Archive for December, 2011
St. Cloud – The Republican Party of Minnesota issued the following statement congratulating newly elected State Party Chairman, Pat Shortridge. Shortridge was elected at today’s State Central Committee meeting for the Republican Party of Minnesota with 224 votes.
“I am thankful to the delegates of the Republican Party of Minnesota State Central Committee for electing me to serve as Chairman of the State Party. I look forward to working with Deputy Chair Kelly Fenton, the staff, and activists to reorganize and reenergize our Party for the upcoming 2012 elections. Kelly has taken key steps during this past month to get our party back on track and we will continue to take crucial steps on the path to moving forward. We are truly a grassroots Party and together we can maintain our majorities in the Minnesota State House and Senate, unseat Amy Klobuchar, maintain our four Republican seats in Congress and send another Republican Congressman to Washington,” said newly elected Chairman Shortridge.
Shortridge will serve the remainder of former Chairman Tony Sutton’s term, which expires in April 2013.
“We are so thankful to the many people who have considered running for State Party Chair and who desire to work for our Party and move us forward. I want to congratulate Pat Shortridge on his election to serve as MNGOP Chair and I look forward to working with him as we rebuild our Party from the ground up. Pat’s experience will be critical in getting us back on track, paying down the debt and winning elections in 2012,” said MNGOP Deputy Chair Kelly Fenton.
9:05 — Steve Perkins nominated to chair the meeting.
9:08 — Waiting on credentials report.
9:09 — Debating the meeting rules.
9:12 — Initial credentials report being given.
9:34 — Rules adopted.
9:35 — Kelly Fenton recognized to speak. RPOY must do better to ensure transparency. Pary has raise more than $159,000 since Ms. Fenton was elected.
9:38 — Fenton: “We must not waste one dollar, one volunteer.”
9:40 — 2012 will be a year of challenged.
9:42 — Fenton delivered strong, inspirational speech.
9:45 — Jeff Johnson: “I know that we have a trust issue.” “Many of you are asking ‘Why should we trust you'”?
9:46 — Jeff Johnson: “We won’t win in 2012 if we don’t trust each other.”
9:54 — Jeff Johnson turns mic over to Mike Vekich after delivering strong speech that focused on transparency & telling people the truth even if it isn’t popular.
10:05 — Question from the floor: Have the bank accounts been reconciled? Have payroll taxes been paid? Answer to both questions is yes. Question: should we order an audit?
10:09 — Statement from the floor: I’ve read the bylaws & I don’t see the authority for taking out loans, etc.
10:12 — Kelly Fenton “We are not obligated to pay for the work by Minnesotans for Fair Redistricting”?
10:15 — Bill Jungbauer asked whether the books are here. He was told they aren’t & that they haven’t been at meetings for “at least 20 years.”
10:28 — $400,000 line item weren’t reported but they were paid.
10:40 — Late Debate is here. Benjamin Kruse is right. There’s “no end in sight for the grilling of the special financial committee by the #GOPSCC crowd.”
11:02 — Shortridge the only candidate who isn’t requesting a salary. McCall & McIntire asking for $50,000-$60,000 plus bonuses.
11:05 — Dave Fitzsimmons places Pat Shortridge’s name into consideration. Kurt Daudt is seconding that nomination.
11:07 00 — Endorsing letter just passed out to press corps from Speaker Zellers, Majority Leader Dean. They’re endorsing Mr. Shortridge.
11:10 — Shortridge: The DFL “can’t fix the structural problems because that isn’t who they are.”
11:12 — “We’re not just about getting elected. We’re about changing our state.” “It isn’t enough to just say no. We have to be about providing solutions.”
11:14 — Shortridge speech is over. Loud applause, with some standing.
11:24 — McIntire speech over. Too long, unfocused.
11:27 — Joe Arwood speaking on behalf of Terry McCall. After Arwood, State Sen. Dan Hall speaks for Terry McCall.
11:32 — A look around the room suggests that there’s over 500 people attending the event.
11:37 — First ballot voting has started. In recess until votes are collected.
