May 4-5, 2014
May 04 09:04 Liberal fascism, St. Cloud edition May 04 09:47 That pesky thing May 04 11:47 SCSU's rightsizing strategy exposed May 04 21:29 Benghazi talking points, Brit Hume vs. Jane Harman edition May 05 00:51 Fisking Unze's article, Potter's spin May 05 05:45 Ken Martin's accusations refuted May 05 09:58 National Popular Vote and Rhonda Sivarajah May 05 18:38 Stitches May 05 14:33 The DFL's ill-advised priorities
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Liberal fascism, St. Cloud edition
One of the things Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism talks about is how progressives don't debate things anymore. The goal of their nastiest diatribes is about shutting down debate.
St. Cloud isn't immune to this type of fascism. Check out the comments to Barbara Banaian's monthly column :
Mary Langerude - Top Commenter - Saint Cloud, MinnesotaI can't say that I'm surprised by Langerude's, Jaede's or Ellenbecker's comments. They're political hacks who aren't interested in debate. They're only interested in criticizing people they disagree with. They haven't thought things through in ages. While that doesn't mean they're always wrong, it does mean they're minds are forever closed.
Isn't it interesting how some folks are ALL for the gov't when it comes to something THEY want? Their particular interest is where the priorities should be. Never mind that they have been whining for the gov't not to spend money and not to raise taxes.
Have the new and improved Urban Chickens come home to roost?
Mark Jaede - Top Commenter - Works at St. Cloud State University
And "waste" is defined as whatever programs are not my priorities.
John Ellenbecker - Top Commenter - Works at Self employed
Funny - she didn't identify her government employee husband's salary as a means of financing pothole repair.
For instance, Ellenbecker's comment about King Banaian's employer doesn't have anything to do with his wife's editorial. Ellenbecker's tactic is designed to insinuate that being conservative means that you're against all government. I know this because I've debated him on the Times message boards more times than I care to admit. It isn't that he's that stupid. It's that he's that intellectually dishonest. It's what I've gotten used to from him.
Ms. Langerude's statement is either intellectually dishonest or it's proof she doesn't understand the concept that the various levels of government have affirmative responsibilities. It's the state's affirmative responsibility to fix potholes on state trunk highways just like it's the city's responsibility to fix potholes on city streets.
Conservatives, by definition, expect government to fulfill its responsibilities in a timely fashion. Conservatives think that government should be limited and efficient.
As for Prof. Jaede, he's been one of the most mean-spirited, nastiest DFL political hacks I've ever met. There isn't a nonpartisan bone in his body. There isn't a tactic too low for him to use. He isn't a nice man.
It's apparent that this trio of liberal fascists aren't interested in debating public policy. They're interested in shutting down debate of public policy. If they can talk trash while impugning decent public servants, then that's gravy for them.
Simply put, they're despicable, mean-spirited people whose primary goal is to criticize people they disagree with.
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2014 9:04 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 24-Feb-15 02:52 AM
Jaede appeared at the first meeting in Schmidt Park when neighbors gathered to discuss the impact of a 39,000 sf Mosque. He sat quietly until the very end when he raised his tone level ...to be heard...call the neighbors racist and all kind of other things. He is simply a worthless big mouth, who in the end hid with his tail (fat ass) between his legs. He is a mental moron who I would debate anytime on any subject.
On top of that...he is a pushy punk
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 24-Feb-15 08:57 AM
Jaede cares deeply for Jaede. He was the faculty association president when only one department on the SCSU campus was closed...aviation. Do you think he cared that the airport would lose 48% of it's takeoffs and landings if aviation was closed? Nope. He said it was better to lose aviation than the fine arts programs. Problem is that aviation was the 10th largest program and most of the courses aviation students took were generals. Oops! And now I see that over 100 employees might be laid off.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=18052
Comment 3 by Yeager at 24-Feb-15 12:37 PM
Aviation was *not* the 10th largest program.
Comment 4 by Jarrett at 24-Feb-15 02:05 PM
What WAS the 10th largest
program then?
Comment 5 by Yeager at 24-Feb-15 03:36 PM
Top 10:
Mass Communications
Management
Accounting
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Criminal Justice
Counseling and Community Psychology
Teacher Development
Marketing
Biology
Nursing Science
Comment 6 by Mystique at 24-Feb-15 05:20 PM
According to the December 2010 reorganization data, aviation was the 10th largest program. Game over.
Comment 7 by Patrick-M at 24-Feb-15 05:50 PM
What Mystique said. Data was compiled from official SCSU records. Yaeger, when the cuts start happening at SCSU this round I will be the first to cheer. Just like that so-called union did when Aviation was targeted by the dean for closure. Have you counted up how many of your liberal buddies will meet Potter's ax?
Comment 8 by Yeager at 25-Feb-15 06:31 AM
I'm looking at the 2010 reorg data and Aviation isn't anywhere near the top 10. I note that I'm not defending SCSU's action, but merely pointing out that the message that some folks - Crimson, Patrick, et al. - continue to send is factually inaccurate.
Furthermore, there is this:
"Staying as a small program we can probably build to 75-100+ as the department should see the number of graduates rise with the CTI program, the baby boomer aviation population continues to retire/ potential students see job openings, the value of accredited collegiate aviation flight training is further validated by congress/FAA, the economy turns around/jobs open, and the potential closing of another 4 year collegiate aviation program in Minnesota takes place. However, those are all forces that the department would wait to ?have happen to us?. Aviation at SCSU cannot afford to sit passively."
