September 18-20, 2013
Sep 18 02:28 Openness and Transparency at St. Cloud State Sep 18 03:18 Enrollment mysteries and administration spin Sep 18 11:40 Perry vs. O'Malley: a fight for the ages? Sep 18 12:27 Exaggerations R Us Sep 19 10:41 Presenting KrisAnne Hall, constitutional firebrand Sep 19 13:30 Rogue agents in Cincinnati? Sep 19 22:54 Extortion, President Obama style Sep 20 02:05 Another court rejects child care unionization Sep 20 04:43 Where's the SCSU 10-day enrollment report?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Openness and Transparency at St. Cloud State
Openness and Transparency at Potter's SCSU?
by Silence Dogood
If you have ever listened to SCSU's President Potter during convocation, you'd think that faculty and staff were invaluable assets for the University. For the faculty and staff sitting in Ritchie Auditorium, it's almost a 'feel-good' moment.
In playing poker in order to be successful, one of the most important things is to be able to read your opponents 'tells' to know whether or not they are bluffing or actually holding the cards. The same is true at a University. It is important for faculty to be able to know when they are being treated as professionals, ignored, patronized or just plain being lied to. President Potter's 'tell' is whenever he says that he is being "open and transparent" because the faculty have come to recognize that as soon as he says that his administration is "open and transparent" you're in for a load of bunk.
Where this is most evident is when you hear talk about "shared governance." Shared governance is where the Faculty Association and the administration are partners in university governance. Clearly, the administration and the Faculty Association each have specific roles to play but the idea is that there is a mutual respect of each other and the role each plays. Shared governance is not something that is optional, it is required by the MnSCU/IFO Master Agreement and state law [Minnesota Statues Chapter 179A Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA)]. However, the administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it in no way is interested in working with the Faculty Association and in fact has repeatedly failed to fulfill its obligation of full sharing of information and requesting input that is necessary for shared governance.
Numerous examples could be given but it would make this more like a doctoral dissertation than an informative news report. As a result, I will give only four specific examples.
1. Police Officers. The university entered into a three-year agreement with the city of St. Cloud to add three additional police officers to patrol the South Side of St. Cloud where a large number of university students live. The cost of this additional police protection, which is provided by the university, is $20,000 per month, amounting to $240,000 per year. Over the length of the contract, the total cost will be $720,000. President Potter said at Meet and Confer on September 5th, 2013 that this was fully discussed with the St. Cloud City Council. A recent article in the St. Cloud Times states: "The agreement between the city and the university was years in the making." Since there are transcripts of city council meetings, it should be easy to show when it was discussed and the exact level of the discussion. One of the members of the city council, who also happens to be a faculty member at SCSU, has stated that there was no detailed discussion of additional police officers at the council level until AFTER the contract was signed in early July. The council member replied that "It was like show and tell" for the council members and the public when Mayor Kleis and President Potter made a joint statement 35 minutes into the July 29th, 2013 council meeting. Personally, I really don't care what did or did not happen at the St. Cloud city council but it may point to a lack of truthfulness on the part of President Potter.
What concerns the faculty is that there was no discussion of President Potter's interest in securing additional police officers for the South Side either at Budget Advisory Committee meetings or at Meet and Confer prior to the contract being signed. Again, this is easy to verify because of the very detailed minutes from Meet and Confer and somewhat less detailed minutes from the Budget Advisory Committee. President Potter signed the contract on July 1st, 2013 so this is something that should be fresh in everyone's mind.
My mother once told me that most of the time when things are done in secret, they are done because you are ashamed of them. If President Potter thought that paying to provide additional police officers to patrol the South Side was such a good idea, he should have been eager to come to the Faculty Association for its support rather than the faculty finding out about the police contract by reading it in the St. Cloud Times after the fact. In fact, if he had shared his idea with the Faculty Association he may have found an ally and many of the concerns could have been resolved and the contract might have been better than one that was provided (it is also useful to note that a copy of the contract was provided by a member of the city council not the SCSU administration).
2. Coborn's Plaza Apartments. Last November, the administration finally admitted how much money Coborn's Plaza was losing when it listed $2,250,000 to cover losses for the first two years of operation. This past spring, the administration admitted at a Budget Advisory Committee meeting that even if every room was occupied, the university would still lose $100,000 to $150,000 per year. However, it is a fantasy to think that Coborn's plaza will ever fill all its rooms because the rates are much higher than comparable accommodations nearby. Last year 317 of 456 rooms were full and the estimate for this fall was an occupancy rate of 324 out of 456 rooms. Consequently, Coborn's Plaza will easily lose another $1,200,000 this year.
