October 3, 2011
Oct 03 03:26 Inside Late Debate's Redistricting Free-for-all Oct 03 09:39 Forced unionization of child care businesses story won't die Oct 03 12:42 How President Potter blew it with Aviation shutdown decision Oct 03 21:37 Dramatic pilot shortages question President Potter's decision
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Inside Late Debate's Redistricting Free-for-all
To say that Sunday night's discussion on redistricting was lively is understatement. Jack Tomczak just teed the first question up, then let nature take its course.
First up was Mike Dean, the executive director of Common Cause MN. He started by talking about Common Cause's role in the redistricting discussion. He said that they were mostly in it to raise awareness with the people and to create as competitive a map as possible.
Kent Kaiser's point that it shouldn't matter if the map favored the DFL or the GOP opened the discussion up. After that, it was Katey bar the door. If the population shifts to more GOP-friendly parts of the state, then it does. If it shifts to DFL-friendly parts of the state, so be it.
Kaiser said that creating competitive districts shouldn't be an objective in drafting new legislative or congressional maps. In fact, he emphasized that the commission that he sits on voted that off their priorities list this week by a 13-1 margin.
Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark said that the thing that struck him most were the things that weren't being talked about. Things like DTL-Minnesota's connections with organizations like TakeAction Minnesota, which, Mitch pointed out, was part of the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial campaign history.
As much as Dean tried distancing himself from that corrupt organization, it's clear he'd be fighting a difficult fight on that issue. Dean had a difficult time distancing his organization from this quote from the DTL-Minnesota website:
Historically, redistricting has been done out of the public eye, without meaningful public input, and used to dilute the voting power of communities of color. Minnesota has a reputation for fair and clean government, but we believe we can do better.
Dean agreed that that quote is a rather incendiary quote but that it shouldn't be taken as meaning that Minnesota's redistricting process is racist. With all due respect, if it doesn't pertain to Minnesota's redistricting process, then it shouldn't be posted on DTL-Minnesota's website.
If Dean wants to make the case that redistricting has been used to hurt minority communities, then it should be stated that those incidents don't have anything to do with Minnesota.
It's a flimsy argument to say that redistricting has a racial component, then say that Minnesota has a "reputation for fair and clean government." Any way you slice it, that statement on that website is a racist statement.
One subject that just briefly got touched on was the fact that the DFL is just a shell organization. The real DFL is run by and funded by Alida Messinger, the unions and the thousands of shadow organizations of the far left wing.
The DFL could close shop this Friday and the day-to-day operations of the DFL wouldn't skip a beat. That's important information because these organizations are dragging the DFL around, not vice versa.
Dean took hit after hit from Kaiser he repeatedly said that, based on the goals of the Citizens Commission, the GOP legislative map was a pretty solid map. Later, he said that Gov. Dayton's veto message was petty and partisan in tone. Finally, he said that the DFL really hurt themselves by not putting together their own maps.
When citizens vote with their mortgages, fleeing St. Paul and Minneapolis in droves, those people's decisions should be honored. If that means more legislative districts move out of St. Paul and Minneapolis, then that's what has to happen.
The traditional liberal handwringing about politicians picking their constituents, not vice versa, is a charade. This past decade, people attempted to determine the type of represenatation they'd get by moving from urban areas.
Suddenly, when people move into GOP friendly areas of the state, citizens picking their politicians isn't all it's cracked up to be in the DFL's eyes.
The reality is that some disgusting partisan organizations are attempting to unduly influence the redistricting process. Those corrupt partisan organizations are part of the DFL's smear campaign wing of the party.
Sunday night, thanks to Late Debate and Saturday, thanks to NARN's headliners, alot of light got shed on these organizations' corruption. My compliments to these civic-minded radio shows for their interest in redistricting.
Posted Monday, October 3, 2011 3:26 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 03-Oct-11 08:22 PM
I think corruption might be a bit strong though there's no denying the national coordination and targeting going on. My impression was that Dean & Kaiser are a bit too caught up in their high sounding words, sophists tilting at their windmills of perpetual discontent.
