January, 2014
Washington -- As the Great Recession continues to be drawn out by the Great Dysfunction in the nation's legislative branch, news comes that a local university is actually teaching techniques that abet governmental breakdown and chronic political division. For around $50,000, one can even get a master's degree in the specialty.
The degree is offered by the "Graduate School of Political Management" at George Washington University.
Thanks to Joseph Morton of the Omaha World-Herald for bringing it to light in an article about how new fundraising techniques -- taught by a "fundraising professor" -- get around campaign finance laws.
A closer look at this educational program shows that GWU also offers "graduate certificates" in Campaign Strategy, PACs and Political Management, Public Relations, and Online Politics. The faculty is largely adjunct, made up of practitioners. Many do not have graduate degrees themselves, but doubtless they have experience in flacking, spinning, money laundering, truth twisting, trolling, and other mendacities that have led us into the Great Dysfunction.
A GWU webpage makes clear that Political Mangement is not a political science or public policy program. I should hope not! And therein lies the problem: loose or non-existent standards in both the academy and in contemporary politics. Unfortunately, they feed on each other. The academy should not condone, let alone teach and celebrate, behaviors that result in political gridlock and destruction of time-tested legislative norms.
When I was a graduate student in the academic discipline of political science, I received a master's in public policy and a doctorate in Politikwissenschaft from the University of Nebraska and FU Berlin, respectively. Both degrees required theses to demonstrate written scholarship. Coursework at NU included, for me, jurisprudence taught by Wallace Rudolph at the law school; inferential statistics taught at the math department; constitutional law taught by Jack Rogers, who was simultaneously the director of research for the state legislature; and prerequisites to meet requirements in foreign languages. At FU Berlin I was guided by the estimable Ekkehart Krippendorff. Both degrees were granted only after hours of oral defense of theses before established scholars.
Accordingly, I have a decent knowledge of and respect for the institutions and practices that hold societies together, and a disdain for abuse of them. Many people I've served with over the years, regardless of political party, shared the view that the art of governing well was the highest goal, not, as the GWU program implicitly extols, the Political Management arts of commanding the news cycle, controlling scandals, gerrymandering, or inventing "destination" fund raising.
Political Management has routed Good Government. GWU now recruits students with the promise that graduates of its Political Management program will be in high demand to staff Congress and its related organizations. Sadly, that's probably true. Tellingly, it's also a two way street: the Nebraska congressman who is featured in the OWH (and in an earlier New York Times article), Adrian Smith, is also a member of the GWU program's adjunct faculty. His re-election will signify and solidify the adoption of political management norms in his legislative district, and represent yet more erosion of the values that once guided the nation's highest legislative body.
One way out of the Great Dysfunction -- or at least not make it worse -- would be to restore standards in political science. Where is the GWU political science faculty voice? Has it been mollified with the GWU statement that the Political Management program is "not political science or public policy" so that GWU can reap nice revenues off of these cozy relationships? It certainly appears so.
More Transparency Needed in Higher Education Audits
January, 2014
Washington -- In the last post, I discussed the need for more transparency in colleges' enrollment management offices. In this post, I look at insufficient openness in higher education auditing.
One cause of this problem is confusion in the accounting profession about auditing standards. Some institutions are covered by one set of standards, others by another. Also at issue is what institutional elements are to be included, and to what extent. Public institutions, which have by far the largest enrollments and get the most tax support, are required to include their proprietary funds and foundations in their audits, but customarily this is done superficially. Institutions typically resist showing too much in audits.*
The upshot is that too many decisions in university management are guided by what the public is allowed to see in audits, and what not. An extraordinary illustration of this came to light a few years ago at Kansas State University. The KSU example also shows how inadequate audits can be when the auditors themselves do not have to worry about the public looking over their shoulders.
In Kansas, as in many states, the state auditor conducts audits of public higher education institutions that receive and spend tax dollars. These audits are public. Alumni, proprietary, and foundation entities associated with the institutions are typically summarized to comply minimally with professional auditing requirements, but not in the same detail. These entities are often audited by their own auditors; the audits are not made public, so there is no opportunity for the public to see the details of the transactions between the tax-supported and non-tax-supported entities.
Upon the retirement of the KSU president in 2009, the Kansas Board of Regents engaged the accounting firm of Grant Thornton to do a confidential audit of all the KSU accounts, not just the tax supported ones.
They found problems.
KSU, with the participation of its foundation, had entered into an agreement with a national lender to provide federally guaranteed loans to its students, then sell the loans to the lender under what was known as the "school as lender" program. The lender, in exchange for the business, paid the KSU foundation a large sum. But to the U.S. Department of Education, this arrangement (with Sallie Mae) looked like a kickback, a violation of the federal law against illegal inducements (a provision to protect the right of students to choose their own lenders). Congress quickly clarified the law to prohibit such agreements.
