May 6-8, 2016
May 06 04:07 SCSU Title IX lawsuits begin May 06 12:18 Judge drops gun charges May 07 03:42 Ken Martin's mythical Minnesota May 08 03:49 Prior Lake school bond questions May 08 08:15 Jett's Clark Field problem May 08 08:47 Evaluating Dorholt's op-ed
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SCSU Title IX lawsuits begin
Do You Believe In The Easter Bunny?
by Silence Dogood
According to an article in the St. Cloud Times on May 2, 2016, five members of the St. Cloud State University women's tennis team have sued the university,
In a March 2, 2016 St. Cloud Times article about the proposed cuts to sports programs, President Potter is quoted:
In a document provided by SCSU entitled St. Cloud State Intercollegiate Athletics Frequently Asked Questions, there is the following table showing roster participants.
So in the 2016-17 academic year, it appears that there will be 254 women participants and 250 men participants. Nothing here shows unequal opportunities under Title IX. However, if you total up the numbers for 2015-16, you find that the women had 246 participants and the men had 374. As a result, in 2015-16, the men had 128 more participants than the women!
I may have been born at night - it just wasn't last night! If there are 128 more men participants in intercollegiate sports than women, it certainly seems like this might be a violation of Title IX equal opportunity provisions. I guess that with such a large disparity between men's and women's participants in 2015-16, it was probably wise for the administration not to show the numbers totaled!
The lawsuit alleges that the university, for years, has offered more athletic opportunities for men than for women. Clearly, based on the 2015-16 academic year from the data provided by SCSU, the students have a strong case. Looking back at the participation numbers for previous years should be pretty easy to do. If the numbers for the prior years are similar to those for 2015-16, I'm fairly certain that SCSU will not issue a press release. So in this case, no press release means there were more opportunities for men than women, essentially proving the student's case. If a press release comes out with the numbers showing equal access, the students probably don't stand a chance in court.
As President, Earl Potter has the right to shut down any athletic program he wants to (just like he has the right to close any academic program - think aviation). After all, he is the President. So if he wants to reduce the number of participants to bring SCSU into Title IX compliance, he can certainly do so and in fact is obligated to do so under Title IX. In the March 2, 2016 SC Times article, it also states:
So President Potter may have been hinting that some of reductions in sports programs are due to Title IX considerations. I guess that is a whole lot better than saying for the nine years I've been President; we've been out of compliance with Title IX so these cuts are necessary to bring us into compliance. Instead, he used the urgency of a 10 million dollar budget deficit to justify cutting six sports programs - just so he wouldn't have to explain why for years SCSU has been out of compliance with Title IX.
Some analysis of the proposed reductions in sports programs do not indicate that there will be a $250,000 savings as claimed by the administration. In fact, it has been argued that the reductions will actually cost the university more that what it claims it will save. The one thing for certain is that the administration's handling of the elimination of the sports programs has given St. Cloud State another 'black eye' and the publicity from the lawsuit brings up the $8.7 million dollar loss on Coborn's Plaza Apartments (over six years), a 24.8% decline in on campus students (since 2009-10), and the $10 million dollar budget deficit for FY17, all of which does not does not address any of the solutions to these complex problems.
So what does this all have to do with the Easter Bunny? Not a lot. However, if you believe in an egg laying long-eared, cotton-tailed creature, maybe you just might believe that the cuts in the sports programs at SCSU were part of solving the $10 million dollar budget deficit and not a clever way to bring SCSU into Title IX compliance without drawing attention to the fact it was so far out of compliance. Cutting $250,000 from the athletic department budget solves only 2.5% of the $10,000,000, as President Potter refers to it, "budget hole to close." Obviously, more work needs to be done to end up with a budget that doesn't result in a deficit - since there are no longer any mandated reserves to spend down.
Now if someone could only explain why the Easter Bunny's eggs are made out of chocolate we might be able to solve one of the few last remaining mysteries.
Posted Friday, May 6, 2016 4:07 AM
No comments.
Judge drops gun charges
This article is this morning's ray of hope for Minnesota's constitution-loving patriots.
When Dave Unze wrote that "officers from Sauk Rapids and St. Cloud converged on Tyler Gottwalt" while he carried "a military-style rifle", my initial reaction was that nothing good would come of the situation. It didn't take long for Sauk Rapids and St. Cloud to reach different conclusions.