Forced unionization of child care businesses story won't die
Apparently, the Strib's Jim Ragsdale hasn't figured it out that the child care unionization story is dead , killed by the child care business owners themselves. In this morning's paper, Ragsdale essentially runs interference for AFSCME and the SEIU:
These providers are not covered by state labor law applying to public employees, a House researcher concluded, and might also be outside of federal labor law applying to private employers. But Sojourner said that while organizing them does not fit into the traditional union model, "it fits easily into the broader sense of what a union can be." With declining union membership, he said, the traditional model "ain't working too well."
Unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union, which are leading this drive, are experimenting with new models. One unanswered question is whether this initiative would allow providers to independently decide whether to associate or whether they would be forced to do so by a majority of their peers.
Many people join together for mutual benefit, even people who battle unions. And everyone would agree that a good child care provider is a priceless family asset. This debate over an issue so close to home may cause Minnesotans to look again at what a union is, and what it could be.
Perhaps he didn't know it but Ragsdale wrote why child care businesses should reject unionization when he said this:
With declining union membership, he said, the traditional model "ain't working too well ."
The only people who benefit from unions are the less-than-outstanding members of their profession. What incentive do teachers have to excel? Fran Tarkenton points out the illogic of the unions in this WSJ op-ed :
Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally catching on that our federally centralized, union-created system provides no incentive for better performance. If anything, it penalizes those who work hard because they spend time, energy and their own money to help students, only to get the same check each month as the worst teacher in the district (or an even smaller one, if that teacher has been there longer). Is it any surprise, then, that so many good teachers burn out or become disenchanted.
What positives would AFSCME or the SEIU bring to the child care business owners? Wouldn't the right lobbying organization help these business owners more than AFSCME or the SEIU? Might there be a better solution to whichever problems are afflicting child care businesses? This exchange suggests there is:
This was at the core of an exchange between Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, and St. Paul child care provider Lisa Thompson, a union supporter, at a recent committee hearing.
"You're a self-employed person," said Thompson. "You set your rates...you can compete on price, on hours...who's the oppressor?"
Lisa Thompson cited "our frustrations at the regulatory level," meaning state and county licensing agencies, and allowed that "in many cases," government is the "oppressor" for providers.
"Well, on that I suspect we agree," said Thompson, the assistant Senate majority leader.
Based on Sen. Thompson's reply, wouldn't Ms. Thompson be better off having Sen. Thompson write legislation that improves Minnesota's regulatory environment? Yes, unions can theoretically negotiate those things into a contract. When that contract expires, those provisions expire with the contract.
Why wouldn't Ms. Thompson talk with Sen. Thompson to put the force of law behind the regulatory issues she says need improvement? Reforming Minnesota's regulatory system is long overdue. Republicans announced during the special session that a major part of their agenda would be to pass "Reform 2.0".
With a simple piece of legislation, we could put this forced unionization issue to rest without child care businesses having unionization forced down their throats.
Other than unions with dwindling membership and political influence, who could be against that?
Posted Monday, October 3, 2011 9:39 AM
No comments.
How President Potter blew it with Aviation shutdown decision
When President Potter chose to shut the Aviation program down, he apparently didn't pay attention to the MnSCU shutdown procedure . Here's a fresh reminder of what the MnSCU shutdown procedure requires:
Closure. Closure of an academic program must be approved by the chancellor. Approval will only be granted under the following circumstances:
The closure is requested by a system college or university, and the chancellor determines that the documentation provided supports closure,
The chancellor determines that closure is warranted, or
The academic program has not been reinstated following a suspension.
The academic program closure application must be documented by information, as applicable, regarding
1. academic program need ,
2. student enrollment trends,
3. employment of graduates,
4. the financial circumstances affecting the academic program, system college or university,
5. the plan to accommodate students currently enrolled in the academic program,
6. impact on faculty and support staff,
7. consultation with appropriate constituent groups including students, faculty and community,
8. alternatives considered, and
9. other factors affecting academic program operation.
A closed academic program cannot be relocated, replicated or reinstated.
President Potter's decision doesn't make it past the first point, the one about needing the academic program. Based on the opening paragraphs of this article , President Potter's argument that Aviation isn't needed fall flat on their face:
For the second month in a row, more than 100 pilots have retired from American Airlines, which could cause problems for the fall schedule.
