Notes by Graham

The Iowa Caucuses are Over

2012-01-03T12:12:00.000-06:00

Today the quadrennial Iowa Caucuses will climax with 100,000 or so Republicans going to schools, churches, recreation centers and a few homes to stand up for a candidate. The caucus model is truly fascinating and, when it works, it can serve an important role in democracy. It is refreshing to hear average people take the floor and advocate for the person they feel is best prepared to lead. For a brief moment, gone are the TV ads, push phone calls and sound bites delivered by well rehearsed talking heads. What are left are neighbors discussing important matters of state in a civil and meaningful way.
Secret ballots are vital to the process, but at this early stage, the process is made better by the people willing to discuss politics and what it means to them in an open format. In an age when so many hide behind the anonymity of an Internet comment, something strikingly positive happens when people stand-up to be counted at something like an Iowa Caucus. I am proud to be an Iowan and proud of my state for continuing this proud tradition.

What did the 2012 Iowa Caucuses accomplish?
By and large, Iowans acquitted themselves well this go around. They took the process seriously and gave the candidates a fair hearing. The candidates and their campaigns are the ones who fell short in this first presidential campaign test of 2012.

The Iowa Caucuses provide an important balance to the TV-centric/large event/media driven campaigns that follow in more populous states. Most of the time, candidates must spend a large portion of their time here meeting with smaller groups where they have to interact and answer the questions of actual voters. Scripted speeches and choreographed photo ops still happen, but the candidates’ true personalities see the light of day during the Iowa process in a way that is impossible once the national campaign machinery gets up-to-speed.

As important, in order to compete in the Iowa Caucuses, a campaign must focus on building an organization. TV ads and direct mail won’t alone motivate voters to go to a caucus. A campaign with experience building an organization focused on communicating directly to and with voters is going to be ready to turn-out the vote in the contests that follow. Iowa forces candidates to create and manage a campaign team. When one is put together well in Iowa, it will make the campaign stronger as it goes forward.
The 2012 race did not see any candidate take a decisive lead coming into caucus day, primarily because most of the candidates failed to follow the successful caucus campaign models of the past.

Mitt Romney greets supporters on the morning of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.

Mitt Romney largely took a pass in Iowa. He visited the state infrequently. He did not even open a headquarters here until a few weeks ago. His poll numbers have remained unchanged throughout the contest. That being said, those leading his efforts in Iowa are among the best and Romney’s gamble is going to pay off because, for the most part, the rest of the field ran lousy efforts in the Hawkeye state. The 25% of Republican voters who have stood by Romney to this point will show up tonight and the undecided caucuses goers will break for Mitt as he is seen as the safe bet and eventual nominee. He will skate by, because the rest of the field had campaigns that were more flawed.

But, let me start with Rick Santorum. He did it right. He put in the time to visit every county at least once, held some 360 town hall style meetings and built an organization of hard working believers. His efforts have him surging at the best possible moment. Unfortunately for Santorum, he is so far to the right he is limited in how many people he can attract. Few in the middle will ever stand in his corner, so he cannot sustain the momentum. He has gone as far as he can, but I must give credit where it is due. He ran an all-out effort.

The same can be said about Ron Paul. The guy is consistent and, in his quirky way, he connects with many voters. He has fervent supporters who will show up tonight and he, too, has built an organization that works. Paul, however, has a ceiling of support that will prevent him from going much farther than he has already gone.

Newt Gingrich fizzled twice. He squandered his early opportunity and his last minute surge because he never made the effort to build a campaign organization. Gingrich is adept at thinking quickly when he has a microphone in his hand. But, to win in Iowa and go on to national success, one needs to do more than come up with clever comments to please those in the room at the moment. Iowa will weed Gingrich from the field. While he likes to blame the negative ads his competitors threw his way, Gingrich has himself to blame. Upon rising to the top, Gingrich discovered he lacked the structure required to support a front runner. Gingrich lost Iowa all by himself.

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann did the same. They showed up at debates and played the part of a candidate, but they did not do the hard work required of a winner.

The Iowa Caucuses make presidential candidates do something most other contests do not. Iowa makes candidates stare into the eyes of voters, shake their hands and interact with them. Iowa also gives voters a stake in the process culminating in their having to stand up in front of their neighbors and voice support for their candidate.

If anything went wrong in Iowa this year, it was that too many candidates - Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann – tried to take a short cut.

The day may come when Iowa’s first in the nation status is lost. If so, the presidential election process will become something less.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures for Rick Perry

2011-12-07T10:47:00.000-06:00

With less than four weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses, Governor Rick Perry’s fumbling presidential campaign appears desperate. The Perry folks unveiled an ad today I assume is targeted at the most fervent base of the Republican Party, Christian conservatives. It is likely most of them will find Perry’s ad offensive, or at least I hope they do.

Apparently, Mr. Perry thinks tossing up divisiveness and hate might just be the fabled “Hail Mary pass” he needs to get back in the game. Hopefully, voters will reject such pandering to the closed minded, yet politically active.

embedded by Embedded Video

Here is the complete text from the ad, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.”

Mr. Perry’s accusation that President Obama has instigated a war on religion is nearly as detestable and destructive as his linking the sexual orientation of servicemen and women to his ridiculously fabricated prohibition of Christmas.

Something is wrong, Mr. Perry, when a candidate seeking the presidency has such a feeble understanding of the fundamental building blocks of American democracy he thinks incendiary language such as this has a place in political discourse.

Equality and religious freedom are cornerstones of our nation requiring mutual respect among countrymen. Mr. Perry has shown he lacks that respect and he should be ashamed.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

How many Penn State, Iowa and UC Davis Scandals will it take?

2011-11-29T13:15:00.000-06:00

The Penn State football scandal and the use of pepper spray by campus police at the University of California, Davis provide the latest evidence why school administrators should not oversee police functions.

Having university presidents in charge of campus police makes about as much sense as having pharmaceutical company CEOs in charge of the Food and Drug Administration. The temptation to protect one’s own interests is far too great.

Time and again, university and college presidents bungle police oversight. In the case of Penn State, the university police placed Penn State public relations ahead of justice when they looked the other way instead of investigating child sexual abuse charges that might taint their powerful cash cow of a football program. At UC Davis, poor training and oversight allowed a thug with a badge to become the poster child for out-of control law enforcement.

Penn State and UC Davis are anything but isolated cases. The misuse of power by university officials is almost routine at colleges and universities across the country. As recently as 2008, University of Iowa officials interfered with a rape investigation which resulted in the dismissal of two officials and raised a legitimate question whether public safety or university prestige took precedence in UI police matters.

The rules governing law and order should not be different on the campus of a college or university than anywhere else. Law enforcement needs to be separated from educational administration once and for all.

Whether a shower stall is located on what some may consider the hallowed ground of a university or at the local community center should make no difference to those investigating and/or prosecuting an alleged child rape. Sadly, all-too-often educators at America’s colleges and universities get away with putting institutional protection above all else.

An elected mayor with ultimate oversight over a police department is accountable to his entire community while a college president is accountable only to a board of directors who are narrowly interested in the health and growth of the school. Many times, the motivations of a mayor and a college president are dramatically different.

There are other reasons to take police functions out of the hands of university administrators. Chief among them are improved training, coordination and budgetary efficiency.

Following a gunman’s rampage at Virginia Tech University that left 33 people dead in 2007, universities, law enforcement agencies, local governments and the public studied what went wrong and how best to manage community response in a time of crisis. The findings: The lack of planning and coordination between law enforcement and public entities resulted in a loss of time and effectiveness during the emergency. First responders need to work together. If campus police need to check with a university president before working with outside law enforcement, bad things are likely to happen.

The Iowa Board of Regents focused on part of the problem with campus police and spent much time debating whether campus security at Iowa’s three universities should carry guns. While it was true that, without weapons, campus police generally had to wait for other law enforcement entities to respond before intervening in certain situations, the Regents and the State of Iowa failed to address how to significantly improve safety, the duplication of effort by multiple agencies and the saving of dollars.

The solution is to move police functions away from university administration and put it in the hands of a better-trained and well coordinated police force.

Public safety in university communities would improve if police were to serve beyond the confines of university property and without the interference of university administrators. Universities could contract with municipal police in the communities where they are located and/or the State of Iowa could at long last gut its ever diminishing State Patrol and replace it with a single, effective state law enforcement entity that would include all university police functions.

Communication, training and coordination would improve under a new statewide force. Problems and successes on one campus would be shared immediately throughout the system. There would be additional significant safety and financial efficiencies to be gained. When university populations decline during the summer and winter holidays, resources could be reallocated appropriately. When a single university hosts a large event or faces a significant threat, resources could be shifted accordingly. In short, Iowa would be better served by one force instead of a State Patrol and three university public safety units.

It does not make financial or, perhaps, common sense to continue to equip, maintain and administer separate bureaucracies at the State Patrol, University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.

Preventing another university cover-up like those at the University of Iowa and Penn State should be enough of a reason to get college administrators out of law enforcement. The efficiency and improved security of a statewide force or turning responsibility over to local police are also compelling reasons to scrap campus security forces.

University presidents should concentrate on education, not deciding on when it is appropriate use pepper spray or allowing an institution’s image to factor into whether or not justice should be pursued.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register guest essay and a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Unwashed and Whitewash – Occupy Protest and Gingrich

2011-11-22T08:53:00.000-06:00

Many of the responses to the Occupy protests are more revealing, interesting and troubling than the protesters accusations and actions are.

I have not been moved to camp out with the protesters. Call me Pollyanna, but I want to think change can come without having to take to the rash measures chosen by the Occupy Movement. By and large Americans are rational people who share the ideal all people deserve an equal shot at the American dream. Right? Maybe…hopefully…I am beginning to wonder. There is something insidious in how and what some say about the protest and the protesters. It makes me question how many truly believe in that pursuit of happiness/created equal stuff.

I’m fairly certain Newt Gingrich doesn’t speak for a broad swath of Americana, but he is a national figure comfortable in maligning a group if it helps him gain favor with another. His comments about the Occupy protesters are disturbing and echo what a few others have said. Since he is the frontrunner-of-the moment in the Republican contest for president, I will use his remarks to demonstrate the divide.

Occupy Des Moines in Stewart Square

When asked this weekend about the Occupy protesters, Gingrich said, “They take over a public park they didn’t pay for to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for…to obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and sustain the park so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.”

Public parks are, well, public. They are not apportioned for use on an ability to pay, Mr. Gingrich. A free society builds and maintains parks for the collective good, not just so the well-to-do have something pretty to look at as they go about their lives. The courts may decide in some cases that a small group’s occupation of a public space harms that greater good, but that is different than implying some lack a right to be there because others paid for the space. Every American has a right to use public spaces whether they made millions lobbying – ahem, being a historian – or a few thousand being a baker.

Moreover, painting the protesters with a broad brush as ne’re-do-wells and freeloaders is duplicitous. It may be easier to craft a sound bite if you discount the group as troublemakers and ignore the fact many occupiers are teachers, medical professionals, veterans and other members of the middle class you pine about supporting while on the stump, Mr. Gingrich, but you are missing the point.

Like it or not the protesters are your fellow Americans. Many of their frustrations stem from the same fissures in our nation that spawned the Tea Party you are trying to appropriate to power your ride to election victory.

The Occupiers took to Wall Street and cities across the country including Des Moines where they are currently occupying a park across the street from Tasty Tacos to express frustration about the increasing inequity in modern America. Unfortunately for the Occupy naysayers, many facts fall on the protesters’ side.

Study after study provides evidence the once vibrant, robust backbone of our nation known as the middle class is in decline. The current generation of middle class children may be the first to do less well than their parents. Meanwhile, those at the top of the income spectrum are in the midst of an unprecedented boom. It appears the 2008 economic downturn causing pain to most Americans may have actually benefited the rich. At a minimum, these trying times have impacted the wealthy the least. But, don’t take this the wrong way. The solution is not found by penalizing the successful, but leveling the field in a way to provide a fair chance for more to be successful.

I cannot decide if it is laughably ironic or plainly despicable Mr. Gingrich calls the protesters self-righteous as he directs this pomposity toward them, “We need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, ‘Go get a job right after you take a bath.’”

Someone needs to reassert to Mr. Gingrich and those quick to look down their noses at the Occupy protesters something as simple as ‘America belongs to all Americans.’

The way to economic recovery and stability begins with civil discourse and respect for those willing to stand-up for what they believe, even when we disagree.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Politics of School Reform

2011-11-08T13:58:00.000-06:00

Governor Terry Branstad and his Education director, Jason Glass, deserve credit for initiating a statewide discussion about education. Although they illustrated there are no quick fixes for Iowa’s schools, some good will come of these sessions. Most every idea discussed carries a heavy price tag at a time when the state has precious few dollars to spare.

Iowa is better off than many states, but it continues to walk a thin line. Many Iowa students are achieving, but far too many are not. Gathering people around the table to discuss our problems is a good start. Solving them will require an overhaul of public education the likes of which Iowa has never before contemplated.

The Branstad proposals released in October mainly focus on student testing, teaching quality and things like the length of the school day. The answer does not lie in more testing or simply adding class time. We have to rethink how and what is taught. And, dare I say it; we need to give educators a larger role in determining policy.

The Testing Myth
It is important to test students, but the questionable Bush Leave no Child Behind policies, the Obama Race to the Top competition, or Branstad’s recent proposals all offer testing as some mysterious panacea for American schools. Testing doesn’t improve learning, just as monitoring your blood pressure won’t improve your health.

A high blood pressure reading helps pinpoint a problem. Improving your health will take effort and that starts by changing diet and increasing exercise. Testing in the classroom is the same. Testing provides an indicator of how students are performing. Improving learning starts by changing how and what subjects are taught, and increasing rigor in the classroom. Your blood pressure won’t go down faster if you monitor it more often, and kids won’t learn better if we test them more.

In 2011, testing has become so important in the classroom it overshadows the most important aspect of learning. Teaching students to think and apply subject matter often takes a backseat to helping students successfully parrot information by filling in bubbles on a standardized test.

The School Calendar is a Small Part of the Problem
Just as Iowans can count on a congressional election every couple of years and one for president and governor every four, they can count on at least one candidate talking about our antiquated school calendar during every campaign. Every election cycle we hear about how the school year is based on an outmoded agrarian calendar. We are reminded kids are not needed in farm fields anymore and how we lag behind other countries in the amount of time students spend in the classroom. But, the passion for doing anything about this dwindles as the election fades in the rearview mirror.

Oddly, the amount of instructional time has decreased recently. If one adds up the minutes lost to school days shortened to balance tight budgets, being released early every Wednesday so teachers can plan, the switch to block scheduling in high school (block schedules gives more minutes per period, but fewer total minutes per subject) and the amount of additional time designated for taking standardized tests; my kids have lost weeks of instructional time compared to their counterparts a few years ago.

It is one thing to talk about keeping school open longer during an information session with constituents, doing something about it takes political capital few elected officials have and tax resources few are willing to commit.

Thomas
The sad truth is adding time in the classroom and developing the perfect evaluation tools would have minimal impact. What and how we are teaching needs to change even more than time spent doing so and how students’ knowledge is tested.