Again, the lack of consultation with the Faculty Association is easy to demonstrate because the minutes of Meet and Confer show that no discussion of Coborn's Plaza took place PRIOR to signing the contract with the Wedum Foundation. In most businesses, if you make a decision and it costs the company $2,250,000 dollars with the prospect of continuing to lose millions of dollars a year, you're likely to be looking for another job!
3. Filling of Administrative Positions. People come and go at a university. Sometimes it's the idea of the individual to seek greener pastures and sometimes the individual is shown the door. Last March, Dr. David DeGroote, Dean of the College of Science and Engineering (COSE) was removed from his responsibilities with construction and oversight of the $45,000,000 ISELF (Integrated Science and Engineering Laboratory Facility) and his position as Dean effective May 31, 2013. Most of the faculty in COSE are not complaining about the decision to remove the Dean. However, in the same announcement that Dean DeGroote was being told to leave his position, Dr. Dan Gregory was appointed as Interim Dean of COSE effective June 1, 2013. There was no consultation with the Faculty Association. Additionally, Dr. Patricia Hughs was appointed as Interim Associate Provost for Research and Dean for Graduate Studies to fill the position Dr. Gregory left to become Interim Dean of COSE. Again, this was done without any consultation with the Faculty Association.
Without any announcement or discussion, Associate Provost for Faculty Relations John Palmer has been moved out of his office and his position and his duties have apparently been 'distributed' to others in the administration. From the Academic Affairs website, we see that Dr. Phil Godding title has changed to incorporate some of what Dr. John Palmer once did. We are only left to speculate on the rest because the Faculty Association has not been consulted in this reorganization of Academic Affairs. Similarly, Dr. David DeGroote has been apparently been appointed (after a six month sabbatical) to serve as a Special Assistant to the Provost (job descriptions are necessary for people to continue to be paid). Again, all of this has occurred without any consultation with the Faculty Association.
The Director of the Center for International Studies, Dr. Ann Radwan has been removed from her position and Margaret Vos was brought out of retirement to take over as Associate Vice President of International Affairs. I'm not sure if the omission of "Interim" from the title was accidental or not. But, once again, this was announced without any consultation with the Faculty Association.
The recently appointed Chief Financial Officer Doug Vinzant left SCSU this spring for a similar position in Mississippi (to be nearer to his family). His reasons for leaving are quite understandable and he was completely up front about it with SCSU. However, his replacement Rick Duffett was appointed as Interim Vice President for Financial Management and Budget without any consultation with the Faculty Association. So, in the past twelve months, SCSU has had four CFOs. Clearly, this is not a recipe for success.
It is important to understand that all of this is no way calling into question the qualifications of the individuals who have been appointed to fill these positions and interims, it is simply a condemnation of the process by which they were appointed. If there had been an 'open' process, these same individuals may have been selected.
In less than six months, six administrators have been removed from their positions and have been replaced without any consultation with the Faculty Association, which demonstrates a total lack of respect for the faculty on the part of the administration.
4. Sharing of Data. In April 2012, so this goes back a ways but it is a marvelous example, the administration was asked at Meet and Confer if the Faculty Association was every going to get information about the enrollment for Spring Semester. Mind you, we were in the 13th week of a 15-week semester and the administration had not thought to provide data about university enrollment. Two days later we got the following:
Clearly, the information presented in the table fulfilled the request by the Faculty Association for the Spring Semester enrollment. However, as presented the information was totally useless. One of the faculty members familiar with enrollment reports generated the following report.
The information in this report is significantly more useful than what had been presented by the administration. Having to ask for the information and then getting what amounted to useless data clearly demonstrates that the administration is not really interested in sharing information with the faculty or is incompetent (or both).
Shared governance and communication is not just a good idea, it's based on the MnSCU/IFO Master Agreement and in state law. However, when conversation doesn't occur and information is not shared, it is hard for the administration to gain the support of the faculty and staff. Eventually, dictatorial decisions only turn faculty support away and eliminate the esprit de corps that is foundational for strong organizations. If continued, these actions eventually start to destroy the institution from the inside.