The Allied Pilots Association said 129 pilots will retire effective today. Last month, 111 pilots, many of whom flew Boeing 777s on international routes for American, also retired.
The Fort Worth-based carrier said it will still be able to operate its schedule "with minimal customer inconvenience." However, American anticipates near-term staffing shortages.
"In preparation for a higher than usual number of retirements, we've taken a number of steps to minimize any customer inconvenience," American spokeswoman Susan Gordon said. "We have made a proposal to the APA that would mitigate near-term staffing shortages that is good for both the airline and our pilots. Recent schedule reductions also have allowed us to absorb a higher retirement number than our historic rate for our current schedule."
American has already cut capacity in the fourth quarter partly because of the high number of pilot retirements. Usually about a dozen pilots retire from the carrier each month.
How can President Potter say that there isn't a vital need for pilots when a hundred pilots retired per month when the norm is a dozen a month? With all due respect, President Potter's potential arguments vanish in a puff of smoke.
It's nice that the airlines have made a proposal "that would mitigate near-term staffing shortages." That's just a stop-gap measure, though. What's needed is a true long-term solution, not a stop-gap measure that temporarily papers over this problem.
Having 240 pilots retire in 2 months is 10 times the amount that normally retire. If this pattern continues for any amount of time, the airlines won't be able to get by with stop-gap measures. They'll need 4-year accredited universities training pilots to fill in the gap.
In fact, it isn't difficult to make the argument that more universities should start 4-year accredited aviation programs. Shutting down these programs can't be justified according to the MnSCU shutdown procedure. In that context, President Potter's decision is essentially indefensible.
Posted Monday, October 3, 2011 12:42 PM
No comments.
Dramatic pilot shortages question President Potter's decision
This article is just one of many that indicate that the airlines are facing a massive pilot shortage:
Boeing forecasts the Asia Pacific region will require hundreds of thousands of new commercial airline pilots and technicians over the next 20 years to support airline fleet modernization and the rapid growth of air travel.
The 2011 Boeing Pilot & Technician Outlook calls for 182,300 new pilots and 247,400 new technicians in the Asia Pacific region through 2030. The greatest need is in China, which will require 72,700 pilots and 108,300 technicians over the next 20 years.
"The demand for aviation personnel is evident today. In Asia we're already beginning to see some delays and operational disruptions due to a shortage of pilots," said Roei Ganzarski, chief customer officer, Boeing Flight Services.
"To ensure the success of our industry as travel demands grows, it is critical that we continue to foster a talent pipeline of capable and well-trained aviation personnel."
That last sentence is critical in understanding why President Potter's decision is, at best, foolish. Cutting off a program that is "a talent pipeline of capable and well-trained aviation personnel" is foolish, if not stupid.
How can a university president look at that data, then stick with the decision that he made almost a year ago. A man of integrity would admit that he made the wrong decision and start the process over again.
"As an industry we must make a concentrated effort to get younger generations excited about careers in aviation. We are competing for talent with alluring hi-tech companies and we need to do a better job showcasing our industry as a global, technological, multi-faceted environment where individuals from all backgrounds and disciplines can make a significant impact," Ganzarski added.
There are already students who are excited about an aviation career. They're being turned away by President Potter. Unfortunately, this isn't just a problem at the President Potter level.
This provides a test to Chancellor Rosenstone, too. If he's willing to shut this vital program down, then the statements he's made since taking the job are empty. They're meaningless. If, however, he's serious about making MnSCU more attentive to business, he'll re-open this decision.
Once that happens, it's downhill from there. The case the Aviation people can make will be powerful, compelling and irrefutable. It's difficult to argue against a case this powerful.
This is just one story. There are other articles trumpeting the same difficult dilemma. This issue isn't going away. Putting one's head in the sand isn't a solution. It's how people avoid dealing effectively with the problem.
This situation needs leadership, not head-in-the-sand thinking.
Posted Monday, October 3, 2011 9:37 PM
Comment 1 by Alan at 03-Oct-11 10:48 PM
How on God's green Earth can SCSU (which receives taxpayer money) make any kind of rational,logical defense in not having any public hearings in closing academic programs?