11:45 — Matt Dean giving the faithful tons of red meat. “Our majorities faced down Gov. Dayton & his tax increases & his shutdown & won.” Very energetic, positive speech.
11:50 — Sen. Senjem speaking now. “If we don’t win this November, nothing else matters.”
12:03 — call to order.
12:04 — “we don’t need a second ballot.” “McIntire finished with 9 votes. McCall finished with 103 votes. Shortridge finished with 224 votes.”
12:08 — I just spoke with Sen. John Pederson. Sen. Pederson said that he’s “pleased with the outcome.”
12:13 — Sec-Treas. Sturrock presenting budget.
1:05 — Delegates aren’t happy with adding money to budget for judicial elections. Unpersuasive argument made to justify spending money party doesn’t have.
Friday, David Sturrock, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Republican Party of Minnesota, resigned. Here’s his resignation letter:
December 30, 2011
Dear Republican Friend:
I am writing to inform you I will be resigning as Secretary-Treasurer of the Republican Party of Minnesota, effective upon the selection of my successor or January 19th, whichever occurs first.
The first and biggest job facing our new Chairman and Deputy Chair is to regain the confidence of activists, donors and voters in our ability to manage party finances. To that end, I can offer continuity, experience and institutional memory, but our constituencies will be more interested in clear signs of rebuilding and renewal. A new Secretary-Treasurer will send a powerful message that such change is underway.
Given the work we face, the party would do well to have a Secretary-Treasurer who can be present at key meetings, especially those called on short notice. This is a tall order when one lives 160 miles from RPM headquarters. Also, we would benefit from having someone with significant financial management experience. My departure will create the opportunity for such new leaders to emerge.
If future Secretary-Treasurers are to be meaningful assets to the Republican Party, they will need to be informed more fully, and consulted more frequently, than has the been case over the past few administrations. In particular, they need to know when the party is entering into major financial commitments. For example, I was neither consulted nor informed about the attorneys regarding 2010 recount costs.
Also, the unreported obligations indentified by the current financial review were not known to me. If this resignation ensures that future Secretary-Treasurers receive the access and authority their position merits, then my departure will be a sacrifice happily borne.
A final thought: Never forget you are leaders in the Republican Party. Among other things, leadership means respect, courtesy, and self-restraint. Before you fire off a barbed e-mail or Facebook post, send a snarky tweet, leak a wild, unconfirmed rumor to the press, or phone in your fury to a late-night radio show, ask yourself: “Will this help build my party? Will it advance the conservative agenda?” If the answers are no, stop there. If it feels good, don’t do it.
Thank you for the honor of serving as your Secretary-Treasurer. I am grateful for the chance to be part of our many recent accomplishments. Rest assured I will always be ready to answer the bell and help elect Republicans who will bring strong, principled conservative leadership to a state and country which deeply need them.
David E. Sturrock
Charles Krauthammer and George Will earned the reputation for being great conservative thinkers. While their conservative policy credentials are still intact, their ability to comprehend what people living beyond the Beltway are thinking has stunk. Nowhere has their elitism been more aggravating than with their analysis (that term’s used loosely) of the presidential race.
Thankfully, the pro-Newt Winning the Future SuperPAC has taken a shot across these elitists’ bow:
George Will might have fired the first shots and the Wall Street Journal and National Review might have answered the call, but the leader of Establishment Media’s war against Newt Gingrich is now clearly Charles Krauthammer of Fox News. The longtime former speechwriter for ultra liberal Walter Mondale uses several minutes of his time on the “Panel” each and every night to denigrate Gingrich personally while talking down the Former Speaker’s election chances.
“Remember, this is the man who was calling Barack Obama elegant long after most Americans had seen through the teleprompter” said C. Edmund Wright of Winning Our Future, a Super PAC supporting Gingrich and conservative issues. “He wasn’t quite as bad as David Brooks, who was strangely fascinated by Obama’s pant crease, but Krauthammer and Brooks and Will represent an establishment mentality that is frankly foreign to most Americans and certainly most conservatives.”