If the goal of President Potter is to run the university like a ship in the Coast Guard (President Potter was a former Coast Guard Officer), he has succeeded. Dissent is not tolerated. Hard questions are not asked and when someone disagrees with something the President has decided, his minions jump into hyperdrive spin mode and attack the individual, change the subject, and complain about all the 'attacks' on the President by the 'whiny' faculty.
So, if you don't make waves (notice the nautical analogy), and don't mind that you don't get useful data, and don't mind being ignored as to providing input BEFORE decisions are made, St. Cloud State is a wonderful place to be a faculty member especially at Convocation on the first day of Fall semester when you find out how invaluable you are. Too bad, they're just hollow words with little substance to back them up.
Originally posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013, revised 18-Oct 6:49 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 18-Sep-13 07:42 AM
Don't forget that the Aviation Department was "reorganized" out of existence (closed) using a similar "open and transparent" process. Very few were consulted as required by MNSCU Procedure 3.36.1 Subpart B. The affected faculty, staff and students weren't even given the courtesy of a meeting with the Dean, Provost and/or President until AFTER the decision was made. According to my research the Aviation department had the best chance to recover financially over the other departments that were being considered in COSE.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 18-Sep-13 08:23 AM
A former SCSU administrator verbally admitted that aviation was targeted before reorganization even started. How's that for transparency?
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=15146
Comment 3 by QBJ at 18-Sep-13 02:55 PM
Dr. Ann Radwan supervised MSUAASF employees, not IFO faculty, and CIS issues were discussed a great length at MSUAASF Meet and Confer many times before this welcome action took place. Just because it was not discussed at IFO M&C does not mean that it was not thoughtfully considered. There are other groups of concern and action at SCSU besides IFO.
Enrollment mysteries and administration spin
When I published this post by Silence Dogood , I did it because a) the St. Cloud Times hasn't written about SCSU's collapsing enrollment and b) President Potter is using every opportunity to spin St. Cloud State's declining enrollment.
I wrote last week that President Potter insisted at the first Meet & Confer meeting that enrollment would be down 5% this year compared with last year's Fall Semester 30-day enrollment report. I knew that wasn't accurate because I'd written that the Sept. 4th report showed SCSU's enrollment down by 12% .
If you aren't Southwest State, which has lots of late enrollees each year, enrollment won't drop 7 points in a week. It simply doesn't happen.
A loyal reader of LFR called me last night to talk about enrollment. Specifically, this LFR reader said that he'd spoken with a member of the St. Cloud State University Foundation Board of Trustees. This trustee said that President Potter told him enrollment would be down 3% this year. That's outright fiction.
It's possible that the administration could just be off when it says enrollment will be down 5% from last year. If they made a calculation mistake, it's possible to come up with 5% instead of 8%. It isn't likely but it's possible. It isn't possible to make a calculation mistake and get to a 3% drop in enrollment.
Whether you call that myth or spin, the reality is that a 3% drop in SCSU's enrollment from last year isn't possible. To get to that figure, SCSU's retention of students enrolled at the University would have to be nearly 100%. That's because incoming freshmen are down 13% and incoming transfers are down 6.35%.
Last year's enrollment dropped significantly so there weren't as many students to retain. Subtract a large graduating class and it's apparent that President Potter's math is exceptionally fuzzy.
The reason few people beyond the SCSU campus know about SCSU's plummeting enrollment is because a) they haven't read this blog or b) the St. Cloud Times hasn't run any articles about their enrollment. Considering the fact that this will be SCSU's third straight sharp enrollment drop, shouldn't the Times have paid attention to this? In this post , I quoted from John Bodette's article about Gannett's policy on social media. Among the things he cites are "Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way" and "serving the public interest."
While that's part of the Times' policy on social media postings, it's difficult to picture those things not being part of their code of conduct for reporters.
Back at the start of the year, Times readers were told that they'd read more investigative reporting. That hasn't materialized. Time's running out for them to stay faithful to that commitment. (Had they hired me to investigate SCSU, they would've already surpassed expectations but that's another story.)
The truth is that the Times hasn't been curious about St. Cloud State's turmoils. They've accepted President Potter's take on things on most issues. They haven't challenged his statements. The Times' indifference towards asking tough questions of the administration is the biggest reason why few people know that St. Cloud State's budget is likely to get cut dramatically next year.
In short, it's a mystery that needn't be a mystery.
Originally posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013, revised 18-Oct 6:49 PM
No comments.
Perry vs. O'Malley: a fight for the ages?