KSU had been counting on this source of money from the foundation and awarded scholarships from it. When the money was cut off, KSU found itself with a $2.4 million hole to fill. Rather than filling it directly with tax money, which would have shown up in a public audit, or transferring tax money to the foundation (illegal in Kansas), KSU officials moved a combination of proprietary revenue and tax money through other accounts where it would be less visible. Among the movements was a requirement that the athletic department make a contribution from its proprietary account; the athletic department was subsequently made whole by relieving it of paying a like amount to the tax supported part of KSU for services to the proprietary fund.
This circuitous procedure was approved by the KSU president, but the confidential Grant Thornton audit noted
The Foundation, the Alumni Association,.. and the Athletics Department view themselves, and are viewed by others, as part of or associated with the institution of KSU. However, they are all separate legal entities apart from the University. They all have as a common goal the advancement of KSU and have at times entered into transactions with one another in support of that goal. However, as separate legal entities, any transactions among them should be appropriately disclosed, approved and documented allowing for transparency of intent and substance. The failure to do so raises the question of the legitimacy of the transaction. Our report details numerous instances where transactions between the various entities did not meet this standard.
Kansas newspapers knew of the Grant Thornton audit from earlier documents in which the Regents contracted for it. When reporters asked for the final product, the Regents said it was off-limits. But the Kansas Press Association sued and the Regents eventually released it.
One KSU official was caught off-guard: "I was not aware they were going to release that," he told the Kansas City Star. The admission provides a rare glimpse into how decisions are influenced in higher education by lax standards in auditing transparency.
Release of the audit also provides a window into the knowledge -- or lack of it -- of the auditors. A statement in the audit that "monies to fund scholarships historically came from the Kansas State University Student Assistance Foundation from the resale of ... loans" is incorrect. The "school as lender" payments were historically nothing, zero; they were a newly created device that was under investigation by federal officials for fraud, waste, and abuse. Which is another reason audits should be public, so as to provide a check on the work of the auditors themselves.
The need for greater transparency in higher education auditing has never been greater, inasmuch as state cutbacks in tax support for many institutions has left them more dependent on proprietary entities and foundations, to include large corporate donors eager to move in on, and to control subtly or otherwise, university research and outreach. Agreements of dubious legality, conflicts of interest, attached strings, and ethically challenged behavior that strike at the heart of universities' integrity are correspondingly on the rise.
An antidote would be more tax support and its implicit corrective, but in the current opaque auditing environment it is hard to tell if more tax support would make much of a difference. States considering boosts in tax support for their public universities should simultaneously be demanding higher audit standards from their state auditors, who ultimately have the responsibility for how higher education auditing is conducted.
___________________
* A component unit of a public university that raises and holds funds for the direct benefit of the university must be included in the university's financial statements, according to GASB Statement 39 and Statement 61. This is to prevent government audits that would render the financial statements of the reporting entity misleading or incomplete. Disputes have occurred recently between state auditors and universities in Ohio, North Dakota, and Kentucky. See links. In my opinion, universities are better off complying with the spirit as well as the letter of the GASB requirements (and OMB-133); the KSU example above shows why it is necessary to see all sides of financial transactions to understand them fully; to insist that foundation transactions are private is counterproductive to the purpose of the public institution.
Washington -- In the last post, I discussed the need for more transparency in colleges' enrollment management offices. In this post, I look at insufficient openness in higher education auditing.
One cause of this problem is confusion in the accounting profession about auditing standards. Some institutions are covered by one set of standards, others by another. Also at issue is what institutional elements are to be included, and to what extent. Public institutions, which have by far the largest enrollments and get the most tax support, are required to include their proprietary funds and foundations in their audits, but customarily this is done superficially. Institutions typically resist showing too much in audits.*
The upshot is that too many decisions in university management are guided by what the public is allowed to see in audits, and what not. An extraordinary illustration of this came to light a few years ago at Kansas State University. The KSU example also shows how inadequate audits can be when the auditors themselves do not have to worry about the public looking over their shoulders.
In Kansas, as in many states, the state auditor conducts audits of public higher education institutions that receive and spend tax dollars. These audits are public. Alumni, proprietary, and foundation entities associated with the institutions are typically summarized to comply minimally with professional auditing requirements, but not in the same detail. These entities are often audited by their own auditors; the audits are not made public, so there is no opportunity for the public to see the details of the transactions between the tax-supported and non-tax-supported entities.
Upon the retirement of the KSU president in 2009, the Kansas Board of Regents engaged the accounting firm of Grant Thornton to do a confidential audit of all the KSU accounts, not just the tax supported ones.
They found problems.
KSU, with the participation of its foundation, had entered into an agreement with a national lender to provide federally guaranteed loans to its students, then sell the loans to the lender under what was known as the "school as lender" program. The lender, in exchange for the business, paid the KSU foundation a large sum. But to the U.S. Department of Education, this arrangement (with Sallie Mae) looked like a kickback, a violation of the federal law against illegal inducements (a provision to protect the right of students to choose their own lenders). Congress quickly clarified the law to prohibit such agreements.
KSU had been counting on this source of money from the foundation and awarded scholarships from it. When the money was cut off, KSU found itself with a $2.4 million hole to fill. Rather than filling it directly with tax money, which would have shown up in a public audit, or transferring tax money to the foundation (illegal in Kansas), KSU officials moved a combination of proprietary revenue and tax money through other accounts where it would be less visible. Among the movements was a requirement that the athletic department make a contribution from its proprietary account; the athletic department was subsequently made whole by relieving it of paying a like amount to the tax supported part of KSU for services to the proprietary fund.