While "Sauk Rapids officers consulted with Benton County Attorney Philip Miller and ... let Gottwalt go", "St. Cloud officers disagreed and cited him for violating a city ordinance that prohibits carrying an uncased firearm in public."
The good news, today's ray of hope to constitutionalists, is that, following "a lengthy legal quarrel pitting a city ordinance against the state statute governing firearms," "Stearns County District Court Judge Vicki Landwehr dismissed the charges against Gottwalt."
I love this ruling. It isn't because I'm advocating for people to carry AK-47s around St. Cloud. I love this ruling because it delivers a harsh reminder to cities that they can't write gimmicky ordinances in the hope of overriding state statute.
While I love the outcome, I don't like the fact that the city attorney didn't notice the fact that this ordinance violated state statute. It's one thing to be unaware of an ordinance that hasn't been updated or repealed. I'd file that under 'things happen' or 'they're human'. When the arrest was made, though, City Attorney Matt Staehling should've tried finding out whether the city ordinance opposed state statutes.
Finally, Gottwalt should be compensated for his court costs because he never should've been through the system. The ordinance overstepped its authority once the state statute was passed.
Posted Friday, May 6, 2016 12:18 PM
No comments.
Ken Martin's mythical Minnesota
With the end of session approaching quickly, the DFL's spin operations are definitely ramping up. Spearheading their effort this year is DFL Chairman Ken Martin, starting with this op-ed . Predictably, it's his responsibility to spin things in the DFL's favor whether they're rooted in truth or not.
For instance, Chairman Martin isn't telling the whole truth when he said "Gov. Mark Dayton and DFL legislators have thrown out some good pitches on education funding, compromising on a transportation fix and addressing racial and economic disparities." The only pitch that Gov. Dayton and the DFL have thrown out on transportation has been to shrink the size of the DFL's middle class tax increase. Further, it's dishonest for Chairman Martin to say that "Republicans refuse to play ball."
This article reports that negotiations have essentially started. David Montgomery's reporting says that the DFL "proposed increasing the normal per-gallon gas tax by 12 cents, phased in over three years" while allowing "metro-area counties redirect some tax money currently going to transit to roads and bridges."
Montgomery also reported this:
Republicans officially offered to consider a sales tax increase to pay for metro-area mass transit, though they want some concessions in return. In particular, they want to change the Metropolitan Council, which would spend that tax increase on mass transit, to require all its members be composed of local elected officials.
Changing the Met Council from an unaccountable entity into an accountable board, if it happens, is a big deal. The fact that the Met Council is still unaccountable is one of the great tragedies in Minnesota political history. The fact that the Met Council is still unaccountable and has taxing authority is possibly the biggest tragedy in recent Minnesota political history.
Posted Saturday, May 7, 2016 3:42 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 07-May-16 07:17 AM
Somebody in the GOP is guilty of THINKING! What a great solution. There SHOULD be accountability and cooperation across the Metro. Who better than those most elected and affected to do it?
Prior Lake school bond questions
What's happening in Prior Lake-Savage school district needs to be highlighted to the rest of Minnesota. This article asks 3 important questions, each of which deserve answers. The first question in Hannah Jones' article asks "Is the district trying to influence students to vote 'yes' by giving referendum presentations during the school day?"
What's appalling is that the answer is "During the senior meeting, much of the time was devoted to issues like prom safety and graduation ceremony preparation, but during the last six minutes or so of the program, Superintendent Teri Staloch introduced herself to the students, congratulated them on their impending graduation and showed them the district's four-minute video presentation on the upcoming election. She also asked how many students in the audience were 18 and old enough to vote. It may not be typical for the school to show informational material on a referendum election during a student meeting, but that, Lund said, is because it's not typical to have a referendum question on the ballot during springtime."
Then there's this tasty tidbit:
If they happen to meet during a fall election season, Lund said, he will encourage students to vote.