That's from the department's own documents. Building to even 100 majors wouldn't have put Aviation in the top 10. The department also self-reported that SCSU makes up 25% of STC's operations.
Comment 9 by Patrick-M at 25-Feb-15 07:26 AM
Yeager
You cite one person's account of the situation, a person who was not open to gathering input from the faculty and staff but relied on their own inaccurate assumptions. It was a shame that "reorganization" was any thing but a closed process with very little input from those who would be impacted or who had the data. Not once did the Dean and/or Provost visit with the department's faculty and students to gather input. The university's own data showed anywhere from 85-200 Aviation students depending on who you asked and what set of numbers they wanted to use. Also it was stated by the airport manager that SCSU made up at least 45% of the airport operations. Like I said before I will be one of the first to cheer when the liberal-biased departments meet the chopping block.
Comment 10 by Yeager at 25-Feb-15 07:42 AM
The document was prepared by department faculty. The university's data showed between 50-56 majors - as self-reported by the department. The quote I provided was written by department faculty, who talk about growing into a department with 75-100 majors. The 25% of STC operations number was provided by the department.
Comment 11 by Mystique at 25-Feb-15 08:12 AM
Yeager: Wow! Wherever you got your source from needs a remedial writing class but I digress. In Dean DeGroote's September 2010 letter about aviation quoted in the article link, it states "compared to our 130 students." So your source states "we can probably build to 75-100+ as the department..." WHAT? Can't this person understand basic math? Last I checked, 75-100 is LESS than 130. Patrick-M is correct in stating the airport manager found that 45% of the airport operations were from SCSU aviation students. The study results were released in March 2011.
I cannot believe the incompetence this administration has in counting aviation students and defining how they did it. Of course, with the $9.6 million budget deficit this year alone (and counting) I am not surprised at the difficulty administration has with numbers and that layoffs are in the works.
Comment 12 by Patrick-M at 25-Feb-15 08:18 AM
Yeager
Once again you refuse to acknowledge facts... let me shout it out to you so you can hear me: THE DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ONE FACULTY WHO DID NOT TAKE TOO KINDLY TO ANY INPUT FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE UNIVERSITY'S DATA SHOWED BETWEEN 50-56 MAJORS - AS SELF-REPORTED BY ONE FACULTY MEMBER. THE QUOTE YOU PROVIDED WAS WRITTEN BY ONE FACULTY MEMBER, (75-100 MAJORS). THE 25% OF STC OPERATIONS NUMBER WAS PROVIDED BY ONE FACULTY MEMBER.
The other members were not allowed to correct these inaccuracies as the university via the Dean were pre-ordained to shut the department down.
Comment 13 by Nick at 25-Feb-15 11:28 AM
Yeagar, get your facts correct!!! The true data is on www.savescsuaviation.com/.
Comment 14 by Jarrett at 26-Feb-15 01:34 AM
HERE WE GO
Focus is always more important than crying over spilled milk. I am a pilot. I believe an Aviation degree has a solid place in society, much more so than Liberal Arts. Bottom line... there is a complete and total idiot running St Cloud State University. Being a businessman as well as a pilot,I have very strict rules, dynamics and factors in all of the worlds I participate in. It IS NOT rocket science to see the missteps in the Apartments, Iself, Budgetary woes, enrollment woes and on and on. While Mr Potter may have good intentions and be a good guy to some,while showboating these very same missteps as progress and SUCCESS'S... he simply lacks "what it takes" A: to be a good leader, B: a good businessman, C: a good communicator. These are ESSENTIAL in being "the Captain". It matters not if it of an aircraft, a ship or a University. Blaming is NEVER acceptable. Rightsizing and belt tightening and charting the future all sound sound legitimate to those who simply desire an answer from "The Captain". HOWEVER, bullshit wont land a plane, navigate a ship OR guess what.... run a University
Personally,and I mean this with all my heart, the entire City of St Cloud MN had better wake up and DO SOMETHING, HAVE A MESSAGE..... because we all know that broken things NEVER fix themselves. SCSU IS...SERIOUSLY in deep shit, as SCSU goes, so goes the City. Business failures, retail closings, HUGE and uncontrolled refugee resettlement that is causing SERIOUS problems in the fabric of the City from the 742 school district train wreck of student fighting, teacher complaints, to the exodus of long time St Cloud families to surrounding areas. Quiet old time neighborhoods filled with junk cars, tall grass, broken windows with "ant trails" of "women in flowing garb" tugging 3 or 4 little ones or driving Mini Vans with cell phones jammed inside the Muslim required head covering with ....that smell??? Take a drive from the hockey center towards 9th and then head South passing La Paz and all of the other wonderful "charity subsidized apartments" that pay ZERO tax for ANYTHING. What are we thinking here anyway???
What in the hell will be left? A decaying University with empty buildings and shuttered student housing, non family neighborhoods that show ZERO pride of ownership,
a crumbling non vibrant Downtown,expanding "social services
(welfare freebies)and non profits" an increase goat markets and Mosques, an uptick in crime across the board........WAKE UP......ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING....RIGHT NOW !!!!!
So while I am very sad to see what I consider a good and solid program go away under suspect circumstances I am MUCH more concerned, not only as a pilot and businessman but as a person. Pointing fingers about the interpretation / interpolation of numbers of students does not mean shit to a tree. DO SOMETHING. Make a statement, ask questions, hold officials accountable...or guess what, IF this continues St Cloud WILL NO LONGER be a place to live, raise a family or have a business...Sorry for the very BAD and very REAL update.