Krauthmammer’s nightly anti-Gingrich rants have been disgraceful. They’re equalled only by George Will’s weekly diatribes and Jennifer Rubin’s daily elitist rants. While I still somewhat respect Mssrs. Krauthammer and Will on conservative policy, I think of Jennifer Rubin as a talentless writer and political hack.
Last night, Krauthammer cheapshotted most of the GOP presidential candidates:
Wright added that while he respected Krauthammer’s intellect for many years, “it is really disturbing to see him make the petty denigrating comments about Newt, similar to or worse than what he’s said about Sarah Palin, while pretending that the Speaker’s immense accomplishments never happened. And the way he cherry picks poll nubers to characterize the race is simply intellectually dishonest.”
On Wednesday’s show Krauthammer insulted the entire field and got in another jab by saying that Newt “is really in decline now” and felt it necessary to call Herman Cain “embarrassing.”
I’ve finally figured out my New Year’s resolution: avoid Krauthammer’s, Rubin’s and Will’s election opinions. Likewise, I resolve to read Salena Zito’s election reporting from the road and Jedediah Bila’s political analysis.
It’s worth noting that Krauthammer’s policy analysis is still solid and that Will’s writings on the judiciary is still among the best judicial analysis on the market.
It’s sad that they’ve both gotten Stage 4 DC-itis. It’s entirely possible that Dr. Krauthammer doesn’t known that there’s no cure for DC-itis.
Seriously, Mssrs. Will and Krauthammer have expressed their emotions towards Speaker Gingrich, though I don’t understand why. Perhaps, in Will’s case, it’s because Speaker Gingrich picked up Reagan’s torch and carried it forward. In Krauthammer’s case, God only knows why he’s turned this bitter and hostile.
Unfortunately, there’s no doubt that Krauthammer’s and Wills’ careers won’t be substantially affected by their elitism and their not understanding what makes Heartland people tick.
Rick Tyler explains why Winning Our Future SuperPAC is criticizing Krauthammer, et al:
Tyler’s explanation for the move: It’s time to fight back.
“The answer is that you avoid it until it becomes unavoidable. We understand that Newt is not the establishment’s choice. Neither was Reagan. They are now engaged in a battle to ensure he does not get the nomination. We are engaged in a battle to ensure that he does,” Tyler said. “They are playing a dangerous game with the conservatives they claim to speak for, but the base is waking up that they are not us and a huge backlash is beginning to brew against the northeastern GOP establishment.”
If it sounds like WOF is embracing the opportunity to turn this campaign into a conservative insurrection, Tyler said, that’s because they are.
“This is the ground we want to fight on. The rank and file are sick of the establishment dictating the terms of who can and cannot speak for us and we are now fighting back,” Tyler said. “Newt’s entire career is based on breaking up the old order, we are only too happy to keep that tradition alive.”
It’s time for Newt to fight back against the elitists in both parties, first the GOP to capture the nomination, then against Obama’s elitists in the general election.
It eventually had to come to this. Here’s hoping that Newt stays focused on his message of economic dynamism, governmental transformation and tax reform. Let WOF SuperPAC do the fighting back.
Daily readers of this blog know that I’ve been critical of Michele’s presidential campaign. Still, she didn’t do anything to deserve Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson’s betrayal. Yesterday, Sen. Sorenson left Michele Bachmann’s campaign in the middle of the day. By the evening, he was publicly supporting Ron Paul.
In this interview, Sen. Sorenson explained why he stabbed Michele in the back:
A major part of Sen. Sorenson’s explanation was that Ron Paul’s supporters had helped him in 2008 when nobody thought he had a chance of winning. Sen. Sorenson then added that Paul’s supporters held fundraisers for him, then helped with Sorenson’s GOTV operation.
Those are legitimate reasons for supporting a candidate. Had Sen. Sorenson picked Paul at the outset, then stayed loyal to him, he wouldn’t be at the center of a nasty fight that he can’t win politically.
Unfortunately, he didn’t pick a candidate, then stayed faithful to that candidate until they dropped out.
That raises some interesting and potentially disturbing questions. First, considering the fact that Michele peaked in August when Rick Perry entered the race, why didn’t Sen. Sorenson jump ship then?
