March 1-3, 2014
Mar 01 13:59 Who owns who? Mar 01 14:45 Patriotism personified Mar 02 03:41 Potter's PR initiative failing, Part I Mar 02 23:47 President Potter's PR initiative failing, Part II Mar 02 14:54 The death of the SC Times Mar 03 00:01 SCSU's 30th day enrollment
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Who owns who?
Longtime readers of LFR know that I haven't hesitated in highlighting how the DFL is the party of special interests. Lately, I've intensified my writings about how Democrats are favoring the environmentalists over the unions. That caught the attention of the Lady Logician, who wrote about Bill DeBlasio's sucker-punching of the unions in this post :
Facing mounting criticism for refusing to even see the horses he proposes banning from the city, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Thursday finally promised to go and see the animals in their stables.
He also promised that he wouldn't change his mind about the ban, no matter what he sees there.
In Minnesota, Democrats are siding with militant environmentalists who hope to kill the PolyMet mining project, which would create tons of union jobs. In NYC, uber-liberal Mayor DeBlasio is siding with animal rights activists and militant environmentalists to kill lots of union jobs. In Washington, DC, the administration has dragged its feet on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, siding with environmentalists over the unions' interests.
Until now, I've thought that the Democratic Party was the special interest party. Tonight, I changed my opinion. That's because I've realized that the Democratic Party, in Minnesota and nationally, is owned by militant environmentalists. The only question left to answer is whether unions will continually side with the Democratic Party.
While it'd be a stretch to say that Republicans love all unions, it's 100% accurate to say that Republicans are siding with mining unions on the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects. Similarly, it's 100% accurate to say the DFL is tip-toeing through a political minefield while attempting to placate militant environmentalists and the miners' union.
Honest union workers need to ask themselves why their leadership is constantly selling them out while electing Democratic politicians who talk about how they love unions while stabbing unions in the back. While they're asking that question, they should ask themselves why they aren't voting for pro-mining Republicans in Minnesota and pro-union jobs on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Finally, the unions should ask themselves why they're supporting Democrats that only pay "working families" lip service. It's time these unions figured it out that today's Democratic Party is pro-government unions, not private sector unions.
Posted Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:59 PM
No comments.
Patriotism personified
Harry Reid's disgraceful diatribe included his accusation that people who told the truth about the Affordable Care Act's disasters were un-American. Sen. Reid's accusation is disgusting, one worthy of throwing him out of the Senate. Still, let's not dwell on Sen. Reid's comments to the exclusion of learning the definition of patriotism. Without a doubt, this person is a patriot :
In my estimation, that's the definition of American patriotism. Capitalism and innovation being used to make the United States the greatest nation on the face of the earth is the definition of patriotism.
There doesn't seem to be any other large company trying to do this so it might as well be us. Somebody has got to work to save the country and preserve a system of opportunity. I think one of the biggest problems we have in the country is this rampant cronyism where all these large companies are into smash and grab, short-term profits, (saying) how do I get a regulation, we don't want to export natural gas because of my raw materials.
Well, you say you believe in free markets, but by your actions, you obviously don't. You believe in cronyism. And that's true even at the local level. I mean, how does somebody get started if you have to pay $100,000 or $300,000 to get a medallion to drive a taxi cab? You have to go to school for two years to be a hairdresser. You name it, in every industry we have this. The successful companies try to keep the new entrants down.
Now that's great for a company like ours. We make more money that way because we have less competition and less innovation. But for the country as a whole, it's horrible. And for disadvantaged people trying to get started, it's unconscionable in my view. I think it's in our long-term interest, in every American's long-term interest, to fight against this cronyism.
As you all have heard me say, the role of business is to create products that make peoples' lives better while using less resources to do it and making more resources available to satisfy other needs.
When a company is not being guided by the products they make and what the customers need, but by how they can manipulate the system, get regulations on their competitors, or mandates on using their products, or eliminating foreign competition, it just lowers the overall standard of living and hurts the disadvantaged the most. We end up with a two-tier system.
Those that have, have welfare for the rich. The poor, OK, you have welfare, but you've condemned them to a lifetime of dependency and hopelessness. Yeah, we want hope and change, but we want people to have the hope that they can advance on their own merits, rather than the hope that somebody gives them something. That's better than starving to death, but that, I think, is going to wreck the country.
Is it in our business interest? I think it's in all our long-term interests. It's not in our short-term interest. And it's about making money honorably. People should only profit to the extent they make other people's lives better. You should profit because you created a better restaurant and people enjoyed going to it.