Visit my daughter’s middle school and you will understand the depth of the problem. Wander the halls long enough and you will encounter one child who embodies the issue. I’ll call him Thomas. He is a hulking man-child large enough to play linebacker for the Bears. He is generally kind, always talkative and a handful for any teacher tasked with trying to reach a class full of adolescent hormone-pumping near-teens. Thomas has difficulty sitting still, will never go to college and is unlikely to develop the tools he needs to make it through the most basic classes required to graduate from high school. Most class periods, Thomas’ teachers give in to his restlessness and allow him to “go to the bathroom.” Thomas routinely roams the halls unquestioned for countless minutes every day. While he is out there, his teachers have the ability to better focus on teaching the rest of his class.

Thomas is sacrificed, so others can learn.

Middle school is the dirty underbelly of our school systems. Even though the problem began long before many students reached the middle years, it is there students like Thomas begin to be squeezed from the system. In a perfect world, there would be a learning environment better suited for students like Thomas. While it is an oversimplification to say we operate a one-size-fits-all public school system, even the greatest defender of our current schools will admit we do not have the alternatives required to help every child reach his potential.

Political Will
As does Governor Branstad, the Des Moines Register deserves some credit for adding to the conversation by publishing an ongoing series about education reform. It is important for students, parents, teachers, political leaders, business people and the public to have honest discussions about fixing our schools. Far too many children are failing to learn in Iowa schools and we need to put our heads together to find the solutions and, most important, build consensus for funding a fundamental change in public education. The payback will be worth it, but the cost to do this correctly will be immense.

Until we commit dollars and political capital in equal measures to creating alternative learning environments aimed at reaching students at every part of the learning spectrum; we will continue to see schools fall short of what we expect from them. If the school calendar is considered antiquated, the curriculum model we continue to follow for our schools must be called ancient.

Students like Thomas, students headed to college and students destined to become skilled laborers require different things from school. It won’t matter how many minutes or days are added to the school calendar, or how many tests we administer; as long as we allow students like Thomas to fall through the cracks and do not provide teachers the resources they need to reach every student, we will never have a school system capable of performing as it should.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Opportunity Lost – Branstad’s Nursing Home Kerfuffle

2011-11-03T15:03:00.000-05:00

Sylvia Piper had an open letter published in the Des Moines Register and other Iowa papers recently. She submitted it as head of Disability Rights Iowa, a privately run, federally funded advocacy agency. Among other things, she wrote because of Governor Branstad’s “political choices, people are suffering and dying on a regular basis in Iowa’s nursing homes.”

Hers were harsh words, to say the least, and they upset a few people. Branstad’s chief of staff, Jeff Boeyink was among them. Boeyink was so upset he began a self-described “fact-finding” mission the very morning the letter appeared.

If you are hoping Boeyink wanted to get to the bottom of Piper’s accusations – to find out whether her statements were rooted in reality or political fiction – you are going to be sadly mistaken. A guy in Boeyink’s position in 2011 wastes little time wading into the muck of public policy. Job one is to protect yourself by silencing the critic. Even if the claims are flimsy, responding will likely take investigation and that might occasionally reveal actual problems. Such things are much easier handled without loudmouth detractors looking over your shoulder. Boeyink did what political operatives do; he went after Disability Rights Iowa’s federal funding.

Lost in nursing home politics, nursing home residents

Boeyink did not succeed (yet) in pulling the group’s funding, but Piper has been fired and the group has disavowed her comments out of fear of backlash from the Governor. Boeyink earned his pay. That is if one holds a vastly different view of government service than do I, but I digress.

The morning Piper’s letter ran, Boeyink ripped off an Email to his counterpart in Congressman Tom Latham’s office, James Cartensen. He sought a phone conference between Cartensen, Branstad’s general counsel and himself to discuss Piper’s group. Cartensen agreed, but Boeyink’s use of his private email account to contact Cartensen caused Cartensen to suggest they use one number if the call was official and another if it was non-official. Boeyink said since the topic was the group’s federal funding, he assumed it would be considered official. That was a good decision by Boeyink. (I plan to revisit his use of a private Gmail account in a later column. In the meantime, the entire exchange can be found here.)

Boeyink, Cartensen and one of Cartensen’s colleagues continued to correspond through Boeyink’s Gmail address for two weeks. They discussed Disability Rights Iowa’s nearly $400,000 annual federal funding, or ‘a good chunk of change’ in Cartensen’s words, and what options Branstad had ‘to move this function elsewhere.’ OK, Branstad should know his options, especially if he considers the advocacy group is not discharging its duties.

The problem? In the weeks which have followed, in all of the news stories reporting comments made by Branstad’s staff about this, never once has a staffer suggested Disability Rights Iowa was not discharging its duties. In fact, the Administration has hardly mentioned nursing home care at all during the fracas.

In the first Register news story about Piper’s letter, Governor Branstad’s spokesperson was quoted saying, “Gov. Branstad is proud of the work Rod Roberts (head of the department) has done to correct the mismanagement of the previous director at the Department of Inspections and Appeals.” He went on to say budget problems had been rectified and inspections were ahead of schedule. He bashed the previous administration, but said nothing about nursing home conditions.

Unsurprisingly, Democratic operatives took the reigns of the partisan bandwagonyesterday accusing Branstad of decreasing protections for Iowa’s seniors. Branstad’s spokesman was undeterred. He called the charges “a typical, baseless political attack from an opposing political party that ignores facts to instead lob up sophomoric and untrue allegations.” Again saying nothing about what Branstad is doing to protect seniors.

Sylvia Piper lost because she allowed emotion to overshadow what might have been a reasoned argument about what the Governor of Iowa could do to protect Iowa’s nursing home population.

Governor Branstad lost when his staff decided to engage Piper on her turf. Branstad is covered in the rancid mud of politics. Had he ignored the incendiary aspects of Piper’s letter and focused on the few specific and quantifiable charges she leveled, Piper’s credibility would have been largely diminished. Instead, Branstad’s staff ignored the message and went after the messenger. They look petty. Worse, the Branstad response gives credence to Piper’s charge the governor’s political agenda is more important to his team than protecting some of Iowa’s must vulnerable citizens.

Iowans lost the most in this sad exchange.

The best way for a governor to to silence his naysayers is to do the job he was elected to do, let his work and decisions define his ability to lead and leave the political mudslinging to those incapable or disinterested in making Iowa the great place candidates talk about on the campaign trail. Doing otherwise will cause one to look as ‘sophomoric’ as those who let emotion cloud the issue in the first place.

Governor Branstad would be wise to take a good long look at how his administration communicates with the people they serve. Before doing so, they may want to examine their priorities.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Our Worst Investment, Congress

2011-10-27T14:38:00.000-05:00

Many in Congress fail to realize most us out here in taxpayer land feel like Lamar Alexander did in 1996. Little is accomplished in that domed building at the east end of the Mall in Washington, D.C.

Another day in Congress.

When Lamar Alexander, the former Tennessee governor and U.S. secretary of Education, ran for president back then, he spent a lot of time complaining about Congress. Although he wore a sunflower tie more than he did his trademark red-plaid-everyman shirt, he would rail on Congress at every campaign stop always finishing in a southern laden crescendo of his tagline, “cut their pay and send them home.” He wasn’t an Occupy Washington protester ahead of his time, but he does occupy the nation’s capitol these days. He ran for president again in 2000 and now serves as the senior senator from Tennessee having first won office in 2002. He rarely talks about cutting Congressional pay and sending people home anymore.

Most of us occupying the rest of the country agree with the Will Rogers saying, “We feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” We do, that is, until we want Congress to do something for us. Mostly, we believe Congress does very little. This year reality appears to match the long held opinion.

A quick look at Thomas, the legislative information service of the Library of Congress, reveals how little the 112^th Congress has accomplished in 2011. A sum total of 44 bills and joint resolutions have cleared both the House and the Senate this year. That may not seem like a low number, until you consider these actions can be broken into two groups.

About 70% or 31 of the bills and resolutions may be important, but, dare I say it, less than monumental.

18.2 % or 8 bills named federal buildings after people
(five post offices – one each in Mississippi, Ohio, and California and two in Texas; and a courthouse in Arizona; a courthouse in Missouri; and the federal building in West Virginia)

6.8% or 3 actions appointed/reappointed Smithsonian Institution board members
(Shirley Ann Jackson, Stephen M. Case and Robert P. Kogood)

11.3% or 5 actions involved continuing appropriations
(A continuing appropriation is legislation passed when the new fiscal year is about to begin or has begun to provide budget authority for Federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted. In other words, there is nothing new here people. Move along.)

4.7% or 2 bills deal with mind numbingly simple issues
(One extended the F.B.I. director’s term of service by 25 months. The other changes the due date of the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act final report from April 30, 2011, to November 30, 2011, and the final termination date of the Commission from May 30, 2011, to December 31, 2011. Hope nobody missed a fundraiser to work on these.)

9% or 4 bills are the four parts of the same act, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011
(Four bills broken into bite-sized chunks. Didn’t the President get ridiculed for suggesting Congress do the same with his Jobs bill?)

20% or 9 bills are extensions of previous laws scheduled to sunset. To be fair, I excluded a few of these extensions from this list and moved them to the group below, because those bills modified previous legislation to a much greater extent than these which arguably appear to involve little more than changing dates, effectively passing the buck until later.
(Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011, PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2011, Short-Term TANF Extension Act, Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011, Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011, Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes)

About 30% or 13 bills are important and one can understand why crafting and passing them might take some time.

9% or 4 bills are the trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have been lingering in Congress for years and the related workers’ assistance bill
(It took Congress seven years to act on Colombian pact andthe Panamanians approved their pact more than four years ago. The South Korean pact, on the other hand, was signed earlier this year.)

6.8% or 3 bills relate to budgets
S. 365 is kind of a big deal, but it mostly kicked the problem down the road a ways. The Budget Control Act of 2011 is the result of the painful debt ceiling debate of the summer. It instituted more than $900 billion in reduced agency budgets over 10 years and set up the supercommittee to trim as much as $1.5 trillion over the same length of time.

H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, (need I say more?)

H.R. 754 authorizes appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

4.7% or 2 bills deal with Veterans’ issues
H.R. 2646, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011, also names two facilities after people, but it has a lot to do with construction and facilities. It also addresses actual health care for veterans.

H.R. 1383, Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, adjusts the amounts available for veterans’ education and lowers the amount the V.A. can collect from home loans.

4.7% or 2 bills deal consumers or children
H.R. 2883, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act renewed many child welfare laws and programs, but is significant in its scope.

HR. 2715 amends the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 by addressing the amount of lead in toys and providing new authorities to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

4.7% or 2 bills deal with business and patents
H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1952. (Nice going, guys)

H.R. 4 repeals expanded Form 1099 information reporting requirements for certain business payments and rental property expense payments.

Here’s the thing. Few people’s job performance can be summed up in a single grade sheet, but the one laid out here is miserable. Note, for instance, the number of jobs bills included in the above list. Yet, ask our elected officials and, to a person, they will say job creation is their priority.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the annual base pay of a member of Congress is $174,000. Each member has more than $1.5 million dollars to hire up to 18 workers and run his offices. Their colleagues in the Senate have $3.3 million avaiable to them to hire staff and such.

We are getting a lousy return on our Congressional investment.

However, thinking about this reminds me I have a red plaid shirt. I doubt it carries the outsider cache it once did, but I might dig it out and put it on anyway. With any luck wearing it might help me score one of those well paid/low expectation jobs like Mr. Alexander’s.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Facts Occupy Protesters Should Know

2011-10-11T15:45:00.000-05:00

Recently I wrote a guest editorial for the Des Moines Register suggesting while the current Congress is clearly ineffective, the media spotlight is too focused on Congressional handling of the economy. After all, America’s corporate CEOs are the ones who have the power. They create jobs, invest in our country and construct the marketplace of tomorrow. Yet, far too many are shirking their fiduciary duty to their companies as well as their patriotic one by choosing to weather the economic storm tucked snuggly in their corporate power bastions.

In short, most of them aren’t helping.

I closed that piece by saying they needed to pay workers more, fight to keep jobs on our shores and invest in our collective American future. It was time for them to step up and serve their country, again.

These were hardly revolutionary concepts. In recent weeks throngs of people have taken to the streets in the nationwide Occupy protests to voice a very similar message.

The Occupy naysayers like to call the protesters unfocused and I will admit the messages coming from the streets have been wide-ranging. So, let me be specific. If the corporate tycoons would utilize their growing stockpiles of cash to invest in America, the gloomy economic forecast would clear quickly.

Allow me to use the companies of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) as an example. The DJIA is a stock market index, a method of measuring a section of the stock market in order to make broader market-wide assumptions. The health or wealth of the DJIA is not a scientific sample to be extrapolated to the entire market, but it can give a general sense as to the state of the market.

While there are a wide variety of measures to consider when evaluating companies, let’s look at one of the simplest to understand, cash. Cash and equivalents are the most liquid assets found on a company’s balance sheet. They are the assets most easily converted into cash, such as money market holdings, short-term government bonds or Treasury bills, marketable securities and commercial paper.

In times of uncertainty, companies stockpile cash. And, boy, are they. The way DJIA companies are building up cash reserves, it is surprising A&E television isn’t filming a special segment for its popular show Hoarders.

Combined total amount in billions of cash and equivalents as reported by DJIA companies between September 2007 and June 2011.

Before the financial collapse in 2008, DJIA companies had $233.5 billion on-hand in cash and equivalents. As of June of this year, their combined cash and equivalents total skyrocketed to $431 billion, an increase of over 184%.

This means the thirty (30) DJIA companies have taken $197 billion that was once invested in operations, returned to stockholders in the form of dividends, paid in salaries to employees or aggressively invested in growing business and put it in the most passive of investments, cash and equivalents.

Corporate America has taken money out of active circulation in the marketplace and stashed it waiting for a sunnier, safer outlook. This may not be the exact corporate equivalent of grandma taking her life savings and burying it in a coffee can under the willow tree, but it is close.

It is understandable why a company would increase cash holdings during tough times, but doing so in such a collective and extreme measure makes the recovery harder and longer. If the DJIA companies and the rest would begin to take money out of cash and equivalents and invest in business and growth; jobs would increase, buying would resume and the economy would begin to rebound.

There is an undeniable selfishness in a company refusing to invest or distribute wealth. Stockholders are better off when a company is investing and growing than when it is in a cash laden holding pattern. If the company chooses not to invest, it should distribute the cash to stockholders and let them do so.

Economic recovery depends on each of us doing our part. American workers need to be diligent and productive. In return, they need to be paid a reasonable wage. American CEOs and their corporate boards need to wisely turn cash and equivalents into meaningful investments that will grow the economy by creating jobs and wealth here at home.

The Occupy protesters are pointing their fingers at high-paid corporate executives suggesting it is time they discover what “right-sizing” tastes like. Executive salaries and the growing wealth divide is an important part of the discussion, but for now, let’s stay focused on something meaningful CEOs can do to make a difference. It is time for CEOs to redirect the towering piles of money found on corporate balance sheets under cash and equivalents and make investments in the U.S.A.

CEOs, your companies will be better for it. Your country will be better for it. And, here is a side benefit, the noise coming from the Occupy protests outside your windows will begin to quiet a little if you begin to show you are interested in something more than just protecting yourselves under a blanket of cash.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Let’s have a Tea Party on Wall Street

2011-10-07T11:06:00.003-05:00

It doesn’t matter if you consider yourself conservative, liberal or politically unattached, compare the Tea Party rallies of months past to the recent Occupy Wall Street-Washington-University of Iowa’s Green Park demonstrations and you’ll find the irony delicious.

