lawmakers set up MNsure mostly with federal funds, aiming to sign up Minnesota residents in both private plans and public programs for lower-income families like MinnesotaCare and Medical Assistance. State officials initially estimated about two-thirds of enrollments would be in those programs, with the remaining third in private plans. Instead, 91 percent of applicants have been placed in public programs , forcing the state to pitch in more money.
That's unsustainable. Perhaps it's unsustainable for the short term. That's even questionable. There's no doubt that it isn't sustainable for the long term.
MNsure officials say they've altered their budget to put the exchange on a steady financial course, upping its fee on premiums from 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent and scaling back costs. But their three-year budget plan hinges on continually adding more new members in private plans than enrolled the year prior.
Anything that can't be sustained won't be. Inevitably, MNsure will be unaffordable. When (not if) that happens, the DFL will have egg on their faces. Republicans will criticize the DFL for implementing something that was expensive to the taxpayers and eventually, unsustainable financially.
Posted Friday, January 30, 2015 11:20 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 30-Jan-15 02:01 PM
Their (progressive's) plan seems to be moving along just fine wouldn't you say? In the next 5 years, there will be single payer health care because we won't fix the current system and we can never go back to the way it was.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-15 02:06 PM
I'd argue the opposite. The DFL will have so totally screwed things up that giving government more control simply isn't gonna fly.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 30-Jan-15 05:52 PM
Id like to think that is true too but name one government program that has ever been shut down due to incompetency or too much government control (one in the same I know)? Remember, progressive's (both liberal and "conservative") believe that they know how best to run your life so don't think for one second that the total failure of Obamacare will stop them from a total takeover of single payer health care.
Hillary's coronation
Jay Cost's article verifies what I've been saying for months: that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' frontrunner because the Democrats' bench is exceptionally weak, not because she's a powerful, impressive candidate:
What it really suggests is: the Democratic bench is now so thin that the party cannot even give its voters a real choice. At this point, the only three other candidates seriously considering the race are: Martin O'Malley, former Maryland governor who is decidedly lackluster; Jim Webb, the quirky one-term senator who -- oh by the way! -- used to work in the Reagan Administration (Democratic voters will love that); and Bernie Sanders, who does not even call himself a Democrat (he's a socialist).
I'm not the first person to offer that opinion. Far from it. This is what happens, though, when you've gotten hit with 2 landslide victories at the state level. In 2010, Republicans picked up a net 3 governor seats. Democrats lost 2 more governorships in 2014. That's just the start of the Democrats' problems:
Now take a gander at the party's Senate caucus. If you squint really hard you might imagine some of them could be presidential material, but not really. The overwhelming majority are too old, too dull, too new, or barely won reelection. Elizabeth Warren is the only exception out of these 45 senators, and she looks like she is not going to run.
It's apparent that the vast majority of Democratic senators are fossilized old farts that are best categorized as yesterday's news. That's if the political analysts are being charitable.
By comparison, the Republicans have a lengthy list of impressive candidates. Governors like Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal are top tier candidates for president. Susana Martinez is frequently mentioned as a potential VP pick. Brian Sandoval is seen as the candidate most likely to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada.
That's before talking about Marco Rubio and Mike Pence as potential presidential candidates. Jeb Bush didn't jump into the race early from a position of strength. He did it out of necessity.
Finally, there's this: Hillary will face a distinct enthusiasm gap between herself and the Republican nominee as long the nominee isn't Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Candidates like Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have a youthful energy about them. Hillary will cruise through the Democratic nomination without getting challenged. That's a big problem because competition sharpens candidates.
Posted Friday, January 30, 2015 2:04 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Feb-15 01:06 PM
Gary:
I think the reason why the bench is so weak is because of combination of radical demands:
* No pipelines high gasoline taxes.
* Tax the rich even more.
* More free goodies!
Given that when Democrats aren't running on that the Republican is proposing the opposite and winning quite easily.
What carried Obama to victory in 2008 and 2012 and help give them big wins was because he was able to mobilize a large black vote. Part of Hillary's weakness is she might not be able to do that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