This circuitous procedure was approved by the KSU president, but the confidential Grant Thornton audit noted
The Foundation, the Alumni Association,.. and the Athletics Department view themselves, and are viewed by others, as part of or associated with the institution of KSU. However, they are all separate legal entities apart from the University. They all have as a common goal the advancement of KSU and have at times entered into transactions with one another in support of that goal. However, as separate legal entities, any transactions among them should be appropriately disclosed, approved and documented allowing for transparency of intent and substance. The failure to do so raises the question of the legitimacy of the transaction. Our report details numerous instances where transactions between the various entities did not meet this standard.
Kansas newspapers knew of the Grant Thornton audit from earlier documents in which the Regents contracted for it. When reporters asked for the final product, the Regents said it was off-limits. But the Kansas Press Association sued and the Regents eventually released it.
One KSU official was caught off-guard: "I was not aware they were going to release that," he told the Kansas City Star. The admission provides a rare glimpse into how decisions are influenced in higher education by lax standards in auditing transparency.
Release of the audit also provides a window into the knowledge -- or lack of it -- of the auditors. A statement in the audit that "monies to fund scholarships historically came from the Kansas State University Student Assistance Foundation from the resale of ... loans" is incorrect. The "school as lender" payments were historically nothing, zero; they were a newly created device that was under investigation by federal officials for fraud, waste, and abuse. Which is another reason audits should be public, so as to provide a check on the work of the auditors themselves.
The need for greater transparency in higher education auditing has never been greater, inasmuch as state cutbacks in tax support for many institutions has left them more dependent on proprietary entities and foundations, to include large corporate donors eager to move in on, and to control subtly or otherwise, university research and outreach. Agreements of dubious legality, conflicts of interest, attached strings, and ethically challenged behavior that strike at the heart of universities' integrity are correspondingly on the rise.
An antidote would be more tax support and its implicit corrective, but in the current opaque auditing environment it is hard to tell if more tax support would make much of a difference. States considering boosts in tax support for their public universities should simultaneously be demanding higher audit standards from their state auditors, who ultimately have the responsibility for how higher education auditing is conducted.
___________________
* A component unit of a public university that raises and holds funds for the direct benefit of the university must be included in the university's financial statements, according to GASB Statement 39 and Statement 61. This is to prevent government audits that would render the financial statements of the reporting entity misleading or incomplete. Disputes have occurred recently between state auditors and universities in Ohio, North Dakota, and Kentucky. See links. In my opinion, universities are better off complying with the spirit as well as the letter of the GASB requirements (and OMB-133); the KSU example above shows why it is necessary to see all sides of financial transactions to understand them fully; to insist that foundation transactions are private is counterproductive to the purpose of the public institution.
Criteria for Merit Aid
January, 2014
Washington -- While the President was hosting college presidents this week in a high-profile session at the White House, trying to convince colleges to do more for the low-income, a related session was being held across the country at USC's Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice.
Of the two sessions, the USC conference delved more deeply into the issue of college "enrollment management" and its often deleterious consequences for the low-income. The conferees tried to define criteria for "merit" aid, a major tool of enrollment management in current practice.
The real issues of merit aid do not revolve around whether a 3.4 versus a 3.5 GPA should be defined as meritorious. Merit aid competes with aid for financially needy students in colleges' budgets. A better term for it would be Vanity Aid, as it is a staple in colleges' quests for vanity rankings in magazines. Another term would be Cocktail Scholarships -- so well-to-do parents can talk at cocktail parties about the "merit scholarships" their children receive.
The huge amount of such aid across the nation is a significant factor in the socio-economic gap in college access that the White House is concerned about. It is also a major factor in forcing loans on the low-income and in creating a trillion dollar student loan burden that overhangs the nation's economic recovery. To the extent its funding source is really Pell Grants (fungible with college aid in financial aid packages), it is abuse of a federal program and a multi-billion dollar reason to explain why increases in Pell grants do not reduce student loan burdens. To the extent its source is actually unfunded discounting, the consequences are increasing showing up as financially threatened and failing colleges.
Several of the USC conferees deserve accolades not only for squarely addressing the role of merit aid in enrollment management, but in demonstrating alternatives at their colleges: Kenyon, Puget Sound, Vassar.
So what are the real criteria for merit aid; how are merit aid amounts set; what are the calculated tradeoffs made by colleges between vanity, access, and student loan burdens; and how are these reflected in individual student financial aid packages? These are not so much philosophical questions, but quantifiable nuts-and-bolts numbers in many colleges' budgets and enrollment management plans. Many institutions pay good money to enrollment management consultants to put numbers to the trade-offs. Customarily these numbers are closely held, lest anyone see the real criteria, the resulting amounts, and who is responsible for making decisions.