This sounds like the school district's attempt to railroad high school students into voting for the bonding referendum. The bond is for $129,000,000. If that sounds like it'll lead to a huge property tax increase, that's because it'll lead to a huge property tax increase. Here's an additional question that the school district hasn't answered: has the district looked into whether this could be done less expensively? Here's another question: Has the district just accepted Nexus Solutions' influence into this project? They've got an interest in this, a very big interest in this:
Nexus Solutions will be compensated at 2.25 percent of the total cost of program management, 7.95 percent of the cost of architectural services, 8.95 percent of the cost of engineering services, 2.5 percent of the cost of commissioning services and 5.75 percent of construction management services.
The reason why this question is important is because of how the school board reacted when their contract with Nexus was questioned:
When "Prior Lake-Savage Area School Board, Member Melissa Enger asked to re-examine the Nexus contracts," the board "tensely shut down the conversation by taking a quorum on the subject. A majority voted to go with the day's agenda rather than getting into the contract."
Prior Lake-Savage voters should reject the referendum just on the basis that their school board is attempting to hide important details from making their way into the discussion. Why else would they shut this line of questioning down that quickly?
Another reason to reject this referendum is highlighted by this question in Hannah Jones' article: Why is the referendum in May? The spin from Superintendent Staloch is insulting:
Spring is a less expected time to hold an election, which some residents have questioned. Staloch said district officials chose May 24 for the date to expedite the construction process, given that the referendum passes.
"Due to the current and projected rise in student enrollment, coupled with the fact that building construction for a new elementary school would take two years, the school board made the decision to place the referendum question before voters as early as possible," she said. "If voters approve the referendum, a new elementary school would open for the 2018-2019 school year. If we waited until November to place the question before voters, we would not be able to open the new school until 2019-2020."
Simply put, that's rubbish. The reason the school board opted for a May 24th vote is to keep turnout as low as possible. They don't want the vote to happen in November because that means they'd have to deal with lots more voters. They'd prefer keeping turnout low so that those in the 'education industry' will outnumber citizens.
Posted Sunday, May 8, 2016 3:49 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 08-May-16 06:44 AM
Somebody should look into whether or not School District resources were used to promote one side of the levy issue over another rather than simply laying out the information. It is against the law, and charges should be filed. It's been done before.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-May-16 08:55 AM
The best people to check with would be the students who watched the video. That requires someone on the ground in PL-S.
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 08-May-16 11:17 AM
This is not new at all. When we still lived there, we would get bonding referendum flyers in our son's backpack (this was when the Junior Logician was in grade school)....and of COURSE school resources were used. They showed the video on school grounds using school equipment. That alone is using school resources.
Jett's Clark Field problem
The very first high school football game I went to was in September of 1970. The game was played at Clark Field. It's still the best football field I've ever watched a game at. Part of that is because it isn't a multi-purpose field. Thanks to the fact that there isn't a track oval, fans sitting in the front row sit only 25 feet from the playing field.
For the last few years, the school powers-that-be have tried to scrap Clark Field. This St. Cloud Times article indicates that the Times Editorial Board supports scrapping the best football field in Minnesota. I have a simple response for St. Cloud Superintendent of Schools Willie Jett and the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board: over my dead body. This is war.
Admittedly, I'm hopping on the proverbial bandwagon after others have built the Clark Field bandwagon. The Friends of Clark Field are "a grassroots group formed to save its namesake next to Technical High School." According to the Times editorial, "neither the school district nor the city are embracing the vision of the Friends group." That's part of the Times' rationalization for not supporting the maintaining of Clark Field. Another part of their rationalization is that the Times just assumes that a new Tech High School will soon be built, "complete with its own modern-day, multi-use stadium."
The Times shouldn't make that assumption. Last fall, the School Board's Vote Yes campaign lost by a resounding margin. When the dust settled, 8,460 people rejected the bonding referendum while 7,393 people voted to approve the referendum. Since that vote, the dynamics have shifted significantly.
The bonding referendum that was soundly defeated called for $167,000,000 in total bonding, with $113,800,000 of that money going into building a new Tech High School. Plenty of the people who voted no voted against the referendum because they were skeptical of the costs. I wrote this post to confirm the skeptics' beliefs:
" Those numbers are really round, so it's hard to take them seriously ," said Murphy, who worked for architectural firms in Minnesota and Colorado before becoming a space planner for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. "The building is 100 years old so it's going to need some help. But if there are real structural problems, there shouldn't be anybody in the building. If the cafeteria has major structural issues, why are they using it? They'd be putting the kids at risk. There's a difference between structural problems and things that are inconvenient or don't look good, like floor tiles popping up."