Why didn’t Sen. Sorenson jump ship after some lackluster debate performances by Michele?
I suspect he didn’t jump ship until Ron Paul caught fire. That isn’t the type of traits you’d find in a principled man. That’s the type of trait I’d expect to find in a political opportunist.
If people start thinking that he’s a political opportunist, Sen. Sorenson’s political career will, at minimum, be put on hold until he rebuilds his trust. It’s just that simple.
Opinions vary on whether Newt Gingrich, the candidate I’m supporting, is a conservative. In the last 48 hours, conservative heavyweights Art Laffer, Michael Reagan and Thomas Sowell have endorsed Newt, indicating that Newt’s slide will end promptly.
Whatever your opinion of Newt is on his conservatism, there’s no arguing that he’s a topnotch election strategist. That’s why this statement is worth noting:
The changing dynamic has made it difficult for Gingrich to maintain an above-the-fray attitude toward his opponents. But Gingrich claimed Wednesday that it’s not too late for another shake up in the polls.
“We’ll see what happens,” Gingrich said. “I think this is totally up in the air. And I think it’s a little bit hard to know now.”
Newt’s right. There’s alot of volatility in the race. With more than a third of caucus-goers still undecided or willing to change their vote, there’s too much volatility to make a serious prediction at this point.
It’ll be interesting to see the impact of Newt’s endorsements from the last 48 hrs. I’ll have a better read on things at the end of this weekend. Another thing that can’t be underestimated is the perception of casting a vote for someone perceived as not having a chance to win.
I just got a report from the trail saying that crowds for Newt’s tour are big and that they’re getting lots of positive feedback after their rallies. That tells me that Iowans still take Newt seriously.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Thursday showed Romney and Paul leading, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in third place and Gingrich close behind in fourth, tied with Rick Perry. A CNN/Time poll released Wednesday reflected a similar line-up. However, an American Research Group poll showed Gingrich still in second place in Iowa. That poll showed Romney with 22 percent, Gingrich with 17 percent and Paul with 16 percent.
At this point, I’m skeptical of polling in general. The polling that I’ll pay more attention to are Monday’s polls. That’s when more people will have reached a final decision and more people will have returned from their Christmas vacations.
“Anybody who has eight or nine million dollars of negative advertising, much of it false, thrown at them is going to slide for awhile,” Gingrich said. “I’m frankly barnstorming Iowa making the case that they shouldn’t vote for people that have been running the negative ads. This is a chance for Iowans to say to the country we are sick of consultant-driven negative politics. The stakes are too big.”
Newt’s closing argument must center on his positive solutions to this nation’s economic difficulties. Art Laffer noted that Newt’s policies are the most pro-growth policies of all the GOP candidates. Laffer applauded Newt’s tax reform policies and Newt’s initiative to eliminate the capital gains tax.
Laffer was mildly disappointed that Mitt’s economic plan didn’t include tax reform.
With this much volatility, political junkies like me will have lots of developments to monitor this weekend.
Yesterday, Art Laffer and Thomas Sowell announced that they’d be endorsing Newt Gingrich for president. This morning, Michael Reagan announced that he’s endorsing Newt Gingrich:
Introducing an exclusive Newsmax interview with Gingrich, Reagan says the former House speaker “will help continue my father’s legacy.”
Gingrich is “a man who fought in Congress for my father’s programs, a man who believes that President Obama’s vision for America is a dangerous one and must be stopped and reversed.”
Recounting Gingrich’s amazing career, Reagan says that after he was first elected to Congress in 1978, he “began to confront the usual politics and became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership, Congress also limited the welfare state. As a leader in the Reagan revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for their cozy insider deals.”
Mitt can talk all he wants about being the conservative in the race. Newt’s getting the endorsements from Mssrs. Laffer, Reagan and Sowell stakes out the territory that Newt’s the conservative in this race.
In his endorsing statement, Michael Reagan notes that Newt’s leadership led to the only entitlement reform in our lifetime. Reagan notes correctly that Speaker Gingrich confronted “both Republicans and Democrats” about “their cozy insider deals.”