I was disappointed that none of the USC conferees brought up (or seemed to know) that a federal regulation actually requires colleges to disclose to their students the "criteria for determining the amount" of student financial aid awards, whether federal, state, local, private, or institutional. [34 CFR 668.42] The incurious U.S. Department of Education has never enforced it, or considered disclosure's potential salutary effect on college decision-making in favor of providing more low-income access and lowering student loan debt.
If the Secretary does not want to enforce the law, then at least he could put a notice in the Federal Register asking for comment about what to do with the existing provision. Some colleges could voluntarily disclose their criteria and their calculations, which might create peer pressure for other colleges to follow suit. Ideally, some colleges would apply to the federal experimental site program, to demonstrate how they are making choices that simultaneously make their colleges financially viable but also serve the public interest, and to work with the Department on what colleges need in the way of federal leadership to move toward overdue enrollment management reforms.
Washington -- While the President was hosting college presidents this week in a high-profile session at the White House, trying to convince colleges to do more for the low-income, a related session was being held across the country at USC's Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice.
Of the two sessions, the USC conference delved more deeply into the issue of college "enrollment management" and its often deleterious consequences for the low-income. The conferees tried to define criteria for "merit" aid, a major tool of enrollment management in current practice.
The real issues of merit aid do not revolve around whether a 3.4 versus a 3.5 GPA should be defined as meritorious. Merit aid competes with aid for financially needy students in colleges' budgets. A better term for it would be Vanity Aid, as it is a staple in colleges' quests for vanity rankings in magazines. Another term would be Cocktail Scholarships -- so well-to-do parents can talk at cocktail parties about the "merit scholarships" their children receive.
The huge amount of such aid across the nation is a significant factor in the socio-economic gap in college access that the White House is concerned about. It is also a major factor in forcing loans on the low-income and in creating a trillion dollar student loan burden that overhangs the nation's economic recovery. To the extent its funding source is really Pell Grants (fungible with college aid in financial aid packages), it is abuse of a federal program and a multi-billion dollar reason to explain why increases in Pell grants do not reduce student loan burdens. To the extent its source is actually unfunded discounting, the consequences are increasing showing up as financially threatened and failing colleges.
Several of the USC conferees deserve accolades not only for squarely addressing the role of merit aid in enrollment management, but in demonstrating alternatives at their colleges: Kenyon, Puget Sound, Vassar.
So what are the real criteria for merit aid; how are merit aid amounts set; what are the calculated tradeoffs made by colleges between vanity, access, and student loan burdens; and how are these reflected in individual student financial aid packages? These are not so much philosophical questions, but quantifiable nuts-and-bolts numbers in many colleges' budgets and enrollment management plans. Many institutions pay good money to enrollment management consultants to put numbers to the trade-offs. Customarily these numbers are closely held, lest anyone see the real criteria, the resulting amounts, and who is responsible for making decisions.
I was disappointed that none of the USC conferees brought up (or seemed to know) that a federal regulation actually requires colleges to disclose to their students the "criteria for determining the amount" of student financial aid awards, whether federal, state, local, private, or institutional. [34 CFR 668.42] The incurious U.S. Department of Education has never enforced it, or considered disclosure's potential salutary effect on college decision-making in favor of providing more low-income access and lowering student loan debt.
If the Secretary does not want to enforce the law, then at least he could put a notice in the Federal Register asking for comment about what to do with the existing provision. Some colleges could voluntarily disclose their criteria and their calculations, which might create peer pressure for other colleges to follow suit. Ideally, some colleges would apply to the federal experimental site program, to demonstrate how they are making choices that simultaneously make their colleges financially viable but also serve the public interest, and to work with the Department on what colleges need in the way of federal leadership to move toward overdue enrollment management reforms.
Prairie Lists from 2013
January, 2014
Lincoln -- Construction of the barn on our North prairie was finished early in 2013. The barn attracted many guests during the year. The following are some of the family, friends, neighbors, classmates, prairie experts and others who visited:
Claudia, Steve, Barb, Nancy, Ron, Shelly, Delores, Oliver, Barry, Denny, Bob, Dan, Lisa, Mary Ellen, Dave, Shannon, Alicia, John, Larry, Gary, Lynn, Lee, Joel, Imo, Debbie, Verity, Sheryl, Ulysses, Sonia, Stan, Jennifer, Ralph, Fran, Mark, Bob, Alice, Michelle, Michael, Mike, John, Deb, LuAnn, Jim, Gail, and several others. Some slept over in the barn, from one night to many nights.
Trail cameras on the prairie's three miles of trails recorded many animals in 2013: deer, turkey, raccoon, rabbit, skunk, opossum, squirrel, fox, coyote.
The bare earth around the construction site was colonized by a variety of annual plants in 2013, which over time should give way to perennial grasses characteristic of the rest of the surrounding native and restored prairie. The first plants were pennycress, foxtail, kochia, ragweed, buffalo burr, smartweed, field bindweed, sunflower, barnyard grass, pigweed, and velvetleaf. (I pulled much of the bindweed, buffalo burr, and velvetleaf.) Tree seeds also sprouted and grew in the bare area: cottonwood, locust, and sycamore. In the bare septic field to the east of the barn, our attempt to restore native plants was more successful than we anticipated -- it was seeded just as the 2012 drought began. Nevertheless, we have a good stand of big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, other native grasses and even some milkweed for monarch butterflies (if there are any left).