Over the last few years, Americans dressed as Benjamin Franklin or other well-known red-blooded patriots have been joined at rallies and protests on the Mall in Washington and on Main Streets to yell about how they were going to “take our country back.” Fox News extolled the importance of these homegrown protests as Jon Stewart poked fun on the Daily Show calling them orchestrated political events.

In today’s we-can-yell-louder-than-you-can political environment, what goes around, comes around.

In the last few weeks, demonstrators dressed as zombies or mindless creatures have been joined by many others at rallies and protests around the nation to accuse “corporate America of stealing our country.” After waiting a few days to check with each other about whether zombie-palooza was newsworthy or not, many in the media are reporting about the significance of these organic demonstrations as right leaning pundits claim those on the left have manufactured these events to perpetuate a war between the classes.

Senator Chuck Grassley made this assessment of the Occupy rallies while at KCCI News on Thursday, “You don’t find a consistency in it that you normally would with a protest that’s going to be successful. So I assume that it’s a lot of unemployed young people looking for some dates.”

I could say the same about Congress – ba dum bump.

Senator Grassley who is quick to diminish left-handed speech and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle who dismiss those who support the right’s demagoguery need to take note. The Tea Party and Occupy protests shouldn’t be dismissed. Each says something about the simmering mood in modern America.

Our political system is broken. The majority of those elected in recent years hunker down under the strong-arm protection of the most partisan among them. Acknowledging the legitimacy of the other side and their point of view is considered sedition. Those with R’s dangling after their names seemingly hyperventilate every time they hear a person with a D designation speak and the D’s nearly stagger with rage when an R opens his mouth. Both sides are blind to the reality that the same fuel, the volatility of feeling helpless, powers the Tea Party and the Occupy movements alike.

I have never had the urge to throw on a tri-cornered hat or paint scars on my face and march off to yell and scream with a bunch of other hotheads. Don’t get me wrong, thanks in part to my daughter I have a renewed appreciation for the power of theater, I just like to take mine in a more traditional theatrical setting, not packaged as protest. Nor can it be said I haven’t been viewed as a hothead, I just feel silly in costumes.

Here’s the thing, the lovers of eighteenth century attire and horror make-up and their respective comrades are all looking for leaders. Leaders take more interest in moving the country forward than they do in moving their political power base forward. The funny thing about that is a leader who does the former almost always simultaneously does the latter. The majority of today’s political class do not have a clue how to lead and those who do haven’t the nerve to stand-up to the bullies in charge, regardless of party.

Senator Grassley makes one valid point about the protesters. Many of them are unemployed or underemployed. This has made them disenfranchised just as many of those who rallied on the Mall in front of Glenn Beck were.

Instead of disparaging those seeking to be heard, those in elected office need to give these throngs a voice by climbing out of the bunker and trying to collaborate to improve America’s situation.

Instead of electing those who parrot back protest chants disguised as a political platform, the electorate needs to send people to office who want to do the job instead of those who simply lust for power.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register guest opinion .

Board of Ed Ignoring Danger in Rush to get High School Students Online

2011-09-16T13:46:00.002-05:00

Ask any teacher and he will tell you every child learns in a slightly different way. I like to say this is due to the unique way each person is wired, which is why I leave it to professional educators to explain the science of learning. Let’s just say it does not take a PhD in education to understand that just because one student – or the majority of students, for that matter – finds success in a classroom environment where lectures, textbooks and repetition are the standard doesn’t mean all will.

Fortunately, we live in an age when technology can advance education in ways our grandparents could have never imagined. However, Iowans should be skeptical about the Iowa State Board of Education’s rush to expand a program that allows high school students to gain credit for online courses.

Online learning may be the newest, fastest growing educational paradigm, but not everything shiny and new proves to be effective. A little caution is prudent. Many of us remember the classrooms-without-walls schools built in the 1970’s that were supposed to stimulate teaching across classrooms. They turned out to be noisy places filled with distracted students and frustrated teachers. After spending millions of dollars retrofitting walls in buildings coast to coast, most of these environments do not exist today. Online courses, too, have shortcomings to be considered before they are adapted too widely.

I do not mean to diminish the important role online learning can play when it comes to meeting the needs of technologically savvy students. Online courses can provide students with more flexibility. Obviously, student success should be based on what is learned rather than how much time is spent in the classroom. But, academic rigor is all too often lost when a student participates in online classes. Many of these courses are more about completing assignments than helping students apply the subject in the constructive and meaningful way their counterparts in other educational environments are. Talk to students who have taken these courses and you come to understand online classes are more like checklists than they are comprehensive education.

I know a student who struggled with traditional high school Spanish. Yet, She was able to click off the online courses with little effort in a fraction of the time estimated in the course literature. She did not learn Spanish. She instead found a way to get credit in an unsupervised environment without mastering the subject. I recognize this example alone does not condemn online learning, but it illustrates why we should be skeptical about moving students out of the classroom and distancing them from the nurturing assistance of a teacher. Learning is a give and take that is hampered when educators and students separated by computer screens are both judged by the number of completed assignments as opposed to what the students learn.

Board of Education member Max Phillips summed up the Board’s concern about Iowa lagging behind other states when it comes to the number of high school students taking classes online. Phillips said, “Twenty-five other states have more students than we do in virtual learning. We need to learn, but we don’t need to go slow, because our students are already behind.”

Nope. Iowa should not chase Texas because the Lone Star State has more students enrolled online than Iowa does. Iowa needs to develop learning programs that help its students achieve. If another state is doing something to improve learning proficiency, Iowa should learn from it. Processing more students through an automated checklist is not worthy of emulation. Providing the best education for every student is, regardless of how they learn.

Online learning has many benefits especially when it comes to supplementing what is learned in a classroom under the guidance of a professionally trained teacher. However, there is a clear and present danger when Boards of Education rush to embrace a new educational theory like online learning because it is the hot new thing. Replacing the thoroughness of a comprehensive education with an all-too-automated online environment will do more harm than good.

The Iowa State Board of Education needs to focus more on results than expanding the number of students taking online courses for the sake of being in on a fad. Outsourcing learning in cyberspace holds certain risks for Iowa’s students. The Board needs to let teaching professionals drive the educational process by allowing them to utilize all the tools available. Regardless of how each of us is wired, teachers are the ones who are best able to guide students down the path of learning, whether in a classroom or with the aid of a computer. There is a difference between learning and giving students credit for jumping through online hoops.

Playing Games with Presidential Address

2011-09-08T10:30:00.000-05:00

The Republican members of Congress choosing to not attend the President’s speech tonight resemble children sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalala, I can’t hear you.”

Ladies and gentlemen, hear the President out and then do something to help. Enough of the partisan games, start doing your job, please.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Obama and Boehner Locked in Fierce Battle for Prom Queen

2011-09-01T10:52:00.017-05:00

Our national political climate has degenerated to the point elected officials sound similar to feuding adolescent girls trying to claw their way to the top of the most powerful clique in school. On second thought, I offer my apologies to adolescent girls for the reference – they don’t sound quite so shrill.

This week President Obama sent a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate requesting a Joint Session of Congress to lay out a plan for jobs and the economy. Speaker Boehner sent a response asking the speech be moved until the next night. The Speaker’s spokesman added in a statement that the White House had ignored protocol by not first requesting a date from the speaker’s office.

Lacey Chabert, Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried in the movie Mean Girls (2004)

OK, Buffy should have passed a note to Missy in English class asking permission to hang out after school before asking Missy in front of everybody at lunch if they could hang out after school to plan the Fall Dance. I mean, really, duh, everybody knows this is not how things are done in Seventh Grade. Missy didn’t want to hang out on Wednesday and now it was all, like, out there in front of, well, everybody. How embarrassing! (Sorry, seventh graders, for bringing you into this.)

The House has been on recess for five weeks (five weeks!) and Wednesday is their first day back. The White House wanted to address Congress on what Republicans and Democrats alike have been screaming should be our collective top priority, jobs, for months. The first day of class, whoops, session after summer vacation seemed like a good time to start the debate.

The little drama started because a Republican presidential debate is being held the same night. Undoubtedly, White House staffers giggled about how they were going to step on the other kid’s party. But, after weeks, if not months, of being pounded by the GOP for not appearing serious about the economy, one could see why the Obama Administration might want to get out in front and set a tone for the coming legislative debate. However, I do not doubt there was some sniggering about the timing in the West Wing.

I am not an expert on the rules of protocol governing Congressional/White House interaction and I do not want to be. It seems to me the inherent pomposity interferes with progress more than engendering it. The President did not ask the Speaker before he asked the Speaker. (Yep, it has come down to this.) The presidential hand has been slapped and the speech has been moved until Thursday.

Fall begins with the stagnant stench of acrimony wafting over our nation’s capital. Republicans are falling over themselves to discount the plan President Obama will outline next week even before they hear it. And Democrats are desperately trying to position Republicans as disinterested in doing anything to help the country in hopes they will pick up Republican seats in the 2012 election.

Most of us grew up and left junior high having learned along the way that name calling and game playing were best left on the playground. Unfortunately, many who did not learn those valuable lessons got elected to office. What we need now in Washington are adults interested in finding common ground and working through the difficult problems America faces.

Here’s hoping the President will lay out a well thought economic plan next week and the Republicans will listen to it, find areas on which they can agree and work with their Democratic colleagues to find compromise on the areas on which they do not.

Maybe they can start by all sitting together at lunch on Friday and talking about who the hottest pop star is these days. After all, Friday brings school cafeteria pizza and tater tots!

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Choosing Optimism

2011-08-20T13:55:00.005-05:00

In these turbulent times when markets fail and partisan sniping threatens our national progress, Americans have a choice. Will we build on freedom’s success, or accept decline? Shall we be optimists or pessimists? I discovered my answers while gazing upon a magnificent lake in northern Minnesota.

Dawn’s radiance danced about the placid lake briefly exposing naked steam shafts escaping to a cloud destined for far away fields in need of rain. The warble of a loon fishing nearby could be heard over the hushed rhythm of tiny waves lapping the shoreline of rocks worn smooth over the millennia.

The splendor of this moment was matchless. It can never be replicated, nor dissected. The shimmering gold water is serenely beautiful because the glow of the morning embraced a new growth pine silently swaying in the distance on a hill still soaked in midnight’s dew. One must surrender to the entirety of the scene in order to appreciate the wonder of how its countless pieces come together to inspire.

The same can be said about my brother.

Greg and I were children of the Bicentennial. Too young to remember the turbulent ’60s, we came of age during America’s uncomfortable ’70s and ’80s when nuclear war, communists and other threats were generally kept at bay behind national borders.

Many of us dedicated ourselves to the relentless pursuit of a one-sided version of the American dream. We convinced ourselves individual achievement was the best way to further the collective good. At the summit of success, we would reach down to give a hand up to those climbing below – at least, that is what we told ourselves.

Not Greg. He did not wait to reach the crest. He often let others stand on his shoulders during his climb.

Even in the days before Ronald Reagan talked about Morning in America, Greg understood patriotism better than many of our generation did. He became a Marine. You must understand, the Marines did not teach Greg a thing about honor, duty and responsibility. Those things were innate in him. Even then he knew life’s mission. The Marine Corps was just one of the places that made the most of the things uniquely Greg.

After his military service, Greg built a business that counted the Marines Corps among its clients and he made the world a better place for his co-workers, his friends and his family. Greg and his wife raised two sons to be responsible, caring and giving men.

Like that lakeside vista at daybreak, Greg was something far greater than the sum of his parts.

Before the dew had dried and the loon’s call had stopped echoing in my ear that day a few weeks ago, the unnatural ringing of a telephone barged in on tranquility. My brother Greg had passed away suddenly and unexpectedly.

I spent the next few days helping make the necessary arrangements and trying to come to terms with the first major loss of my life. The service was something befitting Greg. And I discovered death is not the deal making type. Those left behind must stand up and learn how to walk with the wound. There is no other option.

My brother was my champion, my ace in the hole in times of trouble, my trusted ally and my friend. I am grateful to have loved him and to have been loved in return. I hold our other brother, our parents, my wife and my kids, and all those who are part of my life a little closer these days.

The tremendous ball of energy that was Greg could not possibly have come to rest on pillows of clouds floating beneath golden gates. His spirit has dispersed like the first burst of sunshine on that pristine day. Something extraordinary lives in each of us lucky enough to witness such fleeting specimens of perfection. There will be no other morning like this one and no other person like Greg. It is up to me to make the most of the gifts each has given.

This brings us back to the choice we face today. This American chooses dawn and optimism. I will second my brother’s pledge to make a difference. If you join me, our country will again bask in the early morning brilliance of a brighter tomorrow.

###

This entry was first published as a guest editorial in the print and online editions of the Des Moines Register.

Des Moines Schools Blame Game with IA Dept. of Ed and DM Register

2011-08-15T12:18:00.002-05:00

In my last blog I expressed annoyance with the Des Moines School Board for its apparent lack of knowledge of and, more specifically, concern about the troubling accreditation report issued by the Iowa Department of Education. I concluded by calling the School Board an impotent body. It appears I was wrong to single out the School Board. Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not exactly stand tall with competence either.

My blog caught Superintendent Nancy Sebring’s attention. Convinced my sole source of information had been the Des Moines Register, she invited me to coffee to lay out the facts saying “you need to know that there were serious factual errors in their reports (and editorial) regarding the accreditation report.”

I accepted the invitation immediately. We spent nearly two hours reviewing the Iowa Department of Education’s findings, the school district’s responses, the School Board’s involvement and the Register’s coverage.

Dr. Sebring acknowledged the 19 specific areas of non-compliance in the report. We went through most of them in detail and discussed how the District was addressing or planned to address each. She wanted me to know the District was taking the matter very seriously. However, the primary errors she pointed to were not made by the Register, but by the Iowa Department of Education.

Let me be clear, Dr. Sebring told me she believes the Register’s stories and editorial border on slander. Dr. Sebring carelessly tosses around accusations of slander and conspiracy, but I do not immediately dismiss her charges. In fact, they demand discussion and I will write more on this later. Today, I am going to focus on the Department of Education.

One error made by the Department of Education rises above the rest. Listed in the findings of the Department’s official report the District received on June 22 was Item 11 in the section titled Areas of Non-Compliance: Chapter 12 mandates Des Moines Schools. It said the District had yet to submit a signed assurance from the superintendent that two people who were teaching had been “removed from the assignment of teaching…and not paid for the teaching assignment” as of “April 7, 2011, the date the district was officially notified,” because neither person was “endorsed or certified to teach.” Officially notified? Perhaps not.

According to Dr. Sebring, an exhaustive search of District Email and paper files, and extensive discussions with staff and former staff indicate the Department never notified the School District two people had to be removed from teaching. Further, Sebring told me she was baffled as to why the District was cited at all in the case of an assistant teacher who was teaching Chinese in an elementary school. She claims the District had received oral approval from a state education official to utilize this person as a teacher before the school year began.

It seemed implausible the Department of Education would demand two people be fired without documenting each step of the process. So, I asked the Department of Education for the dated transmittal documents and the original official demand the individuals be removed from teaching by April 7. Surprisingly, there are no such documents.

The document the Iowa Department of Education provided as proof it had mandated two people be removed from teaching in Des Moines classrooms.

The Department sent me a copy of the preliminary report the Department claims was transmitted to the District and a copy of a hand-scrawled, undated note from a departing Education employee to her superior. The note explains where on a computer the preliminary report was to be found and that, “This is the document given to Mike Munoz on 4/7/11.” Munoz was a District employee who has also left his job. The note was signed “Julie.”