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's Washington Post op-ed is obviously trying to prebut Texas Gov. Rick Perry prior to Perry's visit to Maryland:
With gridlock and partisanship having all but paralyzed Washington, governors are at the forefront of our country's policy divide. On the No. 1 issue facing our nation, how to ensure that Americans are winners, not losers, in the 21st-century economy, two divergent approaches frame the debate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is highlighting this debate with his trip to Maryland on Wednesday.
The contrast is clear: Should we slash taxes on the wealthiest Americans, crippling our ability to invest in schools, job training, infrastructure and health care, because we believe that even lower taxes for our wealthiest will magically lead to jobs and robust economic growth? Or should we make tough choices together that provide the resources to invest in schools, bolster growing industries and create quality middle-class jobs?
First, it isn't government's responsibility to "ensure that Americans are winners, not losers." Government's responsibility is to put in place policies that give Americans the ability to win within the limits of the Constitution.
Second, raising tax rates doesn't automatically increase revenues. Gov. O'Malley should know that because Maryland's so-called Millionaires Tax failed miserably :
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year, even at higher rates.
Apparently, Gov. O'Malley's staff didn't inform him that his fight with Texas was settled in 2009. Quoting the WSJ, Maryland collected "6.25% of nothing" on 1,000 returns. Predictably, those millionaires left Maryland for greener pastures, mostly to northern Virginia.
Rather than collecting an additional $106,000,000 in taxes, Maryland lost $100,000,000. That's what's properly known as a miserable failure. Gov. O'Malley apparently hasn't figured out that raising taxes isn't the same as increasing tax revenues. Increasing the size of a state's economy is what will increase a state's ability to "invest in schools, job training, infrastructure and health care", if that's what they want to do. Maryland found out recently that raising tax rates doesn't automatically increase revenues.
Taking advice from the governor that chased 1,000 millionaires from his state in on of his first major initiatives isn't smart. In fact, listening to him on tax policy is foolish.
Posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013 11:40 AM
No comments.
Exaggerations R Us
I'm thinking that the Democratic Party should be given a new name. I'm thinking Exaggerations R Us fits perfectly. After reading Ed Morrissey's post about DOJ exaggerations , I started thinking about other exaggerations I've heard. This post jumped to mind. First, here are the statistics that Ed cited:
The audit by the department's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) overstated the number of terrorism-related defendants who had been found guilty in fiscal 2009 by 13 percent and then overstated the same statistic in fiscal 2010 by 26 percent.
Later, Ed cited this information:
Last year when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder boasted about the successes that a high-profile task force racked up pursuing mortgage fraud, the numbers he trumpeted were grossly overstated.
We're not talking small differences here. Originally the Justice Department said 530 people were charged criminally as part of a year-long initiative by the multi-agency Mortgage Fraud Working Group. It now says the actual figure was 107 - or 80 percent less. Holder originally said the defendants had victimized more than 73,000 American homeowners. That number was revised to 17,185, while estimates of homeowner losses associated with the frauds dropped to $95 million from $1 billion.
Putting it politely, math doesn't appear to be the Justice Department's strong suit. Putting it impolitely, I'd say the DoJ is bullshitting the American people in an attempt to make themselves look good. Putting it bluntly, it isn't difficult to establish as fact that Democrats lie through their teeth if it fits their cause. Here's a perfect example of that:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.' Id., at 783.
She rejected 'as utterly incredible and unreliable' an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card.
This was part of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. The Democratic Party of Indiana insisted that 989,000 people in Indiana didn't have a "driver's license or other acceptable photo identification." The judge's finding of fact said that 43,000 didn't have "a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification", a difference of 24,300%.
These are perfect examples of the Democrats' willingness to exaggerate to make themselves look good or to frighten people. In both of these instances, Democrats exaggerated on a grand scale.
That's why my recommendation fits perfectly.
Posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:27 PM
No comments.
Presenting KrisAnne Hall, constitutional firebrand
If anyone is interested in learning about the Constitution, the place to start is with KrisAnne Hall. Kris's take-no-prisoners, no-nonsense approach to the Bill of Rights frightens politicians. This video provides insight into Kris's thinking:
I thought this part of Kris's presentation was especially captivating and troubling:
KRISANNE HALL: You need to be able to ask 2 fundamental questions and get the right answers. The first question is this -- now, I'm going to let you know I've had the privilege of actually asking a gubernatorial candidate these questions in Minnesota. Now it's gonna be fun because you're gonna be able to ask these questions, then watch them bob and weave like this candidate did. It's hilarious.