That's just part of Ms. Murphy's and Ms. VanderEyk's argument. There's also this :
During the campaign to pass the Tech bonding referendum, the ISD 742 school board said it would cost between $85,800,000 and $96,800,000 to temporarily fix Tech for 5-10 years. When Ms. Murphy and Ms. VanderEyk toured the facility, they took notes on what was in disrepair and needed fixing. Since they're both architects, they're qualified to determine what's in need of repair, what's structurally deficient and what's in good repair.
Ms. Murphy and Ms. VanderEyk are both Tech alums so they'd like to preserve the building if that's possible. That's why they took their notes to a contractor to see how much it would actually cost to repair the existing Tech campus. Saying that their estimate came in at less than $97,000,000 is understatement. It came in at $15,696,000, which is approximately $100,000,000 less than the School Board said it would cost to build a brand new Tech High School.
Simply put, the $167,000,000 bonding bill is dead. 'Trimming it' to $100,000,000 is probably dead, too.
It's time for Mayor Kleis, the Times and the St. Cloud School Board to start thinking in terms of refurbishing the existing Tech High School. There's no reason not to save Tech High School. There's no justification for raising people's taxes that dramatically. Sarah Murphy and Claire VanderEyk have given voters a glimpse of what's possible when competent people are put in charge of project. They've provided a picture of the difference between competent experts from the private sector and bungling politicians with 'a vision'.
It's time to save Clark Field. It's time to refurbish Tech High School. It's that simple.
Posted Sunday, May 8, 2016 8:15 AM
No comments.
Evaluating Dorholt's op-ed
Zach Dorholt's op-ed in this morning's St. Cloud Times is a reminder of why he should be a one-term wonder. The Times asked what the legislature's top priorities were. According to Dorholt, the answer is " a constitutional one. The Minnesota Constitution obligates the Legislature to fund transportation and education."
While it's true that Minnesota's constitution talks about transportation and education, it's equally true that education was fully funded in last year's budget. The budget that was adopted last year was a bipartisan budget that reflected both parties' priorities. In short, neither party got everything they wanted but the people got a budget that funded everyone's needs. What they didn't get was everything on the special interests' wish lists.
That's why it isn't worth paying attention to some of Dorholt's drivel. In Dorholt's op-ed, he brags about the fantastic job they did. Q: If you did such a magnificent job, why were you fired after your first term? Q2: If your education funding was so positive and so historic, why have school boards increased their operating levies? They've done that all across Minnesota. They've raised property taxes in both St. Cloud and in Princeton.
Simply put, Dorholt's rhetoric doesn't match Dorholt's record.
The last Legislature - of which I was a member - left this Legislature a budget surplus for a reason: the next generation of Minnesotans deserves the same quality-funded education their predecessors got.
However, these legislators have let college and university tuition go up again, forcing students to foot another large bill, or take out more loans, or even forgo college altogether. We still have a lot of catching up to do for our schools and colleges.
Let's talk about Dorholt's time in the legislature. Specifically, let's discuss his time as vice-chair of the House Higher Education Committee. During his time as vice-chair, Dorholt ignored St. Cloud State's financial and enrollment problems. There's a reason why Dorholt only talks about tuitions going up. It's because his time on the House Higher Education Committee was a disaster.
St. Cloud State is pretty much the poster child for financial dysfunctionality. Dorholt's solution was to throw more money at the problem without fixing the underlying problem. In fact, there's little evidence that he was interested in finding out what the underlying problems were.
It's just more proof that you can't find what you refuse to look for. Dorholt's ostrich strategy (burying his head in the sand) didn't work the last time he was in the legislature. That's why he shouldn't be returned to the legislature. He was a failure then. Nothing he's said suggests that he won't be a failure again.
Posted Sunday, May 8, 2016 8:47 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 08-May-16 11:11 AM
Liberals will never accept the challenge to fix what's wrong. If they fixed the underlying issues then there would be no need to have them around. More money = more problems and like the Lay's potato chip - it never stops with just one.