You didn't force them to go, you don't have a mandate that you have to go to my restaurant on Tuesdays and Wednesdays or you go to prison. I mean, come on. You feel good about that?
When companies makes money because their lobbyists get the government to build roadblocks in front of the competitors, that's crony capitalism, which hurts the American economy overall. When companies' profits increase because they've built a product that improves people's lives, that's competitive capitalism. That type of capitalism is the type of capitalism that strengthens the economy while improving people's lives.
People that put the long-term health of the nation ahead of short-term profits and personal gain are patriots. That isn't to say short-term profits are automatically evil. In many instances, they aren't. It's that building products that create profits now and long into the future has a stabilizing effect on a nation's health.
That's the definition of patriotism. That's what Sen. Reid apparently doesn't understand.
Originally posted Saturday, March 1, 2014, revised 02-Mar 2:10 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 01-Mar-14 03:47 PM
I got an idea - let's take away Harry's taxpayer funded check, office, staff and other perks. Then make him pay all of his savings or cash to the government so the 'hard-working people' can have stuff. After all that he should be run our of town never to return to DC.
SCSU's 30th day enrollment
30th Day Enrollments Are Out -- The News For SCSU Is Not Good!
by Silence Dogood
Tuesday was the 30th day for enrollment for Spring Semester. It is one of the enrollment benchmarks, which includes the 10th-day and final enrollments. The 30th day enrollments usually highlight the headcount enrollment because it is always larger than the FYE enrollment upon which budgets are based, so it makes universities look good (or at least better). There was no press release from the PR people because the data doesn't look good for SCSU. Of course, bad news can always wait.
Sometimes the data simply speaks for itself. The table below shows the FYE enrollment for SCSU for FY11-FY14 (FY14 is current as of 2/27/14). All of the data is from the MnSCU website.
Table 1. SCSU's FYE Enrollment from FY11 Through FY14:
From the table, it is clear that SCSU's enrollment has declined 18.09% in a four-year period. The administration occasionally mumbles that it is "right-sizing" the university. However, no document has ever been presented by the administration detailing what is the right size.
According to faculty consensus, the president at Minnesota State University--Moorhead has been 'encouraged' to retire at the end of this academic year as a result of a drop of enrollment from 6,733 FYE in FY11 to 6,007 FYE in FY14, which translates into a drop of 10.78%. It is interesting to note that President Szymanski at Moorhead received "Exceptional Performance Pay" while enrollment at Moorhead tanked. In FY12, when enrollment dropped 6.92%, she received $12,000 in Exceptional Performance Pay; in FY13, when enrollment dropped 6.35%, she received $9,000 in Exceptional Performance Pay.
Over the same time period, SCSU's enrollment dropped 18.10%. In a similar fashion, President Potter received Exceptional Performance Pay of $13,000 for FY12 when the enrollment dropped 6.93%. President Potter received an additional $13,000 in Exceptional Performance Pay for FY13, when the enrollment dropped 6.35%.
Of course, the argument is that each of the presidents 'met' certain other "performance goals" and this is the basis for their Exceptional Performance Pay. Most people, however, would be hard-pressed to explain how these presidents earned any exceptional performance pay while their universities' enrollment dropped that dramatically.
A look at Minnesota State University - Mankato, President Davenport received the same $26,000 in Exceptional Performance Pay as SCSU's President Potter. For Mankato, FY12 enrollment increased 0.37%. FY13 enrollment decreased 1.71%. From FY11 to FY14, enrollment at Mankato is down 1.24%. When it is compared to the 18.09% decline at SCSU, that performance is exceptional!
I'm missing something because, based on enrollment data, it might seem that the wrong university president is retiring. Can anyone find a university where the enrollment has dropped over 18% and everyone thinks things are fine? President Potter has even stated publically that he expects enrollment to be down for the next two years before "bottoming out." Is there any U.S. university where enrollment is down as much as it is at SCSU and the president isn't encouraged to spend more time golfing?
Posted Monday, March 3, 2014 12:01 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 03-Mar-14 12:24 AM
Sleeping poorly
It is not hard to believe that a MnSCU system lacking accountability would offer bonuses for failure. What is less understandable is how any leader with integrity would accept such payments.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-14 04:07 AM
Terry, You nailed it. These people aren't leaders & they aren't people with integrity.
People with integrity don't bully students & faculty. They don't tell people that "morale isn't quite where it needs to be to be at the top" when morale is in the shitter.