Question number 1 is this: What does 'shall not be infringed' mean? Now some of you are chuckling because you know where I'm going with this. It's because the problem is, if they answer that question honestly, then there is no such thing as gun legislation.
So I asked this gubernatorial candidate this question 'What does shall not be infringed' mean. ... He said "Well, this is a meet and greet. I don't know if we have the time to get into a real legal debate over the meanings of these words.' I said "Well, I think you misunderstand me, Sir. I don't care what the Supreme Court says that those words mean. You see, the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to tell me what those words mean. I want to know what Webster's Dictionary says they mean."
FYI- The Minnesota gubernatorial candidate that bungled the question is Scott Honour. It's shameful that a GOP gubernatorial candidate couldn't answer Kris's simple question. I'd expect that type of meandering, evasive reply from a Democrat who doesn't want to get pinned down on his/her real beliefs. I'm disappointed, though, that a Republican replied this way.
Constitutional questions aren't the only criteria to evaluate candidates but it's definitely important.
Last summer, I met KrisAnne at the RightOnline conference in Las Vegas. It was immediately apparent that her understanding of the genealogy of the Constitution is outstanding. This summer, the Central Minnesota TEA Party invited KrisAnne to St. Cloud to give an abbreviated presentation on the genealogy of the Constitution. She didn't disappoint.
Throughout her presentation, like she did in this video, Ms. Hall utterly demolished commonly held beliefs about the Constitution with contradictory quotes from the people who actually wrote the Constitution. That's especially true about the principle of nullification.
The Founding Fathers intended the federal government to be the least consequential of the levels of government. (Those governments closest to the people were intended to be the most consequential.) They also intended for the judicial branch to be the least consequential of each level of government.
If you want to learn about the Constitution, KrisAnne Hall is the person to contact. In fact, if you want students to learn about the Constitution and American history, I can't think of a better person to recommend than Ms. Hall.
Posted Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:41 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff Baumann at 19-Sep-13 04:20 PM
Fact-checking KrisAnne Hall
I hope you found KrisAnne's day-long conference on the Constitution inspiring. I know I did. She is passionate and patriotic.
Being driven by truth wherever possible, I must be a bit of a wet blanket and offer an alternate view of one case she cited. I do this because it is critical to be clear on facts and context, and equally critical to not hold anyone in such high esteem as to passively accept whatever is stated. I apply the same standard to Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
KrisAnne presented the case of ABNER SCHOENWETTER, whom she portrayed as a simple fisherman who was convicted of putting lobsters in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes in violation of Honduran law (which the Lacey act requires U.S. citizens to obey), and whose conviction was upheld by the SCOTUS despite communication from Honduras that the specific law had been found unconstitutional in their own country. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
I base my critique on the following source, and others that can easily be found online.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2003/0responses/2003-0622.resp.html
To be sure, his case raises valid legal issues, but Abner Schoenwetter is a far less than ideal poster child for highlighting an out of control, tyrannical government.
First, he was not some lone, casual fisherman. He was part of an industrial scale operation that was over-harvesting lobsters in Honduran waters to the tune of millions of dollars and doing real harm to the Honduran fishing industry.
Second, the Honduran laws in question were intended to protect the Honduran lobster industry by prohibiting the harvesting of too-small lobsters, egg bearing females, and clear-cutting lobster fields. Lobsters intended for export were required to be inspected prior to export (too ensure compliance with these laws), which is the reason for requiring cardboard boxes (easier to inspect) rather than (sealed) plastic bags (easier to load directly onto a freighter offshore, bypassing required inspections, which was happening).
Third, there was solid evidence that this group of poachers (for want of a better term) were fully aware of Honduran Law and the Lacey Act (which is primarily intended to protect wildlife), and deliberately intended to flout both.
Fourth, in the original case, the United States government made numerous contacts with Honduran authorities, including travel to Honduras, to ascertain what the law was at the time the alleged crime(s) occurred. KrisAnne implied that the first and only effort to do this was on the part of Abner's lawyers, and only during the appeal process. These efforts partially explain the cost of the case.
Fifth, the Honduran authorities did not state that the law had been found unconstitutional. They reported "that Resolution 030-95 was promulgated through a technically improper procedure."
Sixth, the issue of "plastic bags" was only one of several issues on which Abner was convicted, and as noted above, was not a ridiculous or arbitrary rule. Even if he had won on appeal, his convictions on other counts would have stood.