Holy cats! Thousands of dollars and countless man hours went into compiling an accreditation report showing 19 disquieting deficiencies in the Des Moines Schools. In response to the findings, the Department demanded the District fire two employees without notice and the main documentation the Department can provide is a nearly illegible internal note proving nothing.

It’s a classic he said/she said argument of incompetence.

The Department’s apparent lack of internal documentation and controls in this case give credence to Dr. Sebring’s assertion the District might have received oral consent from the Department to hire the uncertified Chinese language teacher in the first place. After getting a look at the shoddy way the Department of Education keeps records it seems possible.

I have been told Jason Glass, director of the Iowa Department of Education plans to attend tomorrow’s Des Moines School Board meeting. No word on if he will address the report or the District’s accusations, but it seems likely. One can only hope both the Department and the District will learn oral agreements and off-the-record chatter cannot stand-in for documentation and controls.

One has to wonder why the District didn’t demand something more than a handshake when seeking an exemption from state law to use an uncertified teacher in the classroom and why the Department would think the District would act on a document so clearly marked draft, even if it was handed to a District administrator as the Department purports.

But, let’s remember, one entity’s ineptitude does not excuse another’s. The fact the Des Moines School Board had not received or read the State’s report did not stop one board member from saying, “I believe the school district is addressing each and every one of these issues.”

The School Board did not read what the Department of Education had written, and the Department apparently does not put in writing that which needs to be documented.

Looks like education officials in Des Moines and Iowa could both use a Viagra type infusion of competence.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Impotency of the DSM School Board

2011-08-05T09:35:00.000-05:00

The Iowa Department of Education issued a disappointing accreditation report to the Des Moines school district. The State found unlicensed teachers in the classroom, an inappropriate use of dedicated state funds, high school seniors attending school for fewer days than required, and credit being given for classes in violation of state law. Even worse, when the State notified school officials about these violations and prescribed a timeline to correct some of the most egregious of them, the District refused to take action.

If you think the Des Moines School Board is outraged and pressing for immediate action, you are sadly mistaken. The sound you hear is school board members trying to change the subject.

The Des Moines School Board continues to abdicate nearly all of its oversight responsibility opting to blindly trust school administrators to run our public schools as they wish.

Not only did Superintendent Nancy Sebring fail to provide a copy of the accreditation report to the school board, but even after the troubling findings were reported in this paper, not a single school board member thought there was a need to read it himself. And, according to today’s Des Moines Register story, the District has submitted a corrective action plan to the State without school board review or input.

So, class, let’s review. The District received the report, ignored the parts district officials did not like and submitted a plan to fix the other problems all without a discussion with the School Board or one involving the public.

However, lack of knowledge about the report and the District response to it did not stop one school board member from saying, “I believe the school district is addressing each and every one of these issues.”

Wow. If the school board does not know what the report says, let alone what district officials are doing about the violations it contains; how in the world can a school board member believe the correct actions are being taken?

The overwhelming silence from the school board and its lack of interest in this serious matter makes one wonder what it would take to get this board’s attention.

If school board members cannot be bothered to read official reports, it is impossible to imagine they will ever take the initiative to dig into problems on their own in an effort to represent those they were elected to serve.

This school board’s disinterest in wading into any controversy, setting policy and overseeing the actions of the administration has rendered the Des Moines School Board an impotent body.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Memo to CEOs: We need to talk about fairness

2011-08-01T03:24:00.002-05:00

Dear American CEOs:

Your companies’ products and services simplify our lives, entertain us, make us feel better and provide comfort. Many of the gadgets you make have become iconic symbols of the fabled American way. We Americans love what you do and we have, time and again, shown our willingness to stand by you because we want the jobs your companies provide and we desperately want the stuff your companies churn out. But, its time we had a heart to heart.

As we begin, we have a confession. We, the people of this country, are painfully aware our actions helped cause this recession. Easy-to-obtain credit fueled our growing appetite for bigger and bigger houses and fed our insatiable hunger to consume the devices, tools, appliances and thingamajigs your companies sell. But, hey, you guys didn’t make the wisest use of the easy money, either. Looking back on how we all behaved, it’s hard to believe more of us didn’t see the coming economic calamity. There is plenty of blame to go around. However, we are not here to make you feel guilty about the past.

It’s time to look the future. These are tough times and rebuilding our great country will require hard work and more than a few sacrifices from all of us. That’s right, all of us. Frankly, we called this intervention today because you are not helping. You can and need to do more, but it shouldn’t take an Act of Congress to get you to do so.

We know that’s a funny thing to say in an age when it’s nearly impossible to get Congress to act at all and, when it does, one has to wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if it hadn’t. Most of those we elected and sent to Washington are bickering around the edges of our national crisis, because they suffer the mistaken impression we respect tough-nosed ideologues when what we seek are principled problem solvers. But, let’s not get sidetracked. We still have the ballot box to send those people a message, and this isn’t about them, it’s about you. Your patriotic duty is every bit as great as theirs, and while we appreciate your corporate missions and the demands placed upon you by your boards of directors and stockholders, many of you have lost sight of the big picture – we fear you have forgotten what it means to be an American.

It wasn’t that long ago Americans’ futures were linked. For the 30 or so years following World War II, our incomes grew at similar rates. Every income group saw gains of 80 to 120 percent. Those at the bottom of the income spectrum and those at the top rode the same wave as our economy grew. The last 30 years have been starkly different. Top earners like most of you are keeping more and more of the gains for yourselves. Since 1979 those at the bottom of the scale have seen a 4 percent decrease in earnings, those in the middle have seen income rise a modest 11 percent, while those riding the crest collected 73 percent more. Worse still, the upper 1 percent of earners have experienced an explosion of income hovering around 200 percent. A free market works when people are rewarded for what they contribute, but you are creating a society of have and have-nots. At some point, a top-heavy free market will collapse upon itself.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said raising your taxes is not only a matter of fiscal responsibility, but also of fairness. In response to that line of thinking, many of you have contributed millions and thrown your weight around to convince the political class that raising taxes would be detrimental to society. You have been rather successful in your efforts. After all, an entire party is refusing to work on solving our national budget mess if your taxes are raised. Congratulations. But, again, we have not come today to debate tax policy, but rather your duty as citizens.

It is time for you to broaden your view. Keeping costs down and ensuring profit are at the root of what you must do, but you can no longer do these things in the vacuum of your corporate sanctuaries. The safest and best investments you can make are those that make your country safer and more financially secure. We’re counting on you to do your part in building an America where the free market is a fair market.

With wealth and power come certain responsibility. The American ideal is greater than a race to amass the most toys, build the biggest empire or sit on the largest fortune. As the captains of industry you have the opportunity to do great things. Paying workers more, keeping jobs on our shores and investing in our collective American future are not just noble endeavors; they are also in the best interest of your companies. It’s time for you to step up and serve your country, again.

###

This entry was first published as a guest editorial in the print and online editions of the Des Moines Register.

Dear Washington, It’s time to reach deep

2011-07-14T16:56:00.008-05:00

Dear President Obama and Members of Congress:

Like you, I am outraged. Our country has piled up too much debt. I know many who have sat where you do had the political luxury to blame somebody else for the problems the country faced and leave much of the mess to be solved by the next group to take power. Sorry, but you do not serve in such times. You must do the job you were elected to do.

Former Presidents and Congresses took us to war, did their best to avert economic calamity and tried to set the United States on a course to broad prosperity. And, yes, hindsight shows some of their decisions were wise and a few were something less. Regardless of their intentions, good or otherwise, the paved American road has led us up a mountain of debt. It is up to you whether we begin the coast down, or we drive off a cliff. If you are having difficulty making the decision, here’s a hint, the cliff option will end badly. You do not really have a choice. Raise the debt ceiling – the sooner the better.

Unfortunately, too many of you are singularly focused in placing fault at the feet of your opponents in a self-serving attempt to sway voter support for your party. Most of us are tired of this foolishness. Your countrymen need for you to act as patriots. Set aside your personal ambition, stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow Americans and get to work building the nation the next generation deserves.

The U.S. faces challenges and threats we could not imagine a decade ago. If you continue to abdicate your duty by standing at microphones telling us “it is time to eat our peas” or likening the other side to Jell-o, our national crisis will mount and these threats will become all the more ominous. Every day you do so, the American future seems to dim a bit.

It is time to settle this matter. The first step is raising the debt ceiling. This will stop the needless hysteria your inaction has caused. Next, get to work developing a plan to reduce the debt. The United States government is huge. There are countless ways to make it smaller.

Don’t be fooled. The solution has little to do with which party takes the White House and Congress in the election of 2012. We do not need a Democrat or Republican majority to move us forward. We need Americans who are willing to put partisanship aside and commit to working together. I am asking for each of you to reach deep inside and find what is required for you to become one of those Americans. It’s kind of important. The future of our nation depends on it.

Sincerely yours,
Graham Gillette

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

Other recent blogs by Graham Gillette

The Not-so-Innocent Fruits of Bigotry

2011-07-08T15:10:00.000-05:00

If nothing else, Bob Vander Plaats and his FAMiLY LEADER have made life easier for comedians. They help in many ways, starting with a refusal to capitalize the “i” in their name. Odd.

Yesterday, they helped troubled laugh makers again when Vander Plaats took to the steps of the Iowa Statehouse to release a pledge the group is asking primary candidates to sign, the Marriage Vow – a Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY (the “i” in marriage, not in family?). Let’s dive into this precious farce, shall we? For those interested in following along at home, the heavily footnoted document including a preamble and the candidate vow may be found here in its entirety.

Michelle Bachmann was the first to sign the pledge. This is slightly surprising. One might have thought this year’s only announced female presidential hopeful would have belted Vander Plaats after reading the Vow’s second line which states marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects, in part, “vulnerable women” and “the rights of fathers.” Another woman seeking to be the Leader of the Free World might have found it offensive to hear her entire sex labeled vulnerable and that the rights of fathers are thought to be different than, if not above, those of mothers. If Bachmann didn’t see the sexism here, she had other chances.

The vow calls for the “prompt termination of military policymakers who expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.” I am not exactly sure what sexual leveraging is, but I will join in condemning it and everything listed. I wonder if Vice President Dick Cheney was thinking about his need to be terminated as he pinned the Distinguished Flying Cross on Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill in 2006 because his policies put her fragile female sensibilities at risk.

Some Innocent Fruit of Conjugal Intimacy

The bullet point above the one about women in uniform is another favorite. It calls for the “humane protection” of women and the “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.” They mean children, for those of you who cannot put a hand on a copy of Oxford’s Dictionary of Biblical-sounding Pomposities. A friend’s daughter said it was OK if her mom introduced her as an IFoCI as long as she got to be the strawberry. Another friend indelicately asked if a child conceived on a beach would be considered a less intimate innocent fruit of conjugality. I told him Vander Plaats need not know what happened years ago in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break.

The Vander Plaats crew’s oddest reference comes in the first bullet of the preamble. According to the All in the FAMiLY cast, an African American child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to have been born into a two-parent home than an African American child born after the election of the first African American President. I am thinking those figures didn’t include the children who were the product of master raping the mother or the fact the happy two parent home numbers dip a bit if the timeline is stretched to include the families split when its members were sold to the Plantation owner a state or two away.

The FAMiLY wants candidates to recognize the cost of divorce. OK, that may not be a bad idea. But, they fail to see when they say, “”married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability,” most of us are screaming “which is why people should be allowed to marry regardless of gender!” If I may, Archie, – sorry, I couldn’t let the All in the FAMiLY reference die, yet – sex is better when a person loves his partner, not because a bureaucrat handed him a piece of paper. The official raised seal on a marriage license isn’t sought because it is sexually titillating, but because it provides legal benefits once denied to many couples in Iowa.

There is also a bullet point about recognizing “robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to the U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security,” but I am not going to address it as it may interfere with amorous thoughts some have planned for this weekend.

I have saved a personal favorite for last: “Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.)”

How is it they make everything sound so dirty and what in the world is an “attracted?” Here’s the thing. As a people, we have a responsibility to protect everybody. There is no need to spell out a difference between men and women, the married and unmarried, or combat troops and those toiling behind the lines. Everybody deserves the same protections. Thankfully, the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions protect all of us, not just those the FAMiLY highlight in their silly pledge.

Oh, another point, I am certain 99.9% of the Americans who sign up to serve their country do so out of a sense of duty, honor and respect. Believe it or not, FAMiLY, they don’t enlist to get a peek at somebody in the shower or with a hope they will “commingle” their underwear with a fellow Marine on the wash line at a forward post in Afghanistan.

In the end, I appreciate the efforts of the FAMiLY folks to keep stand-ups knee deep in fertile material during these difficult times, but they can stop now. Once we stop snickering about the nonsense they spew, it is painfully clear they really aren’t that funny after all.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Worst President Ever!

2011-07-06T10:05:00.004-05:00

I spent months tallying data to definitively determine the worst President of the Unites States ever. The answer: Grover Cleveland.

OK, he wasn't the worst ever, but I did hear an interesting story on NPR this morning about how Cleveland snuck away for five days in the summer of 1893 to have a cancerous tumor removed from his mouth. The whole procedure was performed aboard his friend’s fishing boat to keep the surgery a secret. True story.

Times change. In 2011, President Obama couldn't sneak away for five hours without cameras catching the President and a short-panted Speaker Boehner playing golf.

Yet, some things stay the same. In every campaign season we reach a point when there seems no shortage of those willing to reduce mountains of data into neat sound bites to show indubitably they are on the side of right and the other side is not only wrong, but possibly evil. We may have reached the crazed phase of speaking in partisan absolutes a bit early this election cycle.

A case in point is Jeffrey H. Anderson’s current blog at the conservative Weekly Standard. Anderson takes a bunch of actual facts, strips away a cluster of others and sprinkles in a dash of political rhetoric to brew up his argument that the Obama Administration is a failure.

Taking numbers from a report by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, Anderson writes the economic stimulus package pushed by President Obama has cost $666 billion to date. (Anderson may not have appreciated the happy coincidence that 666 is a popular Biblical reference to evil and the Antichrist, but something tells me a number of his readers did.) He then divides that by 2.4 million, the number of jobs some have estimated were created or saved by stimulus spending, to create this tasty morsel, “In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the ‘stimulus,’ and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.”

The problem with his construct is one has to ignore the fact the "stimulus" program wasn't just about jobs. A portion of the money expended went for non-job items like the tax credit 110 million working families received, the $27 billion in small business loans 110,000 small businesses received, and the more than 75,000 projects that improved some of the country’s infrastructure. Jobs are important, but the improved roads and other assets the government will own and use long into the future need to be calculated if an analysis of the impact of the stimulus expenditure is to be taken seriously.

I have to admit it is kind of fun to ponder what would have happened if 2.4 million Americans would have received checks for $100k, but I tend to agree with a tenet long espoused by many of the writers and readers of the Weekly Standard that entitlement programs have a limited place in good government. And, handing out whopping checks to a few individuals would have done nothing to improve the bridges, ports and countless other pieces of infrastructure seen as vital to Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike.

In Anderson’s rush to condemn the stimulus and the President’s policies, he played with the facts and hurt his own argument.

Just as important. one can’t evaluate history before it has occurred. Like whiskey, history must be distilled. Both are complex compounds containing a vast range of ingredients and neither can be assessed fully while still being made. It takes a long while before anyone can evaluate either with any objectivity and it is not possible to strip away individual ingredients from the final brews. History, like whiskey, has to be evaluated on the whole.