Lincoln -- Construction of the barn on our North prairie was finished early in 2013. The barn attracted many guests during the year. The following are some of the family, friends, neighbors, classmates, prairie experts and others who visited:
Claudia, Steve, Barb, Nancy, Ron, Shelly, Delores, Oliver, Barry, Denny, Bob, Dan, Lisa, Mary Ellen, Dave, Shannon, Alicia, John, Larry, Gary, Lynn, Lee, Joel, Imo, Debbie, Verity, Sheryl, Ulysses, Sonia, Stan, Jennifer, Ralph, Fran, Mark, Bob, Alice, Michelle, Michael, Mike, John, Deb, LuAnn, Jim, Gail, and several others. Some slept over in the barn, from one night to many nights.
Trail cameras on the prairie's three miles of trails recorded many animals in 2013: deer, turkey, raccoon, rabbit, skunk, opossum, squirrel, fox, coyote.
The bare earth around the construction site was colonized by a variety of annual plants in 2013, which over time should give way to perennial grasses characteristic of the rest of the surrounding native and restored prairie. The first plants were pennycress, foxtail, kochia, ragweed, buffalo burr, smartweed, field bindweed, sunflower, barnyard grass, pigweed, and velvetleaf. (I pulled much of the bindweed, buffalo burr, and velvetleaf.) Tree seeds also sprouted and grew in the bare area: cottonwood, locust, and sycamore. In the bare septic field to the east of the barn, our attempt to restore native plants was more successful than we anticipated -- it was seeded just as the 2012 drought began. Nevertheless, we have a good stand of big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, other native grasses and even some milkweed for monarch butterflies (if there are any left).
New Berlin Acquaintances
January, 2014
Berlin -- Over three consecutive days in December I made the acquaintance of three engaging people in Berlin. One had been a student of the painter Gerhard Richter early in Richter's teaching days; another was an American who had perched above Berlin's Teufelsberg during the Cold War, listening; the third was the widow of the charismatic revolutionary, Rudi Dutschke. Each had fascinating stories to tell.
All three will be memorable, but none more than Gretchen Dutschke, as I had no idea she was living in Berlin looking for a publisher for her late husband's collected papers. She is concerned that no one is interested. That I cannot believe; among the papers she has collected are the surveillance files on him. Surveillance organizations seem to have recorded his every speech and his every movement, as he was considered a danger to both sides in the Cold War. But some of his visions have since been vindicated.
In 2010 a German television movie told the story of Rudi and Gretchen's life together; Emily Cox played Gretchen. It was largely based on Gretchen's 1996 biography Rudi Dutschke: Wir hatten ein barbarisches, schönes Leben. The movie got mixed reviews, I have since read. Der Tagesspiegel thought it was excellent; Die Welt, a paper of the Springer publishing house, said much of the movie was falsified. That is to be expected, as many have concluded that it was the Springer empire itself that brought about the assassination attempt on Dutschke's life in 1968, from which he eventually died in 1979.
Berlin -- Over three consecutive days in December I made the acquaintance of three engaging people in Berlin. One had been a student of the painter Gerhard Richter early in Richter's teaching days; another was an American who had perched above Berlin's Teufelsberg during the Cold War, listening; the third was the widow of the charismatic revolutionary, Rudi Dutschke. Each had fascinating stories to tell.
All three will be memorable, but none more than Gretchen Dutschke, as I had no idea she was living in Berlin looking for a publisher for her late husband's collected papers. She is concerned that no one is interested. That I cannot believe; among the papers she has collected are the surveillance files on him. Surveillance organizations seem to have recorded his every speech and his every movement, as he was considered a danger to both sides in the Cold War. But some of his visions have since been vindicated.
In 2010 a German television movie told the story of Rudi and Gretchen's life together; Emily Cox played Gretchen. It was largely based on Gretchen's 1996 biography Rudi Dutschke: Wir hatten ein barbarisches, schönes Leben. The movie got mixed reviews, I have since read. Der Tagesspiegel thought it was excellent; Die Welt, a paper of the Springer publishing house, said much of the movie was falsified. That is to be expected, as many have concluded that it was the Springer empire itself that brought about the assassination attempt on Dutschke's life in 1968, from which he eventually died in 1979.
Under-reported Surveillance Issues
December, 2013
Berlin -- German press coverage of NSA surveillance issues differs from U.S. press coverage in two ways that deserve more attention.
One issue is the disgust of the German government about not only the NSA's spying on its top leaders, but the failure to keep it secret. German regard for the competence of the NSA is low. This will surely affect future bilateral relations where trust and cooperation are necessary.
The other issue is U.S. spying that is related to trade, not terrorism. The upcoming trade talks, according to the German press, are threatened by the U.S. government's deployment of its vast counter-terrorism spying network in the service of dubious American corporate trade advantages.