There is a lot more to this case, but these were the glaring highlights vis-a-vis KrisAnne's version. Feel free to read extensively.
For Liberty minded folks, I suppose the core issue is whether the United States government should be enforcing foreign law at all. Given my own opposition to Shariah Law, this hits close to activist home for me.
Consider this: the Federal Government must concern itself with foreign affairs, one of the few core and exclusive functions of our federal government under the Constitution. Surely part of that responsibility must include some mechanism to ensure that U.S. citizens are not causing harm to other nations. Without legislation such as the Lacey Act, we as citizens might be faced with the possibility of being arrested and tried by foreign governments in foreign lands (yes, I know this happens already, stay with me). One (minor) aspect of the Lacey Act is to prevent these situations, through international agreements whereby foreign governments agree to allow us to handle these cases stateside. We can quibble about details, but the basic premise is both reasonable and Constitutional (necessary and proper).
FYI, the Lacey Act was enacted in 1900 under Republican president McKinley, having been proposed by Iowa Republican John F. Lacey. It has been amended several times since then.
I am not defending the Lacey Act per se, nor am I exonerating any overly aggressive prosecution of Mr. Schoenwetter. And there are certainly very valid Constitutional issues in this matter. What I am saying is that this specific case is a poor cause celebre for opposing government tyranny. A very poor case.
What saddens and frustrates me the most, however, is that the majority of the time, when I investigate matters such as this, I find that the version which was originally presented (let's call it the alarmist version) varied considerably from the reasonable facts of the case, leaving me less certain about what to get riled up about. And in case you're wondering, I apply this same rigor to causes I care passionately about. It does not help anyone's case to be inaccurate, as facts are sticky things.
Damn, being honest and patriotic is hard work!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-13 05:15 PM
Jeff, I don't know why you just wrote this all out but it's gibberish to me.
I saw KrisAnne's presentation in St. Cloud & she never mentioned this case. She didn't mention this in the video either.
I'd just suggest that you stick to critiquing what's written in the post.
Rogue agents in Cincinnati?
When the IRS scandal first broke, the administration attributed it to rogue agents in the Cincinnati office. Jay Sekulow's op-ed on the Lerner emails demolishes that storyline:
Last week, while the world's eyes were fixed upon the Obama administration's fumbled response to the Syria crisis, new documents emerged in the allegedly 'phony' IRS scandal.
These documents, emails from Lois Lerner, then Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, were short, but highly damaging to the IRS's persistent (and pernicious) spin.
The first email , a February 1, 2011, message to, among others, Obama donor and fellow IRS executive Holly Paz, proclaims: 'Tea Party matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue over whether Citizen's United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules...Cincy should probably NOT have these cases - Holly please see what they have please [sic].'
That Lerner said that Cincinnati shouldn't deal with TEA Party cases raises thousands of red flags. It's probably why she attempted to plead the Fifth. First, Ms. Lerner testified that the IRS scandal was about rogue agents in Cincinnati, a fiction that didn't convince anyone. Next, these emails arrived courtesy of the IG of the IRS. They clearly prove Washington was involved in this scandal up to its eyeballs. Ms. Lerner's emails necessarily means Cincinnati wasn't involved in mothballing TEA Party organizations' tax exempt status.
It doesn't get better for Ms. Lerner after that:
First, Lois Lerner unquestionably misled the public when she stated in her initial, May 10, 2013, apology for IRS targeting that the scandal centered around 'our line people in Cincinnati.' In reality, this was and is a Washington scandal, with senior IRS officials at the epicenter.
Thanks to the Lerner emails, we know definitively that Washington handled things, not "line people in Cincinnati." We know that Ms. Lerner thought that TEA Party organizations were "very dangerous." That's a statement indicating her political beliefs. This statement didn't discuss IRS policy on organizations' tax exempt applications. That calls into question Daniel Werfel's sham investigation that concluded that the IRS targeting of TEA Party organizations' applications wasn't politically motivated.
What the Lerner emails indicate is that the targeting of TEA Party applications was politicized by the IRS. In fact, they were politicized by Lerner herself:
Second, key leaders at the IRS are highly partisan. Lerner's May statement contains this howler: 'They didn't do this because of any political bias. They did this because they were working together.'
Ms. Lerner shouldn't be allowed to return to the IRS in any capacity because she's a political animal working in a position that requires nonpartisanship. In short, she's utterly unqualified for the job.