Most importantly, Reagan said that Newt “will help continue my father’s legacy.” Having Michael Reagan’s name attached will help Newt alot with conservativess.
More importantly, Newt will now rightly argue that he’s best able to return our economy to its usually prosperous ways. He’ll also be able to say that that isn’t just his opinion but the opinion of President Reagan’s son and President Reagan’s chief economist.
In a general election campaign, President Obama will undoubtedly argue that Newt would return us to the failed policies of the last 8 years. Thanks to Mssrs. Laffer, Reagan and Sowell’s endorsements, Newt’s powerful reply will be that he’ll leading the fight to turn America’s economy around with policies that helped trigger the tremendous economic growth of the 1980’s and 1990’s.
I won’t pretend to know what the outcome of the primaries will be but I’m confident of this: If Newt’s the GOP presidential candidate, President Obama can start making plans to move back to Bill Ayers’ neighborhood.
Now I’ve seen everything. Jennifer Rubin, aka Mitt’s hit-lady, is criticizing the Manchester Union-Leader of abandoning “journalistic standards” in her latest demented post:
NBC says that it is going forward with the all-candidate debate to be co-hosted by the Union Leader in New Hampshire. This is a travesty. The Union Leader has shown itself to be rapidly partisan and willing to cast off journalistic ethics to help its man Newt. Why not let Callista run the show? The Union Leader has thrown principle and impartiality to the winds. NBC should have the gumption to insist it not be party to a debate with a surrogate of one of the participants.
There’s no arguing with Ms. Rubin. Th NH Union-Leader editorial page has thrown “impartiality to the wind.” If anyone’s an expert on throwing “impartiality to the wind”, it’s Ms. Rubin.
Ms. Rubin’s famous impartiality shined through in this post:
If there is a single candidate in the Republican presidential contest who more epitomizes “the Washington power game of go along to get along” than Gingrich? Aside from teaching, his entire adult life has been spent in government, trying to influence government and enabling others to influence government.
He has consistently been an establishment shill when it comes to policy. He weighed in with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.) on global warming and told Republicans they had lost the issue. He vouched for Medicare Part D, telling Republicans they would be toast if they didn’t support it. And when an actual challenger to the status quo, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), came along with a daring plan to reform Medicare Gingrich tried to undermine him, insisting it was too radical.
Ms. Rubin’s discipline in maintaining her impartiality is impressive indeed. It’s impressive thatMs. Rubin’s impartiality was on display in this post, too:
Newt Gingrich keeps whining about negative ads and is so desperate to stop his slide in the polls that he challenged Mitt Romney to a one-on-one debate.
It’s insulting to hear Jennifer Rubin complain about a newspaper’s editorial page lack of impartiality. That’s what editorial pages do. It’s what she’s done ever since she went wobbly for Mitt. She’s accused Newt of carrying Fannie’s and Freddie’s water but something’s missing:
Ms. Rubin whines about the water Newt supposedly carried for Fannie and Freddie. She’s a well-connected DC journalist. Why hasn’t she told the world what water Newt allegedly carried? It’s one thing to offer policy advice. It’s quite another to help protect Fannie and Freddie.
Thus far, Ms. Rubin hasn’t shown how Newt lobbied Congress in an attempt to protect Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps that’s because he only offered policy advice to the mortgage giants?
I wrote in that post that Ms. Rubin should resign from the Washington Post because it’s clear she’s Mitt’s mouthpiece in DC. She’s accused Newt of corruption without offering a scintilla of proof that Newt’s corrupt. The best she’s done is written Mitt’s chanting points allegations.
Allegations aren’t proof, Ms. Rubin. It’s time you admitted what you already know: that editorial pages that endorse candidates will write editorials complimenting their prefered candidate. How is the Union-Leader’s advocacy different than Ms. Rubin’s repeating Mitt’s chanting points allegations? Simple. The Union-Leader was stating an opinion. They stopped short of making unsubstantiated accusations.
Two conservative giants stepped forward Wednesday to endorse Newt Gingrich. Here’s intellectual giant Thomas Sowell’s endorsement:
Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone’s idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.