A prime example is the all-out U.S. push -- including surveillance of foreign trade offices -- to break the resistance of European governments to deal in genetically modified crops. This comes at a time when enthusiasm for GMOs is in retreat in many scientific quarters. Experience is showing that GMOs have been oversold; evolution is overcoming gene modifications; many farmers are now using more toxins for pest control than before; neonicotinoids produced by GMOs are threatening crop pollinators and thus the viability of the whole food chain.
These two issues -- much under-reported in the U.S. press -- are driving otherwise strong trans-Atlantic allies apart. The U.S. government will have to deal with both of them.
Berlin -- German press coverage of NSA surveillance issues differs from U.S. press coverage in two ways that deserve more attention.
One issue is the disgust of the German government about not only the NSA's spying on its top leaders, but the failure to keep it secret. German regard for the competence of the NSA is low. This will surely affect future bilateral relations where trust and cooperation are necessary.
The other issue is U.S. spying that is related to trade, not terrorism. The upcoming trade talks, according to the German press, are threatened by the U.S. government's deployment of its vast counter-terrorism spying network in the service of dubious American corporate trade advantages.
A prime example is the all-out U.S. push -- including surveillance of foreign trade offices -- to break the resistance of European governments to deal in genetically modified crops. This comes at a time when enthusiasm for GMOs is in retreat in many scientific quarters. Experience is showing that GMOs have been oversold; evolution is overcoming gene modifications; many farmers are now using more toxins for pest control than before; neonicotinoids produced by GMOs are threatening crop pollinators and thus the viability of the whole food chain.
These two issues -- much under-reported in the U.S. press -- are driving otherwise strong trans-Atlantic allies apart. The U.S. government will have to deal with both of them.
Time to Come Out of the Shadows
December, 2013
Berlin -- A few days ago I lunched in Berlin with several Americans who have long lived in this city. Forty years ago, some of them were under illegal surveillance by U.S. military intelligence. I briefly described the circumstances in a post last summer; since that time, Ann Wertheimer (assisted by several of her colleagues) has written a documented account of the surveillance, the whistleblowers who revealed it, and the successful court case that followed.
This effort has brought many fascinating facts to light and raises even more questions. Among the remaining unknowns is the identity of the whistleblower within U.S. military intelligence who contacted Senator Lowell Weicker about the illegal spying on Americans in Berlin.
Last month I talked to Bill Wickens, whom the senator dispatched to Germany in 1973, about his clandestine meeting with the whistleblower to gather evidence. He said the meeting did not take place in Berlin, but many miles outside of Bremen, in a car; the two used code names (the whistleblower's was Mr. "John Adams"). The whistleblower was an Army officer but Wickens said he destroyed all papers with his true identity, as the officer wanted absolute confidentiality.
We don't know if the Army officer ever learned what happened to the documents he provided. The papers themselves were first delivered into Senator Weicker's possession at his Virginia home. The day the senator was to take them to the Senate, according to Wickens, he accidently left them atop his car and they started to blow off as he crossed Memorial Bridge. The senator stopped and ran after them, but only after some had been run over by a truck, which left tire tracks on many of the papers.
Happily, the Army whistleblower's actions eventually led to an important settlement in 1980 in which the U.S. government agreed to limit its surveillance of Americans to instances where illegal activities are suspected. This raises the obvious question, in this day and age, of just when this agreement was overturned, or whether it should still be in effect.
Like the Americans in Berlin who stood up for their rights and were vindicated, the unknown military intelligence officer should be recognized. He is the rare -- perhaps unique -- example of a national security whistleblower who effected major change without breaking any laws. Does he even know the consequences of his actions? If he is still alive, it is long since time for him to come out of the shadows and be honored for what he did in the cause of protecting Americans' civil liberties. (I would welcome anyone with further information about this case to contact me, confidentiality assured if requested.)
As to the lunch group that met a few days ago, were we under surveillance? It seems so, as surveillance is now ubiquitous and threatens our freedoms under the Bill of Rights. People in Berlin are particularly sensitive to surveillance excesses. It's time to look back to the 1980 settlement as a guide to what is allowed and what isn't.
Berlin -- A few days ago I lunched in Berlin with several Americans who have long lived in this city. Forty years ago, some of them were under illegal surveillance by U.S. military intelligence. I briefly described the circumstances in a post last summer; since that time, Ann Wertheimer (assisted by several of her colleagues) has written a documented account of the surveillance, the whistleblowers who revealed it, and the successful court case that followed.
This effort has brought many fascinating facts to light and raises even more questions. Among the remaining unknowns is the identity of the whistleblower within U.S. military intelligence who contacted Senator Lowell Weicker about the illegal spying on Americans in Berlin.
Last month I talked to Bill Wickens, whom the senator dispatched to Germany in 1973, about his clandestine meeting with the whistleblower to gather evidence. He said the meeting did not take place in Berlin, but many miles outside of Bremen, in a car; the two used code names (the whistleblower's was Mr. "John Adams"). The whistleblower was an Army officer but Wickens said he destroyed all papers with his true identity, as the officer wanted absolute confidentiality.