Posted Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:30 PM
No comments.
Extortion, President Obama style
Yesterday, President Obama accused Republicans of committing a crime by using their constitutional authority to pass a budget to their liking. President Obama accused Republicans of committing extortion:
With a possible government shutdown looming, President Obama today accused House Republicans of extortion, saying a 'faction' of lawmakers threatens to force the United States into default unless he agrees to delay or defund his signature health care law.
'You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a president and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and have nothing to do with the debt,' Obama said in speech to the Business Roundtable, a nonpartisan association of top American CEOs.
'That a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage; we've never seen that become the issue around a budget battle,' he said of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. President, I still haven't seen Congress using the threat of extortion to repeal a law, pass a budget or not raise the debt ceiling. That's because extortion is a crime :
Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. That necessarily means Congress is acting within its authority, which eliminates the possibility of extortion.
That doesn't mean I think President Obama thinks Congress is committing extortion. I think he used that incendiary term because he thought it would have an impact. It did. It made him look weak. It makes him look like a drama queen. It prevents him from looking presidential.
The rest of President Obama's statement is of questionable integrity. For instance, saying that the PPACA was passed by both chambers of Congress is technically accurate. It's worth noting that President Obama didn't admit that the bill that passed wasn't meant to be the final bill. Martha Coakley was supposed to win the special election to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. After that, the House and Senate would go to conference to iron out the differences and make the bill implementable.
Scott Brown's stunning upset changed all those plans. He represented the 41st vote against the PPACA. That meant Republicans could filibuster the bill into submission. The House had to pass the Senate's bill to get it to President Obama's desk.
Meanwhile, the people were consistently and vehemently saying they didn't want this monstrosity. They didn't trust their government to do what's right. President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid didn't care about the people. They put a higher priority on passing the Democratic Party's Holy Grail than they put on doing what We The People wanted.
If the drama queen president wants to argue that Congress is attempting to commit extortion, I'll cheerfully laugh at him. Then I'll accuse him of pridefully hanging onto an achievement that the American people have consistently, passionately and vehemently insisted on repealing. His accusation is imaginary at best. My accusation is as verifiable as my facts are irrefutable.
President Obama, isn't it finally time to listen to the American people? Isn't it time you started acting like a public servant?
Posted Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:54 PM
No comments.
Another court rejects child care unionization
Technically speaking, the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't reject the merits of the DFL's legislative attempt to shove unionization down child care small businesses' throats. According to this post , they simply issued "an injunction blocking the law" from being enforced:
A hotly-contested law that was to allow in-home child care providers to vote on whether to unionize has been temporarily blocked by a federal appeals court.
Officials of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing Minnesota providers who oppose unionization, said they received notice late Thursday that their motion for an injunction blocking the law was granted by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to lawyers for the group, that means the child-care union election cannot take place until the injunction is lifted. The appeals court said it wants to wait to see if the U.S.Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal on a related case dealing with unionization of home-care workers. That case is called Harris v. Quinn.
This isn't good news for the unions. Injunctions and stays aren't usually granted if the case isn't likely to succeed. That means, apparently, that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals thinks the plaintiffs have a good chance of winning the underlying case.
Still, the fight isn't over:
Jennifer Munt, a spokeswoman for AFSCME, the union seeking to organize providers, said the union will continue its work "full steam ahead." 'This one-sentence decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case," Munt said. "It's a temporary roadblock that doesn't stop us from organizing. We are moving full-speed ahead because child care providers want a union."
Technically, Ms. Munt is right in the narrow sense that the Eighth Circuit hasn't ruled on the merits of the case yet. From a legal standpoint, however, there's a pretty high probability that the plaintiffs will win the lawsuit. All that might become moot if the Supreme Court takes up a different case regarding the matter:
That case is called Harris v. Quinn.
In-home child care providers are independent businesses. That necessarily means government doesn't have the right to classify private sector employers as public employees. Further, the First Amendment guarantees "the right of the people" to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That means each business should be able to pick the people to "petition the government" about their grievances.
Mary Franson is one of the GOP's leaders on this issue. She issued this statement after hearing about the Eighth Circuit's ruling:
"Today's ruling from the federal appeals court is the first step to remedy the injustice done by Democrats to the hardworking childcare providers and parents of Minnesota. As a mom and former childcare provider, I know firsthand we don't need big union bosses increasing costs and creating fewer options for the care of our precious children," said Franson. "While the legal battle over this law is far from over, I'm happy Minnesota moms and dads and their childcare providers can breath a little easier for now as the threat of forced childcare unionization is no longer imminent."