For those who do not know me, I am not left, right, DFL or REP...I am a solid honest person who sees and does and conveys REAL and HONESTY and is NOT afraid to call a spade a spade.
I have only been associated with St Cloud since 1980
(my wifes family has roots to the 1800's) but I can tell you with that very same REAL and HONESTY, it is NOT going the right direction......no matter how many aviation students there were. I am NOT incorrect in ANY of these actual FACTS.
Anyone have a solution to any of THIS?
That pesky thing
If there's anything that progressives hate, it's the fact that the Constitution limits what government has the authority to do. They especially hate the fact that there's an order laid out for passing revenue bills. George Will's column in this morning's Washington Post explains how the Constitution might lead to Obamacare's demise:
The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on, the ACA, was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote.
The regular process wasn't followed:
The 'exaction', Roberts's word, 'looks,' he laconically said, 'like a tax in many respects.' It is collected by the IRS, and the proceeds go to the Treasury for the general operations of the federal government, not to fund a particular program. This surely makes the ACA a revenue measure.
Did it, however, originate in the House? Of course not.
In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers, a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later, the Senate 'amended' this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA's contents.
Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine 'amendment' to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be 'germane to the subject matter of the [House] bill.' The Senate's shell game, gutting and replacing the House bill, created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House's constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified.
Case law establishes that the origination clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates 'a particular governmental program and...raises revenue to support only that program.' The second creates taxes that are 'analogous to fines' in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitution's enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACA's tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the origination clause.
I'm still skeptical that this will kill the ACA. Still, if the Constitution is followed, there's no questioning the fact that the Senate didn't simply pass a bill that the House originated. It gutted a bill that started in the House, then created the Senate version of the Affordable Care Act.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court saved the ACA by declaring its penalty to be a tax. It thereby doomed the ACA as an unconstitutional violation of the origination clause.
Let's hope so, quickly.
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2014 9:47 AM
No comments.
SCSU's rightsizing strategy exposed
One thing that's exposed in this Our View editorial is that SCSU's 'rightsizing' was a carefully executed plan:
The university also made the decision to admit fewer marginally qualified students; meaning students with lower GPAs and test scores will have to find another post-high school option.
Students frequently start at a community college to improve their grades so they can get into a 4-year school. That isn't new. The reason why it's significant is because SCSU's 'rightsizing' plan isn't working:
There were almost 300 students this fall who previously would have been accepted at St. Cloud State who were instead referred to St. Cloud Technical & Community College. About 140 enrolled; others chose a different path, according to a Times news report.
SCSU's allegedly well-planned strategy of rightsizing isn't working. Not only didn't the students not enroll at SCSU. They didn't enroll at SCTCC either. What's more is that another university with previously similar enrollment in a city that's a little smaller than St. Cloud is doing significantly better. That's so obvious even the SC Times noticed:
The university should look to Minnesota State University, Mankato as an example. Mankato, a community and university about the same size as St. Cloud, seems to be thriving while St. Cloud State lags behind. What is Mankato doing right? In fact, St. Cloud State leaders cited competition from Mankato as one of the reasons for seeing a decline in students.
First, in the interest of accuracy, St. Cloud's population was 65,000 in 2012 while Mankato's population was 40,000. SCSU had the biggest FYE enrollment in MnSCU in FY2010. It now trails Mankato by a significant margin.
As for what Mankato is doing right, the reality is that it isn't that Mankato is a well-run institution. We needn't look further than seeing how it totally botched the Hoffner firing/re-hiring to prove that. They're doing better because Richard Davenport hasn't burned as many bridges as Earl Potter has.
Simply put, Earl Potter's management style, his bullying and his unwillingness to listen and admit his mistakes, are offputting to say the least. Let's remember that President Potter once told the people at a Meet & Confer meeting that admitting he'd made a mistake would make his management team look weak.
What's needed to make SCSU successful again is the rightsizing of President Potter's ego and a dash of financial competence, both of which are noticeably missing at SCSU. It isn't like President Potter's actually followed through on his initiatives. That's why he got the miserable scores from the Great Place to Work Institute's Trust Index Survey.
Here's the telling graphic from that survey:
When only 24% of the faculty think that President Potter's words match his actions, that's a problem. When only 26% of the faculty think that management delivers on its promises, that's a crisis. When only 17% of the faculty think that President Potter doesn't engage in office politics or backstabbing, that's proof it's time for new management.
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2014 11:47 AM
No comments.
Fisking Unze's article, Potter's spin
There Is No Hiding From The Truth
by Silence Dogood
Dave Unze's interview of SCSU's President Potter led to an article that appeared in the Sunday, April 27, 2014 St. Cloud Times. Dave Unze's quotes of President Potter expose either his lack of transcribing skill or the President's inaccuracies and spin. According to Unze's article:
"When enrollment at St. Cloud State University fell 6 percent in 2011, it led to emergency budget reductions and ended up costing Mahmoud Saffari his job as vice president for enrollment management.
What cost Saffari his job wasn't that enrollment dropped, but that administrators didn't know the drop was coming, didn't know it would be so significant and couldn't prepare for it, President Earl H. Potter III has said."
Let's begin with the simple inaccuracies. The enrollment did not fall "6 percent in 2011." SCSU's enrollment is based on fiscal year and fiscal years run from July 1st - June 30th. For FY11 (Summer 2010, Fall 2010, and Spring 2011 terms), SCSU's enrollment was down 0.8% FYE. For FY12 (Summer 2011, Fall 2011, and Spring 2012 terms), which is probably what President Potter was referring to, the enrollment was down 6.92% not "6 percent". The enrollment drop in FY12 was an astounding 1,037 FYE!