We don't know if the Army officer ever learned what happened to the documents he provided. The papers themselves were first delivered into Senator Weicker's possession at his Virginia home. The day the senator was to take them to the Senate, according to Wickens, he accidently left them atop his car and they started to blow off as he crossed Memorial Bridge. The senator stopped and ran after them, but only after some had been run over by a truck, which left tire tracks on many of the papers.
Happily, the Army whistleblower's actions eventually led to an important settlement in 1980 in which the U.S. government agreed to limit its surveillance of Americans to instances where illegal activities are suspected. This raises the obvious question, in this day and age, of just when this agreement was overturned, or whether it should still be in effect.
Like the Americans in Berlin who stood up for their rights and were vindicated, the unknown military intelligence officer should be recognized. He is the rare -- perhaps unique -- example of a national security whistleblower who effected major change without breaking any laws. Does he even know the consequences of his actions? If he is still alive, it is long since time for him to come out of the shadows and be honored for what he did in the cause of protecting Americans' civil liberties. (I would welcome anyone with further information about this case to contact me, confidentiality assured if requested.)
As to the lunch group that met a few days ago, were we under surveillance? It seems so, as surveillance is now ubiquitous and threatens our freedoms under the Bill of Rights. People in Berlin are particularly sensitive to surveillance excesses. It's time to look back to the 1980 settlement as a guide to what is allowed and what isn't.
Troubled Colleges: Become an Experimental Site
December, 2013
Washington -- Many colleges are discovering that the high tuition, high (merit) aid, high student-debt model of enrollment management may have run its course. In a previous post, I suggested colleges that want to move away from this model should contact the U.S. Department of Education with an alternative, to be tested under the so-called "experimental sites" authority of the Secretary.
Since that post, the Department has published an invitation in the federal register for colleges to make applications to be designated experimental sites.
Colleges often complain about the high cost of regulatory compliance. A good application might also provide a way for colleges to explore, with the Department's cooperation, regulatory relief as a trade-off for serving more of the students the Department is supposedly assisting through its programs.
Perhaps a college or university already has an enrollment management model that complements the goals of the Department's programs (rather than contradicts them) and has reason to believe it would be scalable, as a model for more institutions. The Department should be eager to approve such a model as an experimental site.
Washington -- Many colleges are discovering that the high tuition, high (merit) aid, high student-debt model of enrollment management may have run its course. In a previous post, I suggested colleges that want to move away from this model should contact the U.S. Department of Education with an alternative, to be tested under the so-called "experimental sites" authority of the Secretary.
Since that post, the Department has published an invitation in the federal register for colleges to make applications to be designated experimental sites.
Colleges often complain about the high cost of regulatory compliance. A good application might also provide a way for colleges to explore, with the Department's cooperation, regulatory relief as a trade-off for serving more of the students the Department is supposedly assisting through its programs.
Perhaps a college or university already has an enrollment management model that complements the goals of the Department's programs (rather than contradicts them) and has reason to believe it would be scalable, as a model for more institutions. The Department should be eager to approve such a model as an experimental site.
Compromising the Extension Service
November, 2013
Lincoln -- As a former 4-H Club member, I've always been a supporter of cooperative extension programs in agriculture. Informing farmers and consumers about the latest agricultural research, the programs have worked successfully for decades, not least because of their unusual funding structure: part federal, part state, part local.
Each level of government has a stake and a say; no level has to bear the entire burden. This is a model ("cooperative federalism") that could be used more throughout government.
But my confidence in ag research and extension programs has been shaken by the intrusion of other interests into the equation.
This fall I visited a local Lincoln nursery to buy trees for our prairie property. I was surprised to see trees (e.g., ashes and elms) with known susceptibilities to certain insects offered for sale. The problems were dismissed by the nursery: just drench the roots annually with Bayer Advanced insecticide, which contains a neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) to kill the insects, I was advised.
But we raise bees and we try to provide a safe environment for pollinators of all types. Our country's food security is facing a serious challenge because of the precipitous loss of pollinators in recent years. We would not want to use any products that contain imidacloprid, which is toxic to bees.
I consulted an extension service webpage on the matter. It did not mention that imidacloprid is harmful to bees. I asked the nursery how many of their trees were already drenched with Bayer Advanced. Many species, it turns out. The nursery thought the more, the better, it was clear, as if this were a selling point.
The extension service is disseminating information on imidacloprid through the filter of Bayer Crop Science. Bayer is aggressively fighting bans of its products both in this country and abroad. Some localities in the USA prohibit imidacloprid; France, Germany, and Italy do not permit its use because of its toxicity to bees. Bayer claims its products pose a negligible risk to bees.
The Bayer tail is wagging the extension dog. As a taxpayer, I want the tax dollars I pay at the federal, state, and local levels devoted to research and extension uncompromised by fourth parties with agendas that may well be dangerous to the overall public interest: namely our food chain.
Lincoln -- As a former 4-H Club member, I've always been a supporter of cooperative extension programs in agriculture. Informing farmers and consumers about the latest agricultural research, the programs have worked successfully for decades, not least because of their unusual funding structure: part federal, part state, part local.