Rep. Franson is right. This fight isn't over. Still, this ruling is a victory for the plaintiffs. That's great news for in-home child care providers and low-income parents.
Posted Friday, September 20, 2013 2:06 AM
No comments.
Where's the SCSU 10-day enrollment report?
St. Cloud State's fall semester started on Aug. 26th, meaning the tenth day of classes was Sept. 9th. At the end of business on Sept. 9th, the 10-day enrollment numbers should've been known. The MnSCU database would've updated that Tuesday morning at 4:30.
That means St. Cloud State officials had the 10-day enrollment figures Tuesday, Sept. 10th. It's now Sept. 20th. Thus far, President Potter hasn't released their 10-day enrollment report. When enrollment was increasing, the Potter administration had the report out a day or two after the cutoff. They wanted the good news reported ASAP. That's perfectly understandable.
Now that enrollment is declining, it appears the administration wants to bury the bad news. Apparently, they don't want to admit that enrollment is falling off a cliff because it means they'll have to admit that tuition revenues are dropping and significant budget cuts are heading SCSU's direction.
It's noteworthy that President Potter repeatedly insisted at the first Meet & Confer meeting of the school year that enrollment would drop by 5% this year compared with last year. According to the MnSCU reports, it's dropped by more than 8%.
Considering the fact that President Potter told a member of the University Foundation's Trustees that enrollment would be down by 3%, it's understandable why they don't want to publish the real enrollment figures. Admitting that enrollment is down 8% wouldn't let the administration tell fictions like enrollment being down 3%.
The administration wouldn't be able to gloss over enrollment as not being a big deal. If they published the numbers, they'd have to admit that things are going terribly wrong. The other important thing worth remembering is that numbers are solidifying with each day. There aren't many students still left to enroll at this point. Friday, Sept. 20 is the 19th day of the semester, or two-thirds of the way to the 30-day report.
That 30-day report is what MnSCU bases their budgets on.
Remember that the key point to remember is that the administration has the data. They could release it this morning if they wanted to. The 10-day numbers aren't changing. For that matter, the 30-day budget numbers won't change much, either.
When President Potter announced the closing of the Aviation program, here's what he told a campus audience :
PRESIDENT POTTER: Aviation isn't here anymore. I want to say a little bit about why it's not. It is not just a financial matter. Aviation is: financially, it was not successful and the cost of securing its future was prohibitive.
Given what our funding situation is and what it looks like in the future, but also we went extensively with the wrongs from the program. And the curriculum was not focused and in order as seen by the employers of our graduates and the alums who look at the curriculum.
Accreditors noted that and for two years, no progress was made. Accreditors noted the deficiency of the curriculum and for two years, no progress was made and it was my judgment that, not only financially and programmatically, did we not have a program that didn't align with the core mission of the university successfully but that it was unlikely that it would get there.
That was his story on Dec. 10, 2010. When President Potter met with the St. Cloud City Council in Aug., 2011, he'd changed his story :
'It was not a judgment that it was a poor program: it was a successful program.'
It's apparent that President Potter has difficulty keeping his story straight when he's pressured. We first saw it with shutting the Aviation program down. Now we're seeing that with enrollment reporting.
Posted Friday, September 20, 2013 4:43 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 20-Sep-13 08:55 AM
Probably needed the time to think up some good "spin" stories.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-13 01:16 PM
Patrick, you don't need the probably.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 20-Sep-13 09:34 AM
"...we went extensively with the wrongs of the program." Really? When pressed through a data practice request, SCSU admitted the wrongs "were verbal rather than conveyed in written documents" for at least 6 years of time which can be found here: http://www.examiner.com/article/scsu-claims-aren-t-documented
No WRITTEN documentation? None? Zip? What credible administration, education or otherwise, would do such a thing? Keep up the great work, Gary! The SC Times is AWOL.
The videotape of Potter flip flopping on the aviation closure should be a required ethics case study at SCSU for administrators and students alike.. http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12549
Comment 3 by Speed Gibson at 20-Sep-13 08:08 PM
I heard today that Minnesota Morris attendance is up this year. Wazzup with SCSU? Or should I say whazdown?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-13 01:49 AM
Whazdown: Morale, enrollment, tuition revenues, student fee revenue
Whazzup: unexpected retirements