There were no shortage of people willing to pontificate about how President George W. Bush was taking a direct route into the history books to destination “worst ever” while he was Commander in Chief. And, there seem to be at least as many who are willing to sum up President Obama’s record before the facts can be written as well. Time will tell and by then partisans like Mr. Anderson will be trying to creatively interpret the historical record of some other politician long before it has been written.

We have a long way to travel before the 2012 election. I, for one, am going to do my best to recognize the difference between what is fact and what is a half-truth partisan absolute. I hope most of my fellow voters will do the same.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette @gmail .com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Questions of Des Moines schools' nepotism shouldn't have to be raised

2011-06-28T01:04:00.006-05:00

Steve Johns, who has been vice principal and activities director at Des Moines' North High School since last summer, was recently selected to be the new East High principal.

Johns appears to be well qualified. He will surely earn his new salary -- an increase of some $32,000, or 36 percent, over what he was paid previously.

The school needs strong leadership following a tumultuous few months. The principal brought in from out-of-state after last year's national search abruptly resigned as something resembling a staff and parent revolt began to take shape in response to his leadership, or lack thereof.

Johns has the credentials, and the district followed its normal procedures in his selection. The problem isn't Johns. We all hope he is up to the job.

The problem is the school board's governance model. It provides scant oversight of the superintendent, and district policies and procedures do not do enough to prevent problems that could arise from potential conflicts of interests.

In reporting Johns' appointment, this newspaper pointed out Johns is the boyfriend of Nina Rasmusson, Superintendent Nancy Sebring's twin sister. Moreover, Johns and Rasmusson own a home together in Ames. The paper reminded readers that Rasmusson was similarly named to head the district's charter school last year.

The district drafted a response to Johns' hiring, explaining a committee of six teachers and an administrator interviewed three candidates and recommended two to the selection committee.

The selection committee, consisting of six teachers, two community members, two support staff members, and Bryce Amos, the executive director of the district's northeast region, ultimately selected Johns. Sebring sat in as a nonvoting member.

There was no word if the superintendent asked questions, made recommendations or winked at the committee during key moments of the meetings.

Amos reassured the Register the committee -- not Sebring -- had the final call when it came to selecting Johns. He dismissed any conflict with, "There's other employees in the district that have relationships with each other. There was no pause at all when that decision was made."

I bet Amos didn't pause, nor is it surprising he didn't have strong feelings about nepotism. His wife, Sherry, was named principal of McKinley Elementary last year. It is reasonable to assume Amos would have gotten an odd look from his boss if, while sitting across the table from nonvoting-member Sebring, he had suggested nepotism should disqualify her sister's partner.

According to the district statement, Sebring told the staff at East, "One of the finalists may be someone in a relationship with her sister." I will assume the selection committee even knew which finalist had the relationship. Of course, one could argue the disclosure of the relationship may have helped Johns more than it hurt. Sometimes disclosure does not remove the conflict -- it shines a little light on it.

The district wanted to stress that Johns is qualified and his tenure at North marked a turnaround for the school, but it went too far. The district statement noted the uptick in this year's testing results at North as evidence. It is unclear what a vice principal and activities director can do to increase the collective score of an entire student body in math, science and reading in his one year on the job, but let's not get sidetracked by that now.

An isolated case of nepotism is to be expected among 5,000 employees. However, it is a little hard to believe that in about a year's time the twin sister of the superintendent, the sister's partner and the wife of the guy to whom the partner will report is each a special case.

For a school board that adopted a governance model limiting its oversight of management decisions, primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of how the district hires and how employees are managed falls entirely to the superintendent. When the superintendent repeatedly sits in the room and witnesses others select and then supervise her relatives and the relatives of her subordinates, it is understandable why some begin to raise questions.

Instead of firing off defensive statements about their actions, the superintendent and staff need to avoid the appearance of conflict in the first place. Sebring and her staff are unable to be both the managers of a public institution and the sole arbitrators of what is proper. The school board and the public must do so. The first step would be for the school board to accept more responsibility for governing and setting school policies.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a guest editorial in the print and online editions of the Des Moines Register.

Gov. Branstad’s Blankey Isn’t Big Enough for All of Us

2011-06-23T10:25:00.002-05:00

As a student of and participant in politics and government I have learned many things. For instance, some in elected office allow power to imitate the cozy confidence that can only be born from preparation. Reading Dar Danielson’s Radio Iowa blog, I sensed Governor Terry Branstad and his staff might have snuggled up to this false comfort.

The Governor’s comments earlier this week bother me. He started with, “What people need to know is, this governor has dealt with a lot of emergencies and I don’t like to deal with emergencies, but if you have one, I’ve never been afraid to act and do what’s necessary to protect the safety and the well being of the citizens of this state.”

I harbor a pet peeve about people referring to themselves in the third person, but that is not what bugs me the most here. Yes, Governor Branstad served sixteen years as governor in a previous stint and he is no stranger to crises and difficult issues. However, his record as a survivor and even a leader does not mean Iowans should sleep easily simply because he tells us he is in charge. Branstad needs to do the job and, as important, he needs to communicate with the people of Iowa about what he is doing to prepare our state for the challenges yet to come.

I am happy to hear the Governor is convinced “there’s not gonna be a shut down” of Iowa government should the Legislature fail to pass a budget by July 1. But, I am fairly certain Iowans did not elect Terry Branstad because of his ability to predict the future. They elected him because they believed he would place a steadier and more reasoned hand on the tiller of government than did the previous occupant of the office. In a democracy it takes more than gut instinct to be a leader – one must build consensus and that takes communication.

Many have been harping on the Governor to release his written plan for how his administration would continue operating government if the Legislature fails to enact a budget. Come to find out, Branstad hasn’t prepared one. He dismissed criticism about this with, “There is no written plan. I do in my own mind understand that in times of emergency the governor can and will act, and I always have, and I will if that happens, and you’ll see that on the 30th.”

Besides trusting his clairvoyance, Branstad wants Iowans to blindly accept his mental power as plan enough. I think Branstad is a smart guy, but we should not be willing to cuddle up to that comfy blanket of his no matter how soft he tells us it is.

It is good politics for an elected official to communicate with the people he serves. Doing so creates a bond and a confidence among voters that the official is in touch and prepared to handle the job. More important, people deserve to know about an elected official’s plans. While they cannot be intimately involved with the making of every decision, they should be informed of the process.

If the people take the word of a leader and trust without question, they shirk their responsibility as participants in a democratic society and will be left to criticize only themselves if and when those they elect make bad decisions. Over the years Governor Branstad has waxed on repeatedly about Iowans’ unique capacity to band together to make a difference, yet on the eve of a potential crisis he is telling us he alone will take care of us. With seven days left to pass a budget, I am not sure we should accept his optimism about the capabilities of the Legislature or his assertions about what he has in mind without verification and examination. I doubt that blankey of his will be big enough for all of us if he is mistaken.

###

(A Personal Note: I have sat on this piece for two days, unwilling to press the submit button. I think this is due to the fact I genuinely respect Governor Branstad. He is honest, passionate about public service and committed to doing what he believes is right. By posting this piece, some will say I think otherwise. While I do not, I am baffled by his approach to this situation. It seems counter to the guy I know and to the guy who ran for office touting a belief in open government. Perhaps, I don’t see the whole picture here, but something doesn’t seem right here. My apologies if I am proven to be yet another blogger who spouted off without all of the facts. I just called this one as I saw it.)

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

A Father's View

2011-06-19T05:41:00.002-05:00

Each stage of life with my kids has been better than the last. On becoming a parent, I knew innately I would love my children. What I did not know was that I would like them so much. I look back fondly on the wide-eyed, giggling, sense-of-wonder early days, but as I consider the future, I am filled with a tingling anticipation incomparable to the warm emotions those memories stir.

I have and continue to try to make a small difference in the world. However, in the end, my largest and most important contributions will not be the result of such conscious endeavors. My greatest achievements will stem from that invisible current of energy passed from parent to child. There is a confidence and a light in my children that is uniquely theirs. I helped nurture these elements, but my children are the ones who will use them as fuel to do magnificent things. That will be something to see.

Until then, I will enjoy their every boisterous act, respectful display, puckish exploit, quiet minute, minor success, spectacular scheme and wondrous accomplishment.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

It’s Time for Branstad to Lead

2011-06-16T10:00:00.002-05:00

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, “the task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.” There aren’t many leaders in Iowa these days.

The Iowa General Assembly remains deadlocked. Budget negotiations have stalled because the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House and Governor Terry Branstad have put partisanship above leadership. Meanwhile, school districts, local governments and the people of Iowa muster on under a governmental cloud of uncertainty. A leader would have acted to prevent such gridlock.

Governor Branstad can end Iowa's budget impasse by choosing to lead. Register file photo.

One of the cruel ironies is Governor Branstad is unwilling to compromise on his proposal to replace Iowa’s annual budget process with a two-year budget cycle, because he wants schools and others to be able to better plan for the future. Oddly, Branstad is making it impossible for others to plan by insisting on something he believes will make it easier for people to plan.

The two-year budget is worth pursuing aggressively, but Branstad is under the mistaken impression that stubbornness is akin to leadership.

Democrats say the major sticking points are a biennial budget gives a governor too much power and 0% allowable growth for public schools is unacceptable. Governor Branstad has the ability to break the impasse, yet he is choosing to stand his partisan ground.

Governor, the time has come for you to act. Acquiescing on one point in order to win an even more important one isn’t weakness; it is a show of strength by a leader who wants to move his people to that new and better place.

Governor Branstad and House Republicans should agree to the Democrats reasonable demand for 2% allowable growth for public education for the next two years and, in return for a two year budget, allow Democrats to put a few safeguards into the budget process to address their concerns about how such a budget might give a governor too much control. The Legislature will still meet every year and should be allowed to make minor adjustments during the budget cycle. A governor should not be allowed to alter a budget significantly during that time without legislative input.

By funding public education with a reasonable 2% allowable growth formula and reaching a compromise to enable Senate Democrats to approve the logical biennial budget process, Governor Branstad and the General Assembly will be seen as leaders and Iowa will be better for it. If both continue to put partisanship ahead of progress, Iowans will lose.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Herman Cain Stumbles Stage Right During One Act Play

2011-06-09T10:50:00.001-05:00

I have been reading and hearing some about Herman Cain recently. Cain is the presidential candidate and former CEO from Georgia who is trying to make a name for himself among the right leaning. He seems to be a go getter with a personality that presents well on stage. But, his early performance indicates he will exit stage right fairly early in this campaign.

Asked in March if he would consider putting a Muslim in a top position, the Atlanta businessman gave a cringe-causing answer to the left leaning blog Think Progress. He said he would not, “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government.”

Herman Cain tries to clarify what makes him uncomfortable.

The campaign trail, especially for the uninitiated like Cain, can be a rough and tumble place. Sometimes, an answer a newbie candidate gives in the heat of the moment doesn’t reflect his true feelings. For that reason, I thought it fair to give Cain a little time to clarify what he meant in a setting more substantial than a question and answer exchanged while exiting a building. Two such opportunities presented themselves yesterday and Mr. Cain’s answers did not improve much.

He went on Glenn Beck’s show, a decidedly friendly forum for Mr. Cain. When asked about the earlier statement he said it had been “misconstrued” and went on to say, “I immediately said – without thinking – ‘No, I would not be comfortable.’ I did not say that I would not have them in my cabinet. If you look at my career, I have hired good people regardless of race, religion, sex gender, orientation and this kind of thing.”

I am not sure any American would like being referred to as “them,” but I will not dwell on that any more than I will contemplate how Cain would define “this kind of thing.” He seemed to be making a little headway, or at least making an effort to not affront an entire religion. It wasn’t until he got to CBS that I began to be convinced Cain’s first answer two months ago may very well reflect how he thinks.

When Brian Montopoli asked Cain to explain his comments about Muslims, Cain said, “When they asked ‘would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet’ I said ‘no, I wouldn’t be comfortable. I didn’t say I would not have one in there if they put the Constitution of the United States first.” He went on to express concern about the imposition of Sharia law, or strict Islamic law, into the American legal system and pointed to a particular case in New Jersey.

That was the clincher for me. Every president is bound to require his appointees put the Constitution and the laws of the land first. This test is not any more important for Americans of one religious faith than it is another.

So, according to Cain, he is uncomfortable with appointing a Muslim unless he is able to prove allegiance to the United States. Does this make Cain comfortable with a Christian or some other believer who puts faith before nation and liberty? Cain seems to suggest that by being Christian one is automatically a patriot and by being Muslim one cannot be assumed patriotic until proven so by Cain’s personal litmus test. That is an outrage.

Mr. Cain is unable to see the hypocrisy it takes to say these things days after attending a forum held by the Family Leader, an organization excessively open about ensuring their take on Christian values are written into law, where Cain quoted the book of Matthew and insisted that laws come from God and “the Biblical purpose for government is to punish evil and encourage good.”

Mr. Cain has had plenty of time and a minimum of two national opportunities to explain his earlier off the cuff response. It has become clear his original statement may not have been misconstrued after all. His curtain call may come sooner than he had planned.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Rand Paul’s Memorial Day Salute

2011-05-27T10:53:00.002-05:00

There seems to be an incessant buzz in America these days caused by our collective carping about the game playing of elected officials. I have contributed mightily to this noise and have fed it a fair amount through my writing for print media and in this space. On the eve of the Memorial Day weekend, I am going to do something different and praise one politician for holding his ground and keeping his word.

As Congress scrambled to renew parts of the Patriot Act, freshman Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky took an unyielding stand to force a vote on three provisions of the Act he found particularly objectionable. Paul filibustered for three days. In the process, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid berated Paul and, in an outrageous display, even accused Paul of wanting to arm terrorists.

“He is fighting for an amendment to protect the right — not of average citizens, but of terrorists — to cover up their gun purchases,” Reid said.

That is a scurrilous statement for which Senator Reid should be ashamed. The Republican Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, was only slightly kinder to his fellow Republican, but Senator Paul did not back down. In the end, Paul forced votes on his amendments and they all failed.

I have a very different view on many issues than does Senator Paul, but I share his concern about how the Patriot Act impinges individual freedom. I recognize the threat posed by terrorists. However, terrorists win a victory when a free society allows even small fissures in the foundation of liberty in fear of things that might happen. Created in a noble effort to protect the American way, the Patriot Act simultaneously degrades it.

It would have been understandable for Senator Paul to acknowledge he was on the losing side of this battle and to quietly acquiesce. He knew his amendments lacked majority support. A simple “no” vote would have been the easy way out and the leaders of his party might have even rewarded him for sitting on the sideline. Senator Paul chose another path. As a result, the Senate and, perhaps in a small way, the country is a little better for having heard a minority viewpoint too often silenced since 9/11.

As you put out your flag this Memorial Day to honor those who paid the ultimate price fighting for our freedom, remember one of the most valuable ideals they died to protect was the right of individual Americans to voice their opinions. Senator Paul may not have represented the mainstream this week in the U.S. Senate, but preserving his right to speak is important to each and every one of us.