Let's take a look at some enrollment numbers. The following table shows the SCSU FYE enrollment from FY04 through FY12 (data is obtained from the MnSCU website):
Dr. Mahmoud Saffari was hired as Vice President for Enrollment Management in August 2003. So it is hard to credit him or blame him for the enrollment that occurred during the year he was hired. Also, for those who know anything about enrollment at a university, things usually change slowly due to the inertia of a large, complex organization. After Dr. Saffari was on campus three years, enrollment turned around and began rising. Some even credit Dr. Saffari with helping manage the turnaround. Certainly, Dr. Saffari was instrumental in increasing the enrollment of students of color at SCSU. Enrollment continued to grow from FY06 to FY10 increasing a total of 9.26% on Dr. Saffari's watch.
So what happened in FY12? Who was responsible for the 6.92% drop in enrollment? Was it really unexpected as Potter is quoted as saying? Let's look as some disaggregated enrollment data taken from SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness website. It needs to be understood that Dr. Saffari never had authority over four subgroups of enrollees (graduate enrollment, international student enrollment, summer school enrollment, and returning undergraduate enrollment). The two subgroups Dr. Saffari did have direct responsibility for were new entering freshman and new entering transfer enrollees.
The second largest group of the enrollment is graduate students. Graduate enrollment for FY11 totaled 1,578 FYE and for FY12 graduate enrollment totaled 1,418 FYE for a drop of 160 FYE, which represents a decline of 10.1%. This means that 15.4% of the enrollment decline for FY12 came from graduate enrollment, which is an area that was not under the supervision of Dr. Saffari.
Undergraduate enrollment in the summer of 2010 was 987 FYE and in the summer of 2011 was 897 FYE for a drop of 90 FYE, which represents a decline of 9.1%. This means that 8.7% of the enrollment decline for FY12 came from summer undergraduate enrollment, which is also an area that was not under the supervision of Dr. Saffari.
The largest subgroup of the enrollment is returning students. In FY11 for Fall and Spring semesters there were 12,410 FYE in developmental (0XX numbered courses), lower division (100 and 200 numbered courses) and upper division (300 and 400 numbered courses) courses. In FY12 for Fall and Spring semesters, in similar categories, there were 11,622 FYE for a decline of 788 FYE. The new entering freshman enrollment (NEF) in Fall 2010 was 2,315 and in Fall 2011 was 1,972 for a decline of 343 students. Based on a 70% retention rate for students from their first to second year (which is higher than it actually is), this converts to a decline of approximately 292 FYE. A decline of 292 FYE represents a decline of 1.9% of the total enrollment from FY11 to FY12. As a result, from the data available, 71.8% of the decline in enrollment came from areas not directly supervised by Dr. Saffari yet he was selected out to take the blame for the enrollment decline.
This analysis is incomplete because it does not take into account new entering transfer (NET) students, which is an area under Dr. Saffari's supervision. However, the data is not available on the website for the Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness website to complete such an analysis. The data is also not available from the MnSCU website. However, despite this omission there would be an additional factor to offset any decline in NETs. Consider that International undergraduate student enrollment from the Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness website show 837 in Fall 2010 and 783 in Fall 2011 for a drop of 54 students or 6.5%. Please note that there is no data for international students listed for Spring or Summer enrollments so the data is far from complete. However, this is another area that Dr. Saffari had no supervisory responsibility that showed a significant decline!
Are there other variables associated with a decline in enrollment that Dr. Saffari had no control over? During FY11, SCSU underwent massive reorganization and budget cutting associated with an anticipated "loss of federal stimulus funds." Despite the fact that the magnitude of the loss of funds turned out to be substantially less than what the university cut from the budget, the university was proud to announce the "closing of 32 programs." Also, at the same time, Homecoming was cancelled and the university announced it was considering closing the football program as well as other intercollegiate sports programs unless the students passed a referendum to increase student fees. Budget cuts, program closings, cancellation of homecoming and the possibility that many intercollegiate sports programs would be closed may all lead to decreasing interest in attending or for that matter staying at SCSU. With all this bad news, is it any wonder why the enrollment dropped? Rather than performing a careful analysis of the factors associated with the enrollment decline, President Potter picked a scapegoat for the drop in enrollment and Dr. Saffari was a convenient target.
What's truly amazing is that President Potter is publically mentioning Dr. Saffari at the same time that the issue is being litigated before the Federal District Court. Is Dr. Potter attempting to argue his side of the case in the press to affect a potential jury pool? A prudent thing to do when a matter is still being adjudicated is to make no comment regarding the case.
What about the so-called Enrollment Surprise?
If the enrollment decline was unanticipated as Unze quotes President Potter:
"administrators didn't know the drop was coming,"
why then did Provost Malhotra increase the target enrollment numbers in March of 2011 for the Division of General Studies (DGS) program [now called ACE] from 500 to 850? You don't have to take my word for it, simply review the minutes of the Enrollment Management Committee. Having been relatively constant for a number of years, one might wonder why the sudden increase in recruiting DGS students? Could it have been the result of anticipating fewer new entering freshman and new entering transfer students? It is also important to note that the increase in the numbers for the DGS program was done without consulting the Enrollment Management Committee OR being communicated to the faculty at Meet and Confer. So much for "open and transparent."