Potter's PR initiative failing, Part I
This SC Times editorial apparently was written by someone beamed in by Scottie from on board the Star Trek Enterprise. Clearly, the Times and the Potter administration are circling their wagons after getting busted. Check this out:
Members of this Editorial Board have had direct experience with these people involving complaints about grading, program closures, etc. Yet in none of those cases have the complainants provided verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
The Times' Editorial Board isn't being honest with this statement. It's apparent that they're talking about Jeff Johnson when they talk about program closures because the Aviation program was the only major program closed by SCSU. It's equally apparent that they're talking about Silence Dogood's articles that I've published on LFR when they talk about complainants who haven't "provided verifiable evidence to substantiate" their claims.
When I wrote this article , I included an audiotape of a department chair explaining how easy it was for her to delete the record of a student's participation in a class.
Here's the transcript of the department chair explaining how simple it was to remove grades from a student's transcripts:
PROFESSOR: How long, um, Tracy, how long will it be -- I guess she got the grades off of there. Is that...is that a long process, a semester-long process or is that a short process?
DR. ORE: It can happen in a day.
PROFESSOR: Oh ok.
DR. ORE: When I did it last year, Sue wanted to meet with me and say 'here's all of my documentation...
PROFESSOR: OK.
DR. ORE: ...and it might, might have to check with student disability services, check with the math department, check with whoever else.
Only a person with their head in the sand thinks that that isn't substantiation that transcripts were getting altered unjustifiably.
Here's another part of the editorial that suggests the Times isn't being honest:
"The level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be to be among the very best.'
With those words, St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III told this Editorial Board on Feb. 21 his administration is about to embark on the most important step in a process aimed at not just strengthening that trust, but improving the workplace culture and character at the university.
Kudos to Potter for taking on this issue. Faculty and staff should make the most of it.
That President Potter said that "the trust between the faculty, staff and administration isn't what it needs to be to be among the very best" speaks to President Potter's delusional thinking. There isn't much in the way of trust between President Potter and the faculty. That's why this paragraph jumps off the page at me:
While the university has yet to officially release findings, it's a safe bet they resemble a recent Inter Faculty Organization survey that found more than half of St. Cloud State faculty have a negative perception of the university.
Actually, it isn't safe to say that. It's safe to say that substantially more than 50% of the faculty have a negative opinion of SCSU.
Check back Monday for more on the Times' disgustingly dishonest editorial. What I've written thus far is just scratching the surface...for this editorial.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:43 PM
No comments.
President Potter's PR initiative failing, Part II
The Times Editorial Board has said some insulting things throughout the years but this editorial is as disgusting as it gets. That's why I had to write this post . Unfortunately, that post didn't cover everything that needed to get covered. This paragraph must be slapped down ASAP:
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.
This is a reference to Silence Dogood's articles that I've published here. Silence's posts are accurate to the extent that that's possible. The information Silence has talked about comes from either SCSU documents or from the MnSCU website. If the Times want to dispute Silence's statistics, they'd better prepare to dispute SCSU's or MnSCU's documentation. Good luck with that. Adding insult to injury, the Times closed their surreal editorial with this paragraph:
Potter's administration stands willing to work through such issues in a credible manner. Faculty and staff should do the same.
That's insulting. President Potter has dealt harshly with people who've dissented from his dictates, including students. He's berated professors in front of student, too. He's lied to the City Council. Either that or he lied to people on campus.
When the Faculty Association asked him if he'd consider re-opening the Aviation at a meet & Confer meeting, President Potter said he wouldn't because changing his mind would make his administration look weak. That's what President Potter said.
The first step that's required is for President Potter to admit that the faculty's claims aren't unsubstantiated allegations. If President Potter isn't willing to admit that, then he isn't interested in serious fence-mending. If President Potter isn't willing to get treatment for his temper, why should students or faculty think he's interested in putting forth a good faith effort to improve SCSU's morale?
These are lovely-sounding gestures but they're irrelevant. Actions, not lovely-sounding gestures, are what's needed. Frankly, I'm skeptical that President Potter is interested in improving campus morale unless it's on his terms. There's nothing in his history that suggests he's interested in a give-and-take amongst equals. That's right. N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
What type of man yells at students? What type of man says that changing his mind is a sign of weakness? What type of man thinks that he can tell faculty on campus that he's closing a program because its curriculum is unfocused, then tell the City Council that he canceled "a great program that we couldn't afford anymore?"
The only thing worse than President Potter's deceitfulness and intimidation is the Times' consistent attempts to cover up President Potter's misdeeds. They aren't a news organization. They're a media outlet. Contrary to their allegations in this editorial, the accusations highlighted by Silence Dogood's articles are filled with verifiable information. What's especially disappointing is that the Times knows that Silence's articles aren't unsubstantiated allegations.