The Senate debate may not have been pretty and the substance of what was said there may only seem significant to a single blowhard with a blog, but America is the greatest nation on earth because we do not silence those who say unpopular things.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Tim "I'm the Most Honest Guy I Know" Pawlenty Makes it Official by Preaching to Choir

2011-05-23T14:19:00.007-05:00

Tim Pawlenty announced his campaign for President in Des Moines todayon the rooftop terrace of the State Historical Building. The sun, wind, airplanes and traffic on the streets below cooperated, for the most part, as the domes of the Iowa Capitol gleamed in the background. It was a good day for preaching to the choir.

Pawlenty drew a respectable crowd. I’ll call it 150 to 175 spectators and a generous cadre of media. His campaign gets points for staging and for making sure there were enough staff and volunteers on hand to capture the contact information of as many people in the crowd as possible. The Iowa Caucuses are nothing if not an organization game. It looks like the Pawlenty folks are well aware of this.

After clearly and for the record announcing his candidacy for President of the United States, the former Minnesota Governor launched into a speech written to reinforce he was not Barack Obama. ( I can’t believe many people get them confused, but they must.)

There was much talk of Obama’s failures and an equal number of references to Pawlenty’s own self identified honesty. Apparently, Pawlenty is rather impressed with his special ability to tell the truth and he is convinced no one else in the race shares this trait. Maybe I am alone, but whenever a person repeats how honest he is, I get a little suspicious. But, Pawlenty was here to rally the troops and I suppose honesty polls well.

Healthcare: Pawlenty said his healthcare plan in Minnesota would be used as a model for what he would do as president and “my plan is the opposite of ‘Obamacare.’” This, of course, begs a question. Since a main Pawlenty objection to the Obama plan is that Americans are “mandated” to buy health coverage, would the Pawlenty plan mandate Americans not be insured? But, I digress.

Immigration: Pawlenty did not equivocate, “I am for legal immigration.” He talked about how the U.S. is based on the rule of law and that we must uphold immigration laws. Whew. That clears that up.

Ethanol: Pawlenty did show some courage by standing in Iowa and saying ethanol subsidies should be phased out. He did this mostly to prove he was a man willing to say the unpopular (see speaking the truth above), but I will give him credit for saying what he meant in this case.

Education: When asked by Des Moines Roosevelt High School graduating senior Alex Patch about education, Pawlenty spent an odd few minutes summarizing the documentary film “Waiting for Superman” before concluding he was against the “government monopoly of public education” and for choice. Parents should be “resourced” and given the choice to send their kids to the government monopoly schools (if they are silly enough to choose that), charter schools (if they want another public option), another monopoly school through open enrollment, private schools or home schools.

Pawlenty was most passionate about his education answer during the question and answer period, which made me think he might be running for the wrong position (note: I say “passion” with the caveat I may have been mistaken since passion is often hard to discern in Pawlenty without the aid of highly tuned computers). Pawlenty had spent a major portion of his overall time today talking about how the federal government needs to scale back and stay out of Americans’ lives. For instance, the federal government should stop administering Medicare and send the money to the states in a block grant. This attitude seems to conflict with Pawlenty’s answer to Patch that the federal government should set policy to break up public education and teachers unions. One would think Pawlenty would want to leave such things to the people and their local and state governments.

All and all, Tim Pawlenty did not stumble, meaning his campaign can count today as a win. Today’s sparkling May skies will eventually turn to January snow showers. It gets harder from this point on, because the game turns on finding new supporters to add to the choir. Pawlenty has a lot of work to do before then to inspire Iowans to trudge to their Caucus and stand up for him. And, since he assured us many times he can be trusted to tell the truth, we know Pawlenty is in this to win.

###

(In the ‘you have to appreciate the irony of the timing’ category is this story; Former Pawlenty staffer pleads guilty to public intoxication. I am not suggesting this young man’s problems are humorous, or that Mr. Pawlenty should be held accountable for his staffer’s drunkenness. I just found it ironic.)

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

In defense of the Iowa Caucuses – New Hampshirites Wear Funny Hats, too

2011-05-17T08:02:00.002-05:00

This weekend Fergus Cullen, a freelance columnist and former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, wrote an amusing opinion piece for the Des Moines Register. In a manner matching his colorful name, the writer compared first presidential test states Iowa and New Hampshire to high school friends who drifted apart – New Hampshire becoming the stable friend with the orderly life while Iowa dates “a string of spacey girls, and talked about religion a lot.” He postures Iowa Republicans have lost credibility in the primary selection process saying, “It’s hard to talk about real issues when three quarters of the audience wears tinfoil hats.” I’ll come back to the tinfoil hats later, but Cullen’s self-serving defense of his state misses the point.

Who did he say was wearing a funny hat?

First, the influence of the right-wing fringe is not limited to Iowa any more than the influence of vocal less-than-mainstream voters is restricted to the Republican Party. The nominees of both parties have to dance with party activists before being passed on to the national stage. It is just that, these days, the GOP appears a bit more fractured than the Democrats. Cullen oversimplifies the sway the radical factions have in the nomination process with uninformed generalizations to argue the Iowa Caucuses are impacted by these groups more than the New Hampshire Primary is.

Cullen’s main premise is based on two conditions, all candidates must have an equal shot and the voters of these early states must be broadly representative of the party as a whole. He is wrong. Part of the reason the parties have a nominating process is precisely because no state reflects the national whole. Iowans have different concerns than do New Hampshirites. New Yorkers’ perspectives differ from those of South Carolinians. And, so on. Iowa and New Hampshire have long held that allowing these two small states first shot at the candidates provides a balance to the advantage heavily populated states have in the process in general. Iowa and New Hampshire don’t go first because their voters mirror Americans as a group. They go first because the personal, hand-to-hand campaign a candidate must run in these states is different than the TV centric efforts he must run to succeed in the large states.

One shouldn’t promote the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primaries because these states will perfectly mimic what will happen in the other 48 states, but because they provide an important and different perspective that would be lost if the large states dominated the process. Just as the first test the high school students Cullen used in his analogy took as freshmen could not have predicted who would be valedictorian, the results of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primaries are not meant to predict who will be the nominee. It is what they add to the overall process that makes them important.

As for Cullen’s assertion that early contest states must provide every candidate an equal shot at winning the most votes, that too is sophomoric. Each candidate holds certain advantages and disadvantages in every state. The process of having to pass a nomination test in every state vets candidates in a way that takes our inherent differences into consideration and allows American voters to examine the candidates from many different angles. If there were to be a single national primary contest, presidential campaigns would be nothing more than an extension of the mass market oversimplified pap we see during the general election.

Cullen claims that same sex marriage is a major issue for Iowans in 2012 saying since the New Hampshire Legislature approved same-sex marriage and the issue was decided by the courts in Iowa, his state is somehow more mainstream and rational. He also suggests there are more birthers (those who contend President Obama was not born as a US citizen even though there is a mountain of evidence proving he was) in Iowa than elsewhere. Polls indicate Iowans are not overly focused on marriage or wild conspiracy theories any more than are Republicans elsewhere.

As a former state party chair, Cullen knows all too well that party regulars do not always reflect the broader population. If they did, you would see far more people wearing red, white and blue elephant hats to the mall than you do, which brings me to the tinfoil chapeau.

In 2008, I attended a Ron Paul for President event and was seated amidst a group of energetic Paul supporters. While waiting for the candidate to arrive, they had an animated discussion about the U.S. government’s plot and subsequent cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. As Paul took the stage, one of them said he had wished he had worn his foil hat to deflect the FBI’s listening capability, but he was “so psyched” about Paul, he did not care. As a witness to this conversation, I know for a fact some of Paul’s support came from tinfoil wearing supporters. But, it would be a stretch for me to say that Paul was marginalized because these folks existed. It is similarly unfair and shortsighted of Cullen to make the same broad strokes of Iowa Caucus goers without considering the role each state plays in the overall process.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Iowa’s Budget Boondoggle

2011-05-12T09:28:00.002-05:00

Governor Branstad has brought the legislative process to a halt. Legislators should have closed up shop for the season and headed home twelve days ago, but the lack of a budget keeps them from adjourning. The biggest stumbling block is the Governor’s demand that the Legislature pass a two-year instead of a single year budget. He said he wanted this on the campaign trail and has been insisting on it since taking office in January. You would hope creative minds could have found a compromise in the intervening four months. Nope, Iowa is short on creative minds in the halls of power these days.

In fairness, I will admit I like the concept of a two-year budget. The annual posturing over appropriations makes for poor government and makes planning for the future harder than necessary. With a two-year budget, school districts, local government and state agencies could spend more time doing the vital work they were designed to do and less time pounding the marble floors of the Capitol politicking for funds. Even better, the Legislature could spend less time tinkering with budget formulas and more time, well, legislating. And, that is precisely why legislators do not like the two-year budget concept.

Legislators say a two-year budget gives the Governor too much power to move money around without legislative approval. This is a valid concern, but this concern can be overcome by hammering out a new law regarding how the budget can be adjusted during the two-year cycle. The argument about gubernatorial power is a smoke screen. The annual budget battle gives Legislators an excuse to spend the majority of their time dividing up the spending pie. The uncertainty this battle creates gives them cover.

“I really would have loved to address Iowa’s most pressing issues like education policy, economic development and public safety, but we just couldn’t in this tough year. The budget consumes our time,” we are told by many elected representatives.

The problem is that every year is a tough budget year. If Iowa could hammer out a biennial budget, legislators would be able (or forced to, depending on your point of view) to debate and pass legislation without having to be hassled with the budget. Yep, they would have to take a look at the big picture and actually lead a little. Instead, they prefer to paint a picture that they are fighting the ever-critical budget fight and their hands are tied from doing anything else. That political cover goes away if the budget is dealt with every other year.

There are a hundred ways to get the two-year budget done. The Governor might have to give up some of his power to move money between sessions and commit to an allowable growth formula for schools greater than 0. The Legislature might have to set a budget and stick to it for once, and roll up their sleeves and legislate more and worry less about distributing the financial largess of tax dollars in an attempt to win political points. All this takes is some creativity and willingness to do the job. What am I thinking? Both of those things are rarities on the Hill these days.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Open Letter to the Boulder, Colorado School District

2011-04-28T09:48:00.002-05:00

A few people in Boulder, Colorado found me through Internet searches and contacted me seeking my opinion about Des Moines Schools Superintendent Dr. Nancy Sebring who is a candidate for superintendent of the Boulder school district. I also received an inquiry from the local newspaper. Answering their questions was a revealing process, because it caused me to think about where our schools are heading and what I would like to see from the school board and superintendent, regardless if Nancy Sebring leaves or not. Below are some of the questions I was asked and my responses.

What is your overall impression of Nancy Sebring? – Nancy Sebring is talented, articulate, well prepared and capable to lead a school district facing some of the toughest educational challenges. More over, she has always struck me as a person of integrity. While I disagree with some of her decisions and I feel a few have been somewhat damaging to our school district, I regard her as competent and well intentioned. I recognize that statement may seem contradictory, so allow me to explain.

On both a personal and professional level, Nancy Sebring has always been fair and honest. She has a firm grasp of her field of expertise, education, and has the toolset required of a solid leader. In short, I like and have always trusted her.

However, Dr. Sebring has surrounded herself with people who tell her what they think she wants to hear instead of what she needs to hear. Compounding this, Dr. Sebring has spent far too little time in the community searching for solutions with parents, teachers, students and others. She has operated in a “we know best and are doing a great job” vacuum. Dangerous for any leader, for an educational leader these management weaknesses can have long-lasting and far-reaching effects.

Des Moines Schools Superintendent Nancy Sebring may depart for Boulder, Colorado. Regardless, now is a good time to evaluate where our school district is headed. (Picture of Lincoln H.S.)

How has Dr. Sebring performed in her position ion Des Moines? – I am intentionally going to focus on some of Dr. Sebring’s failings in this answer more than her strengths. I do so not to dissuade the people of Boulder from considering her as a candidate. She may be a very good one. I do so, because in order for Dr. Sebring to reach her potential in Boulder, she will need to improve upon what she did in Des Moines and should be prevented from making the same mistakes.

The Sebring team has been too willing to seek out and implement new programs and policies aimed more at short-term PR appeal than actual and lasting change.

For instance, establishing a charter school for at-risk students has gathered headlines and accolades, but when one realizes that, at its very best, this small charter school will help an extremely small percentage of Des Moines students who are lost to today’s system. It is painfully obvious that the amount of energy, resources and effort expended on the charter school would have been better spent attempting to tackle issues faced by students on a broader scale.

Oddly, Sebring’s apparent desire for PR wins stands in conflict to a certain, albeit occasional, display of overconfidence. In my opinion, the fact her advisors and her school board allowed Dr. Sebring to see her twin sister hired as the charter school’s leader is a sign the Sebring team has not exactly operated with the broader interest of the public in mind or recognized the PR damage doing so might inflict.

On a larger scale than the charter school, the amount of money, time and sweat her administration has poured into establishing an International Baccalaureate program sounds impressive, until one understands that this program was rolled out while staff and programs at the majority of Des Moines schools suffered severe and drastic reductions during the same period. The harm done by these cuts to the majority of schools will impact a much larger percentage of our student population than the new IB program will ever touch. Dr. Sebring is not to blame for the budget shortfalls, but she ignored the most serious issues in favor of flashy new programs to distract the public. Said simply, the implementation of the IB program was more show than substance.

Has she had much luck at creating consensus on divisive topics? - Dr. Sebring too often seems more willing to lecture than participate in a dialogue with people who wish to forward reasonable ideas in good faith.

An example was evidenced last fall. Our weekly paper ran an opinion piece suggesting a way to save money on computer software. In it the paper referred to the District budget language as arcane (it is). Sebring fired back a defensive response for publication suggesting that if the writers could not understand the language of the budget, they should have asked for help. Sebring missed that if a budget is hard-to-understand, her team should work to make it less so, and she completely failed to address the very point of the editorial, a recommendation that had potential for significant savings.

Through the narrowest of lenses, Dr. Sebring has met the objectives of her job in Des Moines. She has pleased a supportive school board focused more on cheerleading than pursuing innovation. And, there have been no major scandals or acts of mismanagement on her watch. But, when one pulls back for a wide-angled view, a slightly different picture emerges.

It is not enough for a superintendent to please her school board. She must seek out ideas; honestly and thoroughly evaluate what is working and what is not in classrooms across the District; and offer solutions that may not have been sought by her volunteer board, but are essential to improving education. She must lead and to do so, she must engage in a broader community discussion, develop a comprehensive vision for the District and unflinchingly take responsibility for building consensus. Sebring has not done that enough here, but I would like to think if the ground rules mandated she do so, she would make an outstanding superintendent.

Do you have any final thoughts? – I cannot say if Dr. Sebring would be an ideal fit for the Boulder job. I do feel she is up to the job and under the right circumstances might be an outstanding choice. Should Boulder select Sebring as their next superintendent, I would advise they only do so after they establish some very specific ground rules. Mainly, she must step outside of the cocoon many superintendents construct for themselves. That has been her one failing here.

Should the school board in Boulder select Dr. Nancy Sebring, they will have won a capable, honest and well-prepared superintendent. When she is at her best, she is exceptional. Her errors and missteps in Des Moines are due in part to the school board and her willingness to go for easy wins while ignoring the larger and more difficult issues, and in part to the fact that Dr. Sebring did not engage the broader community in the conversation. She has the tools to create a strong educational vision and the personality to build consensus. In Des Moines, too often she has chosen to lecture instead of lead. Because of that, she has yet to reach her remarkable potential.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Hey, kid, want a free laptop? The Selling of a Des Moines School

2011-04-18T09:59:00.002-05:00

My daughter had to miss the review for tomorrow’s math test today. Des Moines Public School officials thought a sales pitch by the folks from the new charter school would be a better use of some Callanan Middle School students’ time. The pitchers wanted to make sure the Gifted and Talented kids and English Language Learners knew they were equally welcome to apply. Just like late night infomercial hucksters, the sales team had a strong closing message for the kids, “every student accepted at our shiny new school gets a completely free laptop of his or her very own.”