The Enrollment Management Committee in March 2011 projected a drop in enrollment for FY12 of 230 FYE. However, at the same time it delivered its enrollment projection, it stated that the effects from the publicity surrounding the closing of 32 programs (including aviation), possible elimination of the football program and the cancelling of Homecoming would make any enrollment prediction subject to a large amount of uncertainty.
The Provost, again without consulting the Enrollment Management Committee, in March 2011 decreased the projected decline in enrollment from 230 FYE to 130 FYE. Again, this was not brought to Meet and Confer. This is yet just another of many examples where "open and transparent" is not a behavior but a meaningless slogan.
In April 2011, registration for fall semester was complete and the administration had the data to compare with the year-to-date enrollment from the prior year. Since returning students represent approximately 80% of the total enrollment, it is hard to argue that they "didn't know the drop was coming."
To compound the problem even further, in August 2011, the Provost disbanded the Enrollment Management Committee, which was a joint administrative/faculty committee, without even consulting the Faculty Association. An additional interesting piece of information is the fact that there was no replacement for the Enrollment Management Committee for more than a year!
Data Analytics - A work in progress!
The sub heading for the article:
"St. Cloud State University is using data analytics, predictive modeling and more careful selection of students as it manages its part of a statewide enrollment decline."
If you review the minutes of the Budget Advisory Committee, the data analytics enrollment prediction in February 2013 for the FY14 enrollment was for a 2.4% decline. In April, the number increased to 2.8-3.2%. In May, the number supposedly was increased to a 4% decline. Unfortunately, the May number was not communicated to the Faculty Association until Meet and Confer in September of 2013 when they then announced that the decline would now be increased to 5%. If you keep 'moving the goalposts', you get pretty good at making field goals. It is very important to note that making a enrollment prediction in the fall after over 57% of your enrollment is already in the books makes it a lot easier to predict a final enrollment number. From their first projection in February, the Data Analytics Group was only off by a little more than 108% in their prediction (2.4% to 5.0%). For people interested in data, it can also be demonstrated that the Data Analytics Group was also off by a little more than 100% in their prediction for Spring 13 enrollments as well!
According to Unze,
"Potter said that the modeling can predict an incoming class to within a few dozen students."
What is certainly clear is that a comparison of the enrollment numbers and the projections made by the Data Analytics group makes President Potter's assertion about the success of the Data Analytics predictions something of a fantasy. However, this sort of assertion by President Potter that directly contradicts the facts is nothing new. On February 21, 2014 in an interview with the SCTimes editorial board, President Potter called Coborn's Plaza Apartments a "success." It's hard to believe that anyone would think losing $5,000,000 in the first four years operation could be called a success on any level except, of course, if you were expecting to lose $10,000,000! What's also amazing is that none of the investigative journalists on the SCTimes editorial board followed up with a question asking President Potter what he defined as a 'success.'
It is almost ironic that only enrollment projection within "a few dozen students" was actually the FY11 enrollment projection that was made by the Enrollment Management Committee in March 2010. Again, this is easily verified by looking at the minutes of the Enrollment Management Committee.
What about that supposed statewide enrollment decline? The plot below shows the enrollment at the MnSCU universities for the past seven years, which is current as of April 30, 2014.
Figure 1. Seven years of FYE enrollment for MnSCU universities (from the MnSCU website)
Because it is hard to clearly see the numbers in the graph, the raw data is reproduced in the table below:
Table 1. Seven years of FYE enrollment from MnSCU universities (from the MnSCU website)
It is clear from the data that all of the universities in MnSCU had enrollment declines this year (FY13 to FY14), except Minnesota State University Mankato, which showed a slight increase. However, the decline of 648 FYE for SCSU is larger than the declines at all of the other MnSCU universities combined (492)! Although six of the seven MnSCU universities suffered enrollment declines this year, the enrollment trends over the seven years looks pretty good for five of the seven universities. Only two universities have declines comparing FY08 with FY14 (Moorhead and SCSU). Of course, if you pick different years you will get different results. However, the trends in the graph are pretty obvious. SCSU is an outlier with percentage declines more than double any other university's decline!
In September 2013, at Meet and Confer, the administration announced that they had reduced the size of the incoming class of DGS students by 160 students and this was responsible for the decline in enrollment. Unfortunately, subtracting 160 from the decline lowers the decline from 648 to 488 FYE, which is still on the order of the same size as the total decline for the MnSCU universities combined (492)!
The only explanation that has ever officially been given for SCSU's enrollment decline has been something about demographics and "right sizing." Demographics might be a plausible reason for SCSU's decline. However, nothing has been presented as to why Mankato is not seeing a decline but rather steady growth! The idea of 'right sizing' might also be credible if the university had developed an enrollment management plan in the thirty-two months since Dr. Saffari's dismissal. It is important to remember that the development of an enrollment management plan was so important that it was listed as one of the four reasons for dismissing Dr. Saffari nearly three years ago. This sounds a bit disingenuous to me but I've become a bit jaded when the administration proclaims something.
Later in the article, Unze wrote:
"Enrollment of full-year equivalent students at St. Cloud State has declined 14 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, according to data from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. The university reached a high of 15,096 full-year equivalents during the 2010 fiscal year, falling to 13,053 in fiscal year 2013."