Rather than admitting that, the Times chose to act like President Potter's PR firm. It's especially sad to see the Times playing the role of stenographer rather than acting like a news organization. Unfortunately, this isn't surprising.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:47 PM
No comments.
The death of the SC Times
This SC Times editorial signals the end of editorial integrity at the Times. It's a sad day for St. Cloud with a silver lining. The Times' Our View editorial used their entire arsenal of gimmicks to prop up President Potter. Here's one of the Times' gimmicks:
'The level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be to be among the very best.'
With those words, St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III told this Editorial Board on Feb. 21 his administration is about to embark on the most important step in a process aimed at not just strengthening that trust, but improving the workplace culture and character at the university.
Kudos to Potter for taking on this issue. Faculty and staff should make the most of it.
What's most appalling is that the Times gives President Potter for "taking on this issue" without doing anything more than uttering the words. I call this the Times' he-said-it-so-it-must-be-true gimmick. It's apparent that the Times didn't question President Potter about the on-campus morale.
If the Times had done its research, they'd know that "the level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration" is virtually non-existent. Forget about it not being where "it needs to be to be among the very best."
Here's an example of the Times' "moral equivalance" gimmick:
Of course, the key to improving trust and university morale doesn't just rest with the administration.
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.
Actually, the fence-mending must start with the administration. The Potter administration has treated the faculty like children who don't know what they're talking about. When the Potter administration was asked where they were with the transcript scandal, the administration replied that they didn't think of it as a scandal, that they thought of it as "data analysis."
There's verifiable proof of transcripts unjustly getting altered without the professor's knowledge. The administration has refused to even talk with the person who has the proof of wrongdoing. The Times ran the MPR article that included the professor's quote initially. Unfortunately, they're now insisting that employees are anonymously making accusations that hurt SCSU, then accusing these employees of offering "no proof of what they are saying."
That's an outright lie.
The only anonymous person to make stinging accusations against the administration is Silence Dogood. Silence's articles, which I'm proud to publish here at LFR, are exceptionally well-documented. That's why I haven't hesitated in publishing them.
Here's a promise I'll make with the Times. I promise that I won't publish any of Silence's articles if they're unsubstantiated. The good news for me is that it's a promise I haven't had to worry about because Silence's articles have consistently been impeccably substantiated.
Here's another of the Times' outright lies:
Members of this Editorial Board have had direct experience with these people involving complaints about grading, program closures, etc. Yet in none of those cases have the complainants provided verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
In none of those cases? Phyllis VanBuren's column, which I wrote about here , was filled with verifiable proof of transcript fraud. Dr. VanBuren's column was 4 pages long, which is twice the size of other Times Writers Group articles.
What's interesting is that Dr. VanBuren's article provides tons of proof that the Times said didn't exist. The Times needs to decide whethey want to stick with President Potter's script or if they'd feel more comfortable admitting that the people who've spoken up at considerable personal risk are telling the truth.
Based on recent history, I'm betting that they're sticking with President Potter's script.
The Times calls on everyone to fix a problem that's been ongoing for years. What the Times didn't do is say that the problem was caused by President Potter. The reason why people have spoken anonymously is because President Potter's style is to use intimidation and bullying to get his way.
This problem didn't just magically appear. Something triggered it. Though the Times won't admit it, these difficulties were caused by President Potter's disgusting behavior.
It's time for the Times to start doing its job. Accepting a public figure's statements as undeniable truth without extensively questioning the statements isn't what news-gathering organizations typically do. Unfortunately for the people of St. Cloud, not questioning public figures is how the Times rolls.
The silver lining is that, here at LFR, questioning public figures while verifying the data is how I roll.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:54 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 02-Mar-14 04:39 PM
Gary
That's pretty much how I saw the editorial myself. Shame on St Cloud Times for puffing up President Potter and putting all the blame on the employees. One question I would have asked Potter is - "are you going to release all of the 150 pages of written comments?"
My money is that most of the survey data and comments won't see the light of day.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 03-Mar-14 04:50 PM
Gary:
Um you kind of missed this as part of your slam of the editorial board, but are they are aware that there seems to be a dramatic drop in enrollment that the other colleges aren't having. You think they would've been worried about that. Or will that be blame everybody else also.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-14 06:44 PM
Walter, I didn't want the post to get too long so I'll be publishing a Part II in the am.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 03-Mar-14 05:21 PM
Walter I concur.
The UW system campuses in Wisconsin haven't experienced a real big drop if any. So Potter can't use demographics as his reason the numbers are bad.