The problem, I don’t send my children to school to get sold to, I send them to learn.

Des Moines School Officials are Selling their Charter School to a Live Student Audience Near You

The new charter school has been plagued with controversy since before it opened its doors. Organizers of the charter school spent a great deal of time during a school board meeting in 2009 selling the board on the concept. Only after every member of the audience left, save one dedicated Drake journalism student, did the superintendent reveal the picture was not so rosy and the funding was not secure. And, the supposedly independent group overseeing the charter school hired Des Moines Schools’ superintendent Nancy Sebring’s twin sister without – “wink, wink” – knowing the relationship. Since then the Des Moines Public School District has appropriated resources to create this new charter school in extremely difficult economic times. And, it is rumored the school is shy of the enrollment numbers that were promised, which leads to today’s recruiting session.

But, enough about the charter school. Even if the place were a raging success, it is not appropriate to take kids away from learning time to hear a sales pitch; especially one their parents know nothing about. When it comes to deciding which school is appropriate for a child, at a minimum, an attempt needs to be made to get the information to the parents first.

District officials are quick to point out a charter school operates independently from the public school district and a charter school is exempt from many public school restrictions. Therefore, it is no more appropriate for the charter school to recruit students during the school day than it would be for a private school to do so. (Should Merrill Middle School be able recruit at other schools for its International Baccalaureate Program? Should the private Bergman Academy present to public school students about its educational model?)

No matter how I look at this, this official school assembly smells. My daughter missed valuable class time the day before her math exam. The charter school was allowed open access to recruit public school students, providing it an advantage over every other public school in an open enrollment enabled district as well as every other private school. Parents were not informed of or involved in the charter school sales session, meaning they have to get the information from their children in a silly game of catch-up. Teachers lost more minutes teaching and students lost learning time.

Admittedly, I am skeptical when education administrators roll out a new program that takes resources from existing programs. When the new dream project flounders and these same administrators try to sell directly to students, I get concerned their priorities really are out of whack.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad and Senate Democrats Opt for Threats Over Solutions

2011-04-05T10:56:00.004-05:00

Governor Terry Branstad wants the State of Iowa to adopt a two year budget. The Democrats in the Senate are against the idea and plan to send an annual budget to the Branstad instead. If they do, Branstad has vowed to veto it. The price for this political gridlock will be paid by school districts and countless state and local governments – Iowans will be the losers. Both sides are so blinded by vitriolic political scorekeeping they are unable to see the opportunity of compromise sitting within comfortable reach.

Candidates for the General Assembly often campaign on a platform of making government work better for the people it is intended to serve. Efficiently delivering the services people need and creating an environment to foster individual freedom and prosperity are at the center of most winning election efforts. However, after taking their seats, most legislators generally spend their time dividing up the spoils of government and delivering symbolic oversized checks to prove their ability to bring money home. There is precious little time to think deeply about government’s mission.

Pols Need to Cease Drawing Lines in the Sand and Start Finding Solutions

The annual squabble for funds makes for bad government because every year the partisan wrangling over appropriations dominates the debate, creates a climate of uncertainty overshadowing policy decisions and, most important, allows legislators to position themselves as champions who fought for their people when all they may have done was score a few bucks for a community center.

A longer budget setting process would allow government workers to spend more time doing the job of government and less trying to preserve their funding sources. More important, the expanded budget process would allow lawmakers to take a longer view of what and how government should do and less on the political gamesmanship of budget gotcha. And, that is why they resist the idea. It is much easier to have Kinko’s print big checks and pose for photos than it is to establish and advocate for ways to improve government.

Governor Branstad has been busy drawing lines in the sand since he returned to office. Most of these lines involve spending. For instance, Branstad decided early on that Iowa’s schools should not receive any new money this year. Since then, state revenue predictions are up and the long-term economic picture has improved. Yet, Branstad is trapped behind his hard-nosed 0% line.

A compromise on the two-year budget could provide a political escape route for both the Democrats and Branstad. Branstad could claim a two-year budget provides him confidence to agree to a 2% increase for schools and Democrats could claim that locking in two years of 2% allowable growth for schools gives them confidence Iowa’s schools will continue to thrive. Both sides could claim victory and Iowans would get progress instead of stalemate.

The budget compromise does not have to be limited to the length of the budget and school dollars, but they are good places to start. Democrats and Republicans need to worry less about blocking the other side’s initiatives and more time finding ways to improve government. Placing the budget on a longer cycle would provide an opportunity to do so. Sure, a lot of the mystery and hysteria of the annual budget fight would dissipate, but we can find enough manufactured intrigue on reality TV these days. Let’s leave it there.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Paper Chase – Branstad Plays Games with Openness

2011-03-31T12:06:00.003-05:00

March turned my schedule upside down, threw it out the window, stomped on it – pick whichever cliché you like, this last day of this disorderly month has me reflecting a bit. The chaos brought by knee surgery for a torn ACL and meniscus, and a wide variety of planned and unplanned adventures return me to my blogging duties with an odd sense of calm. Civil unrest around the globe, the disasters in Japan, the political rhetoric in Washington and the game playing in Iowa’s Capitol would have produced a much more heated response from me 30 days ago. Today, I sit with my healing knee propped up pondering the time political figures waste making the simple complicated and the complicated somebody else’s problem.

The Paper Chase

Like many candidates, Governor Terry Branstad likes to claim he is a strong advocate for bringing the process of government into the sunshine so the people being served can observe their public servants in action and better understand the political decision processes. The Governor talks a pretty good game, but his promises don’t match his actions. I pick on the Governor not because he is alone in doing this. He has lots of company. But, he is at the top of Iowa’s political food chain, and he is one guy who could do something important to improve government accountability and he is refusing to do so.

Iowa Government Should Operate in a Glass House

The Governor is backing SF 430, a bill coursing its way through the legislative bodies that would create the Iowa Public Information Board and redefine open records and public meeting laws. Branstad and the bill’s backers are making the simple complicated and, worse, they want the credit for making government more open and accountable as long as they are exempt from the rules. That’s right; the bill exempts the governor, the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary may have a greater need for closed doors than the others, but it is wrong to exempt the governor and legislators.

Governor Branstad claims the proposed law would create a burden for his office and according to a spokesman, “would create a tool that could effectively be used by anyone to disrupt and paralyze the functioning of the governor’s office.” Sorry, fellas, you are not that special. If the law is manageable for school boards, county governments and others, it is manageable for you.

I have been involved with government most of my adult life. Too many of those I have served with and observed seem to share Governor Branstad’s fear of openness. Good government has little to worry from operating in glass houses. In the age of computerized records, the creation and maintenance of electronic information files is easy. The best way for a governor to build consensus and an attitude of cooperation is to look and act the part of an open government believer.

Further, SF 430 creates the Iowa Public Information Board to oversee complaints from the public about the governments not exempted from the law. The new seven member body gets a ridiculously small budget of $155,000. This is a clever way to make open records and public meetings somebody else’s problem, while at the same time making sure they have hardly any resources to do anything about the problem. This proposed title of the law looks pretty, but it does little.

The solution is simple – all of government needs to be held to a simple standard. The process of governing needs to be open. Exemptions can and should be made in certain legal and sensitive matters. Complicated legal jargon and a citizen committee with no resources do little to help.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

“Can we win back the center?” – Asking the Wrong Question

2011-03-04T09:50:00.001-06:00

“Can we win back the center?” Next to “how goes the fundraising,” this question may be asked in political war rooms, legislative caucuses, campaign strategy sessions and political party headquarters more than any other. Regardless of philosophy, if a campaign or party strategist asks this question, the answer might often be “no,” because the question itself is flawed. Leadership is not a gimmick.

Winning vs. Leading

Admittedly, many elections are won or lost because a cleverly crafted message or organizing ploy takes advantage of the hot topic of the moment. To use a simple sports analogy, a football team might be able to score a single touchdown by faking a punt, but they are going need to perform during the other 59 minutes of that game and throughout most of their other games of the season in order to maintain a winning record. If an election is akin to a single game, then leadership is akin to a team’s record over time.

I have been considering the most recent Iowa Poll this week. The Iowa Poll shows that when asked about same sex marriage, some 30% of respondents have no opinion or simply do not care. This is important, because this 30% will decide the outcome should voters be asked to weigh in on the matter. Those who have formed opinions aren’t likely to switch sides in the near term.

In the debate over same sex marriage and similar issues we tend to focus on the two sides battling to sway public opinion and forget policies like this aren’t determined by convincing people to change their minds, but getting those who have no opinion or are ambivalent to form an opinion and become concerned enough to advocate by voting or working to advance their new found belief.

Every year increasing numbers of Americans register with no political affiliation rather than Democrat or Republican. These voters don’t leave their parties; their parties left them. “Can we win back the center” assumes voters can cleverly be brought around to embrace a party’s philosophy and fails to acknowledge that the party’s philosophy itself may be the problem. The political fringe on the right and the left control party machinery and this leaves an increasing number of voters without a political home. Democrat and Republican failure may be due less to poorly articulated messages and more to the fact voters understand the messages and reject them.

Too many are focused on winning the next ballot box contest when they should concentrate on leading people to build support for a long-term vision for governing. A good football coach is focused on winning every time and will try to field a team that excels in every aspect of the game. Similarly, candidates and parties need to understand there is a difference between winning and leading. Leaders aren’t the winners of the last contest. Leaders are those people want to follow.

Trying to win back the center may make for a good play. Leading is something more.

A Prayer for Teachers

2011-02-24T22:05:00.001-06:00

In light of the debate raging in Wisconsin and across the nation about collective bargaining and the pay and benefits of public workers, I took a moment today to remember one group of workers for whom I feel pretty strongly. After some consideration I have decided to post here the personal piece I drafted for my Rotary Club – not to inflame the debate, but to reflect about the people who serve.

Once in a while the Rotary Club of Des Moines takes a questionable risk and asks me to give the invocation before our meeting. Our speaker today was Sarah Brown Wessling, the 2010 National Teacher of the Year winner. My prayer for teachers follows:

Today, let us pray for a group of people who make a difference every day, teachers.

As a teacher stands in the quiet hall unlocking her classroom door, may she find reassurance that her efforts this day will make a difference. As she turns on the lights and straightens the desks, may she find the strength needed to face the exuberant and willful young people who look to her for guidance.

As their school buildings come to life with the rambunctious grace of children, may teachers find the courage needed to continue the daily struggle of unlocking the minds of those who are our greatest hope.

When a teacher stands feeling lost and alone in his overcrowded classroom, may he be reminded that learning brings people together and he has a talent, the noble gift to teach. As a teacher does one of what seem to be a thousand tasks outside of his duties as an educator – nurturing, feeding, social work – may he know he is capable, trusted and vital.

After the teachers have left the schoolhouses, graded papers, planned the next day’s lessons and rested before they repeat all of these activities tomorrow, may we remember to pause and give thanks for the teachers. Without them, the door to the future can never be unlocked.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Navigating the Political Minefield Using a Holy Compass

2011-02-08T10:35:00.001-06:00

(WRITING A POLITICAL BLOG FOR THE DES MOINES REGISTER IS ENJOYABLE, BUT NOW AND AGAIN I COME UP BLANK IN THE TOPIC DEPARTMENT. LAST WEEK I TURNED TO MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS AND ASKED FOR THEIR ADVICE. I PROMISED THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH CHALLENGING IDEAS YET TO BE REHASHED IN CYBERLAND TOO MUCH A POCKET COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND U.S. CONSTITUTION AS A THANK YOU GIFT. MY FRIENDS DID NOT DISAPPOINT. I AM STARTING WITH ONE THAT IS A TAD SELF-ABSORBED, BUT I AM TOLD BLOGS ARE NOTHING IF NOT VEHICLES FOR THE EGOTIST.)

An old high school friend asked me a series of religious questions that were hardly new. Religion’s role in government has been debated since the founding of our nation. But, as many Iowans debate same sex marriage from a religious viewpoint and many in the Republican Party link religious values with fiscal conservatism, the topic seemed relevant.

His questions: Is it acceptable for government to sanction that which the Bible says is wrong? As a nation under God, do we place ourselves under His authority or is He simply in the sky above us? If we choose to sanction that which He specifically condemns, then just who is the final authority?

Benjamin Franklin

I may be unqualified to answer these questions and it might be best to leave them to somebody “above my pay grade.” However, avoiding the subject entirely is kind of a cop out. The Bible speaks to my friend. Like some Iowa legislators, he appears confident about what is right and what is wrong. I have never been so sure I could rely on my own reading of that holy text. So, I thought I would pose these questions to someone who is spending a lifetime in such work.

I called Matt Mardis-LeCroy, Minister for Spiritual Growth at Plymouth Church in Des Moines. He is articulate and well-learned in the field of Christianity having attended Messiah College, Chicago Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary. On hearing the questions, he warned me against selective literalism. I chuckled. The term reminded me of my grandfather. In later years, Grandpa adopted what the rest of us defined as selective hearing. He would choose what he heard by removing his hearing aid when topics became troublesome. Reverend Mardis-LeCroy said some do the same with the Bible and that one has to consider the entire message, not a few chosen verses.

OK, I see that, but it makes me again feel ill-equipped to ponder my friend’s questions. I imagine few amongst us are experts on God’s word, but I know for sure I am not. In talking about marriage, Reverend Mardis-LeCroy himself has said that “religious people in Iowa are not of one mind on the subject of marriage.” Great, men and women who spend all of their time spreading the word of God cannot agree. I was back to square one – faith is a guide, but where do the answers lie?

I picked up that pocket Constitution sitting on my desk and thumbed through it to distract myself for a minute. My Facebook friend had agreed the Founders dictated a separation of Church and State, but he was asking about that which guides us, me in particular. This made me think of my friend Amir Busnov.

Amir grew up Muslim in communist Yugoslavia. While President Josip Broz Tito ruled, Amir played with Christians as a child and was baffled as a teenager when family members disapproved of a Christian girlfriend. Years later, Amir watched neighbor turn against neighbor – Christian against Muslim – in the bloodbath of war. Yet, Amir speaks self-assuredly about his religion and how it guides him as an American. His conviction is as unwavering as my high school friend’s or those who attended the Family Leader event yesterday with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Except, there is a difference in Amir’s approach and I think it comes from what he witnessed in Bosnia before he and his family fled, when he returned to Bosnia with the U.S. Army in the years that followed and in his service to the U.S. government in Iraq today. Amir tells me Islam provides him a moral path. Goodness lies in how we treat our fellow man, not in how we judge them based on our interpretation of religion.

Amir makes me think of Benjamin Franklin who signed those documents in my pocket guide. I do a quick Google search and find what Franklin wrote to his father in 1738, “I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.” That makes sense to me and leads me to this:

The Bible tells us divorce is wrong, but Americans crafted laws to allow people to make their own choice there, because we respect liberty. In a fair society, if marriage is to be a legal partnership between two adults, it has to be allowed between any two adults without bias, religious or other. However, in a just society, if one’s actions harm another or infringe on another’s rights, we must not let those actions stand. A religious conviction may guide us, but we cannot let one’s selective literalism trump another’s. We must seek a kind of legal compromise as mortals.