When rounded off (13.5%), this is entirely true! However, with two weeks left in the semester, President Potter knows the current spring enrollment is essentially the final enrollment so the enrollment for fiscal year 2014 is known. For FY14, as of April 30, 2014, MnSCU lists SCSU's enrollment at 12,405 FYE. As a result, the enrollment is down 17.8% from FY10 to FY14! When compared with all of the rest of the MnSCU universities over this same time period, no university is even close to the enrollment decline that has occurred at SCSU! In citing the change in enrollment from FY10 to FY13, President Potter is misleading by trying to make the enrollment decline at SCSU seem smaller than what it is.
From an article by Steve Adubato in the Star Ledger (4/11/09)
"The irony is that many leaders may see admitting a mistake as a sign of weakness. Yet, many times the opposite is the case. Admitting our errors has the potential to strengthen our relationships with workplace colleagues and other stakeholders. According to Mike Krzyzewski, Duke University basketball coach and author of the book, 'Leading with the Heart,' 'When a leader makes a mistake and doesn't admit it, he is seen as arrogant and untrustworthy. And 'untrustworthy' is the last thing a leader wants to be.'
Compare this with President Potter's statement. Last spring, at State-wide Meet and Confer, Chancellor Rosenstone said the decision to close the aviation program at SCSU was made before his watch so that he would welcome a review of the decision if it came from the SCSU campus. At a local Meet and Confer when President Potter was informed of the Chancellor's statement and asked if we would reconsider his decision, he responded that to reconsider the decision to close aviation "would make my management team look weak."
Based on the results of the supposed Great Place to Work survey, I think President Potter has more to worry about than looking weak.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by jarrett at 05-May-14 09:07 AM
There should be some form of "recall" or impeachment process within the University charter or applicable MNSCU procedure. All a basketball coach had to do was film his kids after taking a bath doing what kids do.
This will continue to be the Earl Potter III fiefdom if allowed to continue. The City of St Cloud will continue to suffer as well. Even the St Cloud Times for gosh sakes gets THAT part (kind of)
Todays safety tip.... YOU CANT FIX STUPID
Comment 2 by wonderer at 05-May-14 09:48 AM
Thank you, Silence Dogood, for so aptly filling in the gap between the Potter administration's assertions and the facts. Shame on the St Cloud Times reporter and editorial staff for blithely reporting whatever Pres. Potter said without question and investigation. This is public information! How lazy or blinded by some protective alliance with EP the Times has become. How is that good journalism? If there is any question about the data and conclusions above, why isn't it being researched in a search for understanding? Gee, there would have been no public awareness of the Watergate scandal if reporters had not INVESTIGATED and if a brave insider had not put together information to them. Here it is, Mr. Unze and Mr. Bodette, handed to you on a silver platter. You didn't even have to meet anybody in a dark parking garage.
Benghazi talking points, Brit Hume vs. Jane Harman edition
In this short 95-second video, Brit Hume utterly demolishes Jane Harman's attempt to explain away the Benghazi talking points from Ben Rhodes:
Here's the transcript of Hume's exchange with Harman:
HARMAN: I would call that an intelligence failure. And, by the way, this was an intelligence failure. But it wasn't a conspiracy. And there aren't aliens in Area 51 and Vince Foster wasn't murdered. And it's time to move on and focus on the real problems in Libya and other problems that affect the --
(CROSSTALK)
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You're right, there wasn't a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack. The question -- that's not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn't a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used?
I'm not talking about the CIA talking points. I'm talking about the talking points used on that program that day which were monumentally misleading and were -- and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.
HARMAN: All right. And my answer to that is no, there wasn't a conspiracy. They didn't turn out to be accurate.
HUME: Well, how did it happen? Well, how did it happen?
HARMAN: I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts.
HUME: Wait a minute. But where did the idea that the video had anything to do with Benghazi come from?
HARMAN: Where did it come from?
HUME: Yes?
HARMAN: I think it came from people who weren't sure about it.
HUME: Well, can you identify anybody? Can you identify any CIA information? Can you identify any source?
WALLACE: Ben Rhodes talked about the video or the movie five times in this memo. Only five times.
HARMAN: I -- my view is, having been around at the time, that this not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong but it was not deliberately misleading.
Harman looks foolish in this exchange because she's spinning the administration's chanting points. Responding to Hume's question of how the anti-Islam video became part of Ambassador Rice's, Harman said "I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts."
That's stunning. Harman essentially admitted that the administration was making this stuff up. Harman essentially admitted that they weren't relying on hardcopy intel from Libya from US intelligence assets stationed in Libya.
There's more to this than just not telling the truth that Sunday morning after the terrorist attack that killed 4 American patriots. It's that the story was used repeatedly by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney in a variety of settings.
Harman's saying that this was just a case of people making "at the time their best guess at the facts" isn't sufficient. The reality is that this administration, if they can be believed, repeatedly relied on people making "at the time their best guess at the facts."
Saying that's an implausable explanation is understatement.
With Benghazi, there isn't a clever twist like in the movies. What happened in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi is that the administration lied through its teeth so it didn't look utterly incompetent heading into the final stretch of the campaign.
Finally, Brig. Gen. Lovell testified this week that he watched events unfold in real time and that there wasn't a protest about an anti-Islamic video. Compare that with the fact that hours after the attack, Hillary issued a statement blaming the anti-Islamic video starting a protest that suddenly turned violent.
If I'm forced to choose which person to trust, I'll trust the chief intelligence officer for Africom over the politically-motivated Secretary of State 100% of the time.
Posted Sunday, May 4, 2014 9:29 PM
No comments.
Ken Martin's accusations refuted
The last time Ken Martin and Keith Downey faced off on Almanac, Martin said Republicans didn't offer solutions to Minnesota's problems. At the time, I said that Martin was lying through his teeth because, as a legislator, Keith Downey was a one-man ideas factory according to his colleagues.