Each level of government has a stake and a say; no level has to bear the entire burden. This is a model ("cooperative federalism") that could be used more throughout government.
But my confidence in ag research and extension programs has been shaken by the intrusion of other interests into the equation.
This fall I visited a local Lincoln nursery to buy trees for our prairie property. I was surprised to see trees (e.g., ashes and elms) with known susceptibilities to certain insects offered for sale. The problems were dismissed by the nursery: just drench the roots annually with Bayer Advanced insecticide, which contains a neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) to kill the insects, I was advised.
But we raise bees and we try to provide a safe environment for pollinators of all types. Our country's food security is facing a serious challenge because of the precipitous loss of pollinators in recent years. We would not want to use any products that contain imidacloprid, which is toxic to bees.
I consulted an extension service webpage on the matter. It did not mention that imidacloprid is harmful to bees. I asked the nursery how many of their trees were already drenched with Bayer Advanced. Many species, it turns out. The nursery thought the more, the better, it was clear, as if this were a selling point.
The extension service is disseminating information on imidacloprid through the filter of Bayer Crop Science. Bayer is aggressively fighting bans of its products both in this country and abroad. Some localities in the USA prohibit imidacloprid; France, Germany, and Italy do not permit its use because of its toxicity to bees. Bayer claims its products pose a negligible risk to bees.
The Bayer tail is wagging the extension dog. As a taxpayer, I want the tax dollars I pay at the federal, state, and local levels devoted to research and extension uncompromised by fourth parties with agendas that may well be dangerous to the overall public interest: namely our food chain.
"George Norris, Going Home"
November, 2013
Lincoln -- Gene Budig and Don Walton have finally published a book they started over fifty years ago: George Norris, Going Home. They began it with interviews of Norris's widow, Ellie, that ran in the Lincoln Star at the beginning of their careers; they finished it decades later after Gene's wife found their abandoned book-version manuscript in an attic.
The slim volume is full of references to Norris's life, such as where he and his family lived in Washington when Congress was in session. It was at the Dodge Hotel, now the site of the Hall of the States on North Capitol Avenue, a few blocks from the Senate near Union Station.
My favorite passage is the description of Norris's appearance in the Nebraska Unicameral chamber at noon on March 10, 1943. It was his first visit to the unique institution he had campaigned for, against all odds, nine years earlier. That was also the same day I made my first appearance in this life, across town a few hours earlier at Bryan Memorial Hospital.
My least favorite passage (which appears twice) is where the authors pull their punches regarding the shameful treatment given George Norris by two U.S. senators in the mid 1950s, over a decade after his death. (The episode is recounted in the official history of the Senate). The authors, inexplicably, do not name the names of those behind the political pettiness.
Norris had been the top choice of 160 scholars for recognition of the U.S. Senate's five historically greatest members. But he was vetoed for inclusion by Senators Carl Curtis and Roman Hruska, who threatened extended debate against the man who had been their home-state political rival. So the "famous five" turned out to be Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Taft, and LaFollette, but not Norris.
Did this dimish the lasting memory of Norris, and the importance of the state he represented? I think it did. When I was working in the U.S. Senate in the early 1980s, Senator J. James Exon sent a letter to President Ronald Reagan alerting him to a celebration of Norris's accomplishments. The President sent back a letter regretting that he could not attend, but asked Senator Exon to extend his regards to Senator Norris.
Lincoln -- Gene Budig and Don Walton have finally published a book they started over fifty years ago: George Norris, Going Home. They began it with interviews of Norris's widow, Ellie, that ran in the Lincoln Star at the beginning of their careers; they finished it decades later after Gene's wife found their abandoned book-version manuscript in an attic.
The slim volume is full of references to Norris's life, such as where he and his family lived in Washington when Congress was in session. It was at the Dodge Hotel, now the site of the Hall of the States on North Capitol Avenue, a few blocks from the Senate near Union Station.
My favorite passage is the description of Norris's appearance in the Nebraska Unicameral chamber at noon on March 10, 1943. It was his first visit to the unique institution he had campaigned for, against all odds, nine years earlier. That was also the same day I made my first appearance in this life, across town a few hours earlier at Bryan Memorial Hospital.
My least favorite passage (which appears twice) is where the authors pull their punches regarding the shameful treatment given George Norris by two U.S. senators in the mid 1950s, over a decade after his death. (The episode is recounted in the official history of the Senate). The authors, inexplicably, do not name the names of those behind the political pettiness.
Norris had been the top choice of 160 scholars for recognition of the U.S. Senate's five historically greatest members. But he was vetoed for inclusion by Senators Carl Curtis and Roman Hruska, who threatened extended debate against the man who had been their home-state political rival. So the "famous five" turned out to be Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Taft, and LaFollette, but not Norris.
Did this dimish the lasting memory of Norris, and the importance of the state he represented? I think it did. When I was working in the U.S. Senate in the early 1980s, Senator J. James Exon sent a letter to President Ronald Reagan alerting him to a celebration of Norris's accomplishments. The President sent back a letter regretting that he could not attend, but asked Senator Exon to extend his regards to Senator Norris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)