I will answer my friend’s questions this way. The strength of our country lies in the American accord. While faith is an individual journey, we share a commitment to fairness and equality. My faith guides and comforts me as Amir’s faith does for him and my high school friend’s faith does for him. But, as a nation established and inhabited by people who recognize religious freedom, we leave it to each to seek that final authority. As an American, I accept my neighbor as my equal. My moral compass is set by my faith and I acknowledge that faith likely determines my neighbor’s “true North” as well. Our faiths may lead us to different conclusions from time to time, so we must rely on the most American of principles, to treat all people with equality, kindness and respect.

Faith sets our compass, but that does not mean we should insist all Americans must follow our spiritual path. Our country is based on fairness, liberty and freedom. No person or group gets to select what part of a holy text is more important than the next. Let’s leave that to the “final authority.”

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Open Letter to Gov. Branstad, re: School Lunch

2011-02-01T08:24:00.002-06:00

Dear Governor Branstad:

You asked Iowans for help as you begin your term as Governor. This is an excellent idea. Iowans are innovative and willing to do the hard work needed to get the job done. Recently I submitted the first of a few ideas I feel are worthy of your consideration as you put together the state budget and perfect your blueprint for governing in the years to come. I share another today.

As a former school board member, I know as well as any that school districts do much more than maintain school buildings and hire teachers. Public schools run bus networks, manage countless social service and health care programs, and direct massive food service operations. Some of these services are directly linked to education and others are provided at school because it is the one place where the children in need of these services gather. It is time to help educators focus on improving education by taking some of these non-instructional items off of their plate. The pun is intended; let’s start by taking food service out of the hands of educators.

We probably agree it makes sense to feed kids at school. For many students, the breakfasts and lunches they receive at school are the best meals they receive all week. However, we must acknowledge that these meals still fall short of what they should be as evidenced by theUnited States Department of Agriculture’s announcement last month that it was raising the standards for school lunches nationwide. (The fact it will take a decade to implement these standards, meaning that no student in the system today excluding First Graders and Kindergartners will benefit, is disappointing; but I digress.)

We can improve the quality of food served, reduce costs and free educators to do the job we most want them to do if feeding children becomes a service provided in school as opposed to one provided by the school.

Before going further with this proposal, allow me to suggest three guiding principles. First, federal, state and local government food oversight provide plenty of food safety controls. Second, school boards and district administrations should be given the ability to assert local control and oversight to ensure the needs of local communities are met. Third, feeding kids nutritious and affordable meals is the goal – this is not about busting unions or a power grab by one entity or another.

Possible alternatives to school run lunch programs include combining oversight to an agency jointly managed by multiple school districts, and/or county and state agencies with food service needs; outsourcing to private entities that submit to stringent oversight; or seeking other private and or public cooperative efforts.

Admittedly, this idea will induce swift knee-jerk reactions by the self-interested, the entrenched and those fearful of change. But, it is worth the time and effort to find a solution. Iowa could save money, children could eat better and our schools could improve because school administrators will have more time to focus on educating. It is worth the battle.

There are numerous opportunities worthy of exploration. As Governor, you have the unique ability to facilitate, if not orchestrate, how Iowa’s schools could go about this. This issue is larger than any school district. School districts need to focus on the classroom and the state can help them do this by helping them take a step away from the kitchen. The economies of scale and the statewide impact of how to best move forward should be led by Iowa’s chief executive.

Thanks for listening, Governor.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Harry Reid, Wrong on Earmarks

2011-01-27T10:05:00.001-06:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants President Obama to “back off” and let lawmakers continue to direct spending to their home districts by allowing legislators to insert pet projects into funding bills. Reid doesn’t want to give up the power he wields, a power which enables him to bring home dollars to Nevada without having to jump through too many hoops and, this is even more important, a power to use earmarks as enticements to get legislators to vote for other things the Majority Leader wants. Reid should let the dirty little tradition of earmarking go.

During the State of the Union address, the President said “If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it.” Reid called this nothing more than an “applause line” and suggested the President was playing to the crowd. Reid is right, getting rid of earmarks would be popular with voters. Many cheered the President’s remarks. And, Reid and the President know, it is easier for the President to threaten a veto of an earmark laden bill than it is to actually veto a popular bill that has a few small, financially insignificant pork projects hidden within. The President has drawn a line in the sand with his veto threat. He now needs to make good on it. Here’s why:

Earmarks may seem like "pencil dust," but they are part of a bigger Congressional problem.

While Senator Reid and those wishing to protect their precious earmarks will dismiss the amount of money earmarks represent compared to the rest of the federal budget (slightly more than three-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending), earmarking is an abuse of the process. It doesn’t take a Nobel Laureate to understand that the federal budgeting process is broken. The ability of a few people (Democrat and Republican leaders both) to control what goes into the federal budget and keep the process largely hidden from view is counter to the principles of good government.

Earmarks may not represent a large portion of the federal budget, but earmarks are a potent weapon used by those in power in Congress to manipulate a system that often puts the will of the people behind the of the will of lobbyists, and political party powerbrokers. Without earmarking, Congress will have to follow a more orderly an open budgeting process. More important, it will equalize the power balance in Congress. By eliminating the funding of pork projects, one mechanism leadership uses to strong-arm legislators into falling into line will be removed.

Many in office for a long time see the federal budget process as unchangeable. They don’t see fixing something as seemingly insignificant as three-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending as worthy of their time. I am sure Senator Tom Harkin has often wished he could take back his 2002 comment that the extra $6.3 billion needed to pay for the farm bill he supported was “pencil dust” in the cost of federal programs. He has taken a lot of flak for it over the years. But, comments like these show the danger those who deal in the staggeringly large numbers of the federal budget face. They let the system overwhelm them. In the farm bill case, $6.3 billion may be small compared to the whole budget, but, like earmarks, the U.S. will only be able to fix its budgeting fiasco by breaking the budget into smaller chunks and fixing what is broken there. The best most logical place to start is earmarking.

Presidents have wanted to put an end to the perk of congressional power that enables power-brokers in Congress to hide pork projects in legislation for decades. I remember cheering President Reagan during a campaign stop in Tampa, Florida in the early 80’s when he demanded the President be given the line item veto so he could veto an earmark without having to kill the whole bill. He was right then. President Obama is right now. But, if President Obama fails to stand up to Senator Reid and the rest of the Congressional club, Americans will still be clamoring for budget reform decades from now as the federal government is surrounded by a mountain of budget pencil dust.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Open Letter to Gov. Branstad, re: State Patrol

2011-01-21T14:46:00.002-06:00

Dear Governor Branstad:

Congratulations on a successful election. You again proved yourself to be both a tireless campaigner and fundraiser. Now, it is time to get to work.

While running and during the transition between administrations, you invited Iowans to submit ideas about how to make government better. I have a couple of ideas. You have expressed significant concern about the state of the Iowa State Patrol. Let me start there.

Following a gunman’s rampage at Virginia Tech University that left 32 people dead in 2007, your predecessor, lawmakers and members of the Board of Regents considered law enforcement. The tragic event had forced universities, law enforcement agencies, local government and the public to study what went wrong and how best to manage community response in a time of crisis. The findings: A lack of planning and coordination existed between law enforcement and public entities resulting in a loss of time and effectiveness during an emergency. First responders need to work together.

Unfortunately, little was done in Iowa. The Board of Regents focused on only part of the problem and spent much time debating whether campus security at Iowa’s three universities should carry guns. While it was true that without weapons campus police generally had to wait for other law enforcement entities to respond before intervening in certain situations, the Regents and the State of Iowa failed to tackle the larger problems: the duplication of effort by multiple agencies, improving safety and saving dollars. Not to mention, whether it is wise to have college presidents manage the coordination of law enforcement efforts. It is, after all, conceivable university officials might interfere with a rape investigation now and again.

I wrote to the Regents, Governor Culver and legislators in September 2007 urging them to consider strengthening Iowa’s police protection. I wrote then, “Under a single police agency, safety for our university communities would improve because communication, training and coordination would improve. Problems and successes on one campus would be shared immediately throughout the system. There would be additional significant safety and financial efficiencies to be gained by combining university security and state police activities. When university populations decline during the summer and winter holidays, the State Patrol could reallocate its resources to ensure Iowa’s safety and security is preserved. When a single university hosts a large event or faces a significant threat, resources could be shifted accordingly. In short, Iowa would be better served by one force instead of a State Patrol and three university public safety units.”

It is 2011 and the State of Iowa budget is not in good shape. If improving public safety wasn’t enough to convince Iowa’s leaders to act then, I am hoping a desire to maximize dwindling resources will today.

Combining the three university police forces and putting them under the command of the State Patrol would increase the number of officers protecting Iowa’s highways and public universities, and would improve critical response times. As important, it does not make financial sense to continue to equip, maintain and administer separate bureaucracies at the State Patrol, University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. Putting them under a single umbrella, the Iowa State Patrol, would create a stronger, more efficient and better equipped force on the road and on Iowa’s campuses. Oh, and it would get college administrators out of law enforcement allowing them to focus on education.

Thanks for listening and asking Iowans to share our ideas. I agree we can make Iowa stronger by working together. Here’s hoping you and the lawmakers meeting the floor above you are serious about wanting our help.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Elephant in the Room

2011-01-13T14:31:00.000-06:00

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady gave the State of the Judiciary speech to the General Assembly yesterday. Many in the chamber sat on their hands during his address. When he addressed the Court’s ruling on same sex marriage, the Chief Justice explained how the Court “worked hard to author a written decision to fully explain our reasoning to all Iowans.” He went on to say, “Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups. By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic, and social rights of all citizens.” The silence from half of the hall was chilling, especially when I consider some among them want to impeach Cady for how he carries out his duties.

by Rosie O'Beirne

A few hours later and some 1,400 hundred miles away, President Barack Obama stood in front of a crowd of approximately 13,000 Arizonans and addressed the nation at a ceremony to celebrate the lives of the victims of Saturday’s senseless shooting. He seized the moment to acknowledge the current caustic rhetoric infesting our political discourse. He said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

Both men refused to ignore the widening political divide fueled by outrageous and, at times, hateful speech. They looked into our eyes and took the issue head-on. We should follow their lead, for the time has come to stop tiptoeing around the elephant in the room. (The elephant is a well-used metaphor for the big issue a group would prefer to ignore. I am not implying an exclusive link between the Republican mascot and the rotting, stinking, festering disease of vitriolic speech in the modern political arena. The metaphorical elephant can take the form of a donkey, a grizzly and any other mascot.)

I was taken by one particular line from the President’s remarks, “We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.”

I posted this line on my Facebook page and within minutes a high school acquaintance posted a single word in response, “seriously??” I responded I was and asked if she disagreed with the statement. She informed me the President’s “agenda” made her discount everything he had to say. The silent chill I felt during Chief Justice Cady’s speech swept down my spine again and left a shroud of disappointment in its wake. Like all of us, my Facebook friend can disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies and a day will come when she can cast a vote for another vying to replace him. However, for her to discount in total any and all things the President says or does is more than silly. It is an example of the sickness of division that invades America.

Chief Justice Cady and his colleagues ruled on a case based on their interpretation of legal precedent, laws and the Constitution. They executed their duties without any trace of malfeasance or impropriety. Those who wish to impeach them because they think they should have reached a different conclusion display a complete lack of understanding of the balance of power in a democracy. Americans and Iowans should not attack those who reach different conclusions. They should utilize to the fullest the power of free speech to debate and build a consensus to pass laws and amend the Constitution in a manner that meets the judicial test the Chief Justice outlined in his address. However, free speech comes with responsibility. Suggesting that the Court overstepped when what is meant is that it ruled differently than one had hoped, and that all of its members be removed from office by a politically motivated elected body is dangerous and destructive to a free society. Focus on the issue, not a witch-hunt to rid the court of those who see things differently.

The President urged his countrymen to strive to become the country our children imagine we can be. In a country of 300 million, there is no doubt we will disagree about how to chart such a course. One thing is sure, it becomes less likely we will ever get there if we refuse to even consider what the President, Supreme Court, or the guy down the street have to say, because they may support a different party, political mindset or philosophy. The task ahead will take all we have. If we waste energy bickering and claiming some are not worthy of thoughtful consideration because of our own preconceived notions, it is a given we will never become what our children want us to be.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

West Des Moines Schools, a Barn and Final Exams

2011-01-05T08:30:00.001-06:00

I realize I am going to be accused by some of not seeing the forest through the trees on this one, but as aDes Moines Register blogger I have been tasked to write about what is on my mind. Today, that would be the West Des Moines Community School District (WDMS). It seems to me that the folks at WDMS are the ones unable to see the big picture.

Point 1 – The Barn

Maplenol Dairy Barn Set to be Demolished

On Monday the city of West Des Moines issued a permit to WDMS to raze a century-and-a-quarter-old barn that once was part of the former Maplenol Dairy. The barn is located along 39th Street north of Ashworth Road is on the Valley High School campus. According to a Register article, the barn is to be demolished to make room for additional green space. Dismantling a 125-year-old historically significant and architecturally interesting structure to create space when no case has been made that space is needed is, well, outrageous.

Setting aside, for a moment, that the barn provides a rare point of interest in a land of nondescript school structures, office buildings and late 20^th century homes, WDMS’ rush to demolish a final tie to West Des Moines’ past is shortsighted. The barn plays a role in learning. By tearing down this building, WDMS will be eradicating a tangible learning opportunity for the high school students of today and tomorrow and their community. This action shows a complete lack of creativity, if not sensibility, by WDMS. The people of the area should not let this building be destroyed.

The most ridiculous comments made in the Register article come from Elaine Watkins-Miller, director of school and community relations for WDMS. She said, “Everyone contacted suggested some possible emotional memories but did not bring forth any names or organizations who would or could save the barn. The majority of the 12 people contacted expressed no strong exception to removing the barn from the property.”

They contacted a total of twelve people?!? I would submit that there are more than 12 people who are smart enough to have an idea about this.

A school district’s charge is to educate and inspire students so they can reach their potential as people. Meeting this charge often involves more than building, supplying and staffing classrooms. Sometimes, it might just involve working with the entire community to save a barn so it remains a part of the learning process for generations to come.

Point 2 – Final Exams are not Punishment

I was astounded to learn from a Valley High School student over the Holidays that a student with good attendance is “rewarded” by being able to opt out of final exams. Final exams are not a punishment reserved for those who misbehave. Final exams are a part of the learning process. An exam is one of the many tools a teacher uses to help a student learn. This WDMS policy tells students it is more important to be in class than to learn what is being taught there.

Page 14 of the Valley High School Handbook states, “Our semester test waiver is being used as a positive reinforcement to all students who have outstanding attendance. A student who misses 6 or fewer days during a semester may have the option of not taking two of their finals.”

The “positive reinforcement” WDMS needs to send its students is that learning is the goal and the reward. The system they have developed involving “suspension points” for minor infractions (i.e., tardiness, entering the building without an ID) gives the impression that not following the rules is acceptable as long as you follow the rules most of the time.

The action by West Des Moines Schools to demolish the Maplenol Dairy Barn and its test waiver policy have convinced me the District may not only be lost in the forest, but that they are busy chopping down every tree in sight in an misguided attempt to build a better one.

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.