Since then, the Republican Party of Minnesota, aka the RPM, has started accepting solutions to Minnesota's problems through their solutions website . One of the biggest problems facing Minnesotans is the deteriorating road conditions in the state. On the GOP's solutions website, the GOP turned to Rep. Mike Beard to talk about transportation issues. Here's what Rep. Beard said:
'Transportation is the foundation of commerce in our state,' said State Representative Michael Beard (R-Shakopee). Beard served as the chair of the House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee during the 2011-2012 biennium.
'Driving to work each morning should not be like driving through a war zone of potholes,' said Beard. 'We should not have to be concerned that our bridges are unstable. Our outstate roads should not be allowed to fall into disrepair and should be sufficient for transporting harvest and livestock.'
If you talked with the DFL legislators who've served with Rep. Beard over the last 12 years, the most likely statement they'd make is that he's one of the most thoughtful legislators that they've ever worked with. They'd also likely say that he isn't prone to making incendiary comments. If Rep. Beard talks about "driving through a war zone of potholes", rest assured that those statements aren't hyperbole.
Rep. Beard's statement also brings up another point that hasn't gotten highlighted enough. Specifically, we haven't paid enough attention to the state of disrepair of our bridges. This session, the House and Senate Transportation committees devoted lots of attention to the Southwest Light Rail project. The bonding bill calls for $750,000,000 worth of projects but only $25,000,000 worth of " local road improvements ."
Here's the GOP solution to this depressing situation:
While Democrats call for the usual tax increases to satisfy metro-area public transit and other special interest groups, Republicans will focus on prioritizing road and bridge projects in both the budget and in bonding . They will seek to make the Department of Transportation more efficient, reduce overlapping state and local functions and direct money toward the top values of safety, maintenance and congestion-relief on Minnesota roads.
The Southwest Light Rail project is a priority with transportation lobbyists and environmental activists. It isn't a priority with Minnesotans using their cities' streets, the interstate system and Minnesota's trunk highways. Those people want their potholes filled so they don't hit a pothole and snap an axel or get a concussion when their airbag deploys.
When Steve Murphy and the DFL raised the gas tax in 2008, Minnesotans expected that money to be used to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. It's apparent that that didn't happened. Now that there's a DFL governor, a DFL legislature and pothole problems aplenty, Minnesotans expect these problems to get fixed.
Debating whether they should spend $1,700,000,000 on the Southwest Light Rail project or spending $1,200,000,000 for bonding projects might satisfy the lobbyists but it won't satisfy the people using Minnesota's potholed roads and bridges.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 5:45 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-May-14 11:56 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget the following.
* When that gas tax was increased the state Republicans (they were a minority in the House and the Senate) put up a proposal which would've put up the money immediately for road repairs via a bonding bill and their amendment was voted down.
* In 2008 the voters of Minnesota legalized the theft of the excise tax which was suppose to go to roads only to transportation projects.
* In 2011 when Governor Dayton shutdown the government he vetoed the transportation bill thus dealing projects.
And like you said they proposed just $25 million for roads, but can find $7 million for the Saint Paul Schools pension fund and $14 million for the Dulth School's pension fund. Sounds like you can generate another $21 million right there.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
National Popular Vote and Rhonda Sivarajah
Michael Brodkorb's post about Rhonda Sivarajah's attempt to attack Tom Emmer's candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives is quite revealing. First, here's what Brodkorb wrote about Sivarajah's campaign:
Sivarajah has rebooted her campaign for Congress since losing the Republican Party's endorsement in the 6th Congressional District to Emmer in April . In the last few weeks, Sivarajah has hired Patrick Davis as the campaign's general consultant , released a new campaign website, been more aggressive on social media and also in contrasting her positions with Emmer.
This attack will fail because it's apparent that it's an act of desperation.
Even if Tom Emmer was connected to NPV, it's irrelevant because Congress will never bring this subject up. Never. NPV is something that state legislatures would have to deal with.
Apparently, Sivarajah and Krinkie are attempting to say that Emmer's involvement with NPV is proof that he isn't a real conservative who will fight for lower taxes, pro-growth policies, regulatory reform and repealing Obamacare. If that's their contention, then they've lost what little is left of their credibility.
Polling released from Emmer's campaign showed Emmer maintaining a big lead over Sivarajah in the upcoming primary election.
This primary is essentially over. If they do exceptionally well, the combined votes for Sivarajah and Krinkie would allow one of those candidates to lose by 25 points or more.
According to the poll, which is extremely credible, Emmer's name ID within the district is 94%, with 71% of likely voters having a positive image of him. Those statistics translate into the reality that Sivarajah is getting hit with hurricane-force headwinds. They translate into an overwhelming defeat.
At the CD-6 Convention, the rationale spread by the Sivarajah campaign was that a) attendance was low for the caucuses and b) we need to grow the Republican Party.
I agree that attendance was low for the precinct caucuses. I agree that growing the MNGOP is a high priority. It's just that desperately attacking the endorsed candidate doesn't grow the party. It's important to make a distinction, though.
It's one thing to have a spirited debate on the issues the candidates will have to deal with. It's quite another to just criticize candidates in a fit of irritation and resentment.
If Sivarajah wanted to make sure NPV doesn't happen in Minnesota, she should run for the legislature, where she might have a chance at winning. If she's just using NPV to attack Emmer, it's too inconsequential to have an impact. If there's anything that's known about Tom Emmer's supporters, it's that there's lots of them and that they're exceptionally loyal to him.