The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.
Romney’s own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.
Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more “electable” than the other candidates in general and Newt Gingrich in particular.
But there was a time when even some conservative smart money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.
Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were “ecstatic” when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.
Today, it is said that the Obama administration fears Romney, but would relish the opportunity to clobber Gingrich because of his “baggage.” CNN has already started digging into Gingrich’s most recent divorce.
Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.
Thomas Sowell is a conservative heavyweight whose intellectual capabilities can’t be dismissed. While it might be too late to help Newt in Iowa, Dr. Sowell’s endorsement will help Newt in South Carolina and possibly in Florida.
Another conservative heavyweight is prepared to endorse Newt in Storm Lake, IA on Thursday:
Renowned economist, father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics, and architect of the Ronald Reagan economic plan, Arthur Laffer, announced his endorsement Tuesday of Newt Gingrich for President of the United States.
“Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field,” said Laffer.
“Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”
Art Laffer and Thomas Sowell are at the top of the elite conservative economist heavyweights. These are gentlemen who’ve exceled at setting economic policiies.
What’s potentially more important in this battle is the fact that Mssrs. Laffer and Sowell are respected by both the establishment and TEA Party activists. Laffer and Sowell are huge proponents of cutting taxes and shrinking regulatory burdens. That’s certainly a message that’ll play well with TEA Party activists.
Mssrs. Laffer and Sowell have a lengthy history of producing results, which likely means that the GOP establishment might be swayed by their endorsing Newt.
UPDATE: You can’t get a more enthusiastic endorsement than the endorsement Art Laffer delivered on FBN:
Last night, I wrote this post about the CCAP’s study showing how overbloated America’s public universities have an overabundance of administrators.
It’s time to start exposing specific local examples of those excesses. The first example I’ll cite is the MnSCU HQ staff. According to the organizational chart, 80 people are employed in MnSCU’s Academic and Student Affairs Division. According to the organizational chart, there are 7 associate vice chancellors and 22 directors. These are senior management positions, with salaries easily north of $150,000 each.
That isn’t surprising considering the fact that CCAP’s report notes that it’s part of a systemic problem:
A few decades ago, few universities had more than a small centralized public relations staff. The typical mid- to large-sized school today has PR people in units throughout the university. Similarly, the number of people involved in affirmative action, diversity coordination, or serving as multi-cultural specialists has soared. As the nation shows continued and often spectacular progress in eliminating the vestiges of discrimination, is it still necessary to have all of these people? Do campuses really need to hire sustainability coordinators? Do they need associate provosts or vice presidents for international affairs? All of these types of jobs simply did not exist 40 years ago.
A related problem is the explosion in salaries, particularly for senior administrators. Even five years ago, $500,000 was considered an extremely high salary for a university president, whereas today a growing number make $1 million or more. Chief financial officers of universities that made $175,000 five years ago often make $300,000 or more today.
With information like that, it isn’t difficult to picture administrators’ salaries as being the primary driver of tuition increases.
I wrote here about UC-Berkeley’s “Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion.” I’d love to write about the outrageous titles given to SCSU administrators but, according to this webpage, SCSU doesn’t have a webpage for their administrators. Here’s what is on their website instead:
Events & Dates
If faculty are listed, why aren’t administrators listed? In fact, parents, students and other taxpayers should have greater access to financial information. They deserve to know how their money is getting spent.
There’s no excuse why SCSU’s website doesn’t list the administrators’ job titles. There’s no excuse why universities shouldn’t have an organizational chart, showing who’s in administration and what they’re responsible for. I don’t mean the euphemism-filled blurbs that the universities use to hide what people do. These descriptions should be detailed in terms of assignment.
In fact, all of the universities, community colleges and tech colleges in MnSCU should list this information on their websites.
Parents, students and other taxpayers should know what their money is buying. Most importantly, Minnesota’s taxpayers are right in demanding greater transparency and accountability from MnSCU’s executives. If MnSCU’s executives won’t voluntarily improve in terms of transparency and accountability, then We The People will demand it legislatively.