If Mrs. Sivarajah wants to continue her campaign, that's her right. I'm just saying she'll have to spend tons of money to lose badly. If that's what she wants, that's her choice.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 9:58 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-May-14 12:02 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that Michael B doesn't like Tom E because he thinks Emmer threw away the race for governor while at least one member of Emmer's campaign team from 2010 was blaming the Republican Party which Michael B was vice chair of at the time for not enough support.
It's safe to say Michael B isn't being objective here.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Stitches
It's just a hunch but I think Mike McFadden's second campaign ad will be effective:
Here's the transcript of the ad:
CONOR MCFADDEN: My dad, Mike McFadden, he's cheap.
MIKE MCFADDEN: With six kids, it's called a budget.
CONOR MCFADDEN: When I was 10 and I had to get stitches out after a hockey injury, the nurse said it would cost a hundred bucks. Dad was so horrified, he grabbed some scissors and took them out himself.
MIKE MCFADDEN: You lived.
CONOR MCFADDEN: Trust me. Nothing will stop Dad from taking out Obamacare.
MIKE MCFADDEN: Send me to Washington and give me some scissors and I'll put them to work.
That's a nice blend of humor and seriousness. It creates an image that most Minnesotans will appreciate. They can picture a hockey dad being frugal. After seeing how the federal government spent money and ran up multiple trillion dollar deficits, I'm betting people want to vote for someone who won't write President Obama a blank check.
Unlike Mike McFadden, Sen. Franken has voted to write President Obama several blank checks since he's arrived in Washington, DC. He's voted to raise taxes on all Americans. He didn't just vote to raise taxes on the "wealthiest 1%." That's because he voted for Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, which included a 21-tax 'salute' on the middle class.
McFadden's ad will be effective because it tells apolitical voters that he's a no-nonsense guy. It'll help him with his base because it says he's on a mission to cut spending. It does these things while mixing the right amount of lightheartedness with the right amount of seriousness.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 6:38 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-May-14 09:53 AM
Fun does get people to watch an ad, no doubt, and it is hands down better than the negative crap the DFL is going to put up for the rest of the year, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. As for me, though, I am just longing for some specific information about HOW Mr. McFadden proposes to work his magic, even if the GOP has a Senate majority? He can work for and vote for repeal of Obamacare, but Democrats will fight dirty and Obama is certain to veto it if that's all it is. So, where's the magic lamp, Mike?
The DFL's ill-advised priorities
The last thing that the DFL wants to hear right now is that fixing Minnesota's bridges and filling Minnesota's potholes is a higher priority for Minnesotans than their giant-sized bonding bill. Whether the DFL wants to admit it or not, the reality is that fixing Minnesota's potholes is at the top of most Minnesotans' priorities.
Most Minnesotans don't want the legislature to spend $90,000,000 on an office building that'll be used 3-4 months each year, especially when that money could've been spent on filling potholes. Most Minnesotans don't want the DFL to spend a month debating whether to pass a bill legalizing medical marijuana if it means the DFL has to ignore the crater-sized potholes they're hitting on their cities' streets.
The truth is that Minnesotans wouldn't care a bit if the only things that the legislature did was to repeal the B2B sales taxes and pass a bill to fil Minnesota's potholes and stabilize Minnesota's bridges.
The truth is that Minnesotans wouldn't notice if the legislature didn't pass a bonding bill this session. Lobbyists might be upset with the decision but few Minnesotans rate passing a bonding bill as a priority, much less a high priority. The truth is that Republicans would get rewarded if they shut down their negotiations on the giant-sized bonding bill that Gov. Dayton proposed.
I wrote this article over the weekend to highlight the pothole crisis. When a car hits a pothole that triggers the vehicle's airbags to deploy, that's a crisis. When that airbag gives the driver a concussion, that's a crisis in urgent need of an immediate solution.
This isn't a Twin Cities-specific crisis, either. It's a statewide crisis that started last fall. Roads throughout Minnesota were in tough shape back then. Then we had the nastiest winter in a generation, which dramatically deteriorated Minnesota's roads. To make matters worse, we've had lots of rain this spring, which has caused greater deterioration of Minnesota's roads.
Family vehicles are getting beaten up. Public safety is getting compromised bigtime. After all that, Gov. Dayton said in his State of the State Address that "transportation" will be a priority...in 2015. Here's a hint to Gov. Dayton: Potholed roads are a crisis this spring. It's time his staff pulled his head out of....nevermind. You get the hint.
The question now is whether the DFL legislature will set aside the pork projects in the bonding bill long enough to fix this crisis that's injuring people and damaging family vehicles. I'm betting that the DFL won't be bothered by the pothole crisis. I'm betting that they'll try their best to ram through an ill-advised bonding bill.
I'm betting they'll do that because the transportation lobbyists will tell them that's what Minnesotans want. The truth is that Minnesotans want government to get the basics right first. Fixing potholes is a high priority that Minnesotans want fixed ASAP.
In fact, I'd bet that people who paid attention to the gas tax debate in 2008 are upset that their taxes got raised but their roads aren't getting repaired. It's bad enough that Minnesotans are paying a plethora of taxes without their roads and bridges getting repaired.
If the DFL, Gov. Dayton included, doesn't start dealing with Minnesotans' priorities, they'll get fired en masse this November. "Transportation" isn't a 2015 priority. Potholes are a crisis right now. It's time the DFL noticed.
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 2:33 PM
No comments.
