Prairie Pundit

North Dakota in the news

2006-08-31T13:00:00.000-05:00

Bruce Gjovig, director of the Center for Innovation at UND, forwarded three items that deserve a wider audience. The first is this report in USA Today, titled "Are out-of-state students crowding out in-staters?" Note the chart on the left, which shows that UND has the third-highest percentage of out-of-state first-year students (at 54.2 percent) among the 43 state universities that responded to a survey. The University of Vermont is highest at 72.7 percent, and Michigan State is lowest at 12.1 percent.

This table, also in USA Today, shows that UND's in-state tuition and fees is right near the median or the halfway point among "75 public flagship universities in 50 states," as the table puts it. Hmm ... I would have expected the university t0 rank closer to the low end of the scale; my guess is, the "low end" was where it ranked throughout the 1990s and earlier. If that's the case, then the university still is a bargain, but measurably less of a bargain than it used to be.

The last and most important item that Gjovig forwarded is a column in today's Wall Street Journal that describes North Dakota in extremely flattering terms ... in fact, it may be the most upbeat article about the state's prospects to appear before a national audience in decades.

I can't link to the column, because it's behind the Journal's subscriber-only firewall. (But I will watch the newspaper's free site, opinionjournal.com, for a few days to see if the column appears there, and will provide the link if it does.) But here are a few telling quotes:

Headline: The Great Plains
By JOEL KOTKIN

"BISMARCK, N.D. -- At a time when the much-celebrated coasts creak from rising interest rates, faltering income levels and soaring energy prices, this windswept, energy-rich city of 57,000 on the western edge of the Dakota plains is experiencing the best of times. Cities like this one out in the far-off hinterland -- Iowa City, Sioux Falls, Fargo, Grand Forks, Rapid City -- now are enjoying job growth rates that, if they don't rival Las Vegas, certainly put to shame those of most major metropolitan areas. Unemployment is negligible and wages are rising across virtually all job categories. ...

"Behind the good times are numerous factors, such as an Internet-enabled shift of technology and business service firms into the region, and a growing migration of downshifting boomers and young families. But perhaps the most dramatic change has come from an upsurge of energy prices that is turning places like North Dakota into a Nordic Abu Dhabi. ...

"The portraits of a dying region are increasingly dated; last year North Dakota gained population while Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia all lost people. More to the point, although some parts of the Plains, particularly small towns, continue to lose people, others are enjoying growth in jobs, population and income -- in many cases more so than parts of urban, coastal America. ...

"This resurgence has its basis in some often underestimated assets that are reasserting themselves in the Great Plains. ... (including) such often underestimated factors like good schools, reasonable housing prices (the median home price is under $150,000), short commutes, the nation's lowest crime rate and ample outdoor recreation."

So, North Dakotans, how does it feel to be living in Boomtown USA?

Katrina, one year later

2006-08-29T11:56:00.000-05:00

Lots of really interesting stuff about Hurricane Katrina on the Web today, and almost all of it with special relevance to people in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.

For the editorial in today's Herald, I took a look at the paper's coverage of the GF-EGF flood anniversary in April 1998. Already, the mood was upbeat and the outlines of the reconstruction were in place.

And, I predicted that the editor of the New Orleans Times-Picayune would not echo Herald editor Mike Jacobs' assessment from April 1998: "For all of us - the community - progress has been remarkable, considering the situation as it existed a year ago."

I was right about that, to the best of my knowledge. But I was wrong to also assume that the words wouldn't be found anywhere in the Gulf Coast region. Because here's Stan Tiner, the editor of the Biloxi (Miss.) Sun-Herald, in his column today: "Twelve months later, remarkable progress has been made, yet there is so much to do... literally years of toil ahead."

Biloxi and New Orleans are two different cities with two different cultures that endured two different disasters a year ago. And for those and other reasons, Biloxi seems to be way ahead as far as recovery goes.

The Times-Picayune does have a fascinating before-and-after slide show that's well worth viewing (click on the "Then and Now" link below the big photo on the left) ... Here's a well-done column that blames New Orleans' flood-protection infrastructure for the disaster. It includes this paragraph, which ought to make city engineers (and residents) in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks bolt upright and take notice:

"Some levees, in particular the massive earthen fortresses with wide foundations, performed well, withstanding days of water pressure with little erosion. But floodwalls designed as narrow vertical walls driven into the ground—they look like the walls built on highways to block out the noise—performed abysmally." (emphasis added)

Hnm. So in GF and EGF, exactly how well do our own floodwalls measure up, I wonder?

Here's a Washington Post column that says the New Orleans of old is gone for good. (Hat tip for the previous two links: My favorite Web site, Real Clear Politics, www.realclearpolitics.com.)

Here's a column that blames New Orleans' absurdly inefficient city government for the tragic lack of progress there. And here's a fellow who says the National Weather Service should look seriously at seeding hurricanes with a super-water-absorbing substance called Dyn-O-Gel in an effort to slash the big storms' power. Hey, I don't think it would work either, but the column's a good read ... and who knows? Maybe the stuff's worth a look.

UND makes the grade ...

2006-08-24T15:21:00.000-05:00

... but exactly which grade is a little less clear!

The Princeton Review company offers test-prep courses for the SAT, ACT and other college and grad-school entrance exams. The company also publishes a popular guidebook to colleges; and the guidebook's annual "Best 361 Colleges" ranking came out this week.

So, UND appears on two of the Princeton Review's lists. The first is Best Midwestern Colleges, along with Jamestown College and Mayville State.

The second lists the schools of which it can be said, "Their students (almost) never study" .

Who knew that the Chinese concept of yin and yang would find such perfect expression in North Dakota? ;-)

The Mill Levy Deduct

2006-08-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

Ah, the Mill Levy Deduct. Do you perk up and think, "Wow! At last, a topic that's close to my heart!" when you see those words?

Hey, neither do I. But stifle any yawns just for the moment, because "mill levy deduct" promise to be three of the more important words in North Dakota's upcoming legislative session. And because the bills that result will rewrite statewide school-financing formulas, they'll influence life in North Dakota for many years to come.

The mill levy deduct -- call it the deduct for short -- is the method North Dakota currently uses to shift some wealth from "property rich" districts to "property poor" districts. It's important because the Commission on Education Improvement wants to eliminate it, and that proposal likely will be a source of great debate during the session.

In fact, the success or failure of the commission's plan could depend on it.

Currently, North Dakota figures out a "state entitlement" for each district based on factors such as the district's size. Then, it "deducts" or subtracts an amount that depends on the district's taxable value, which is a measure of its property wealth. The amount that's left over after the subtraction is the payment that the district gets from the state -- its "state aid."

So, property rich districts get a big deduct taken out of their state entitlement, and a smaller proportion of state aid than their student population alone would entitle them to. Likewise, property-poor districts get a bigger share of the state aid.

The commission wants to eliminate the deduct. Instead, it would establish a beefed-up "equity payment plan" that simply would direct extra money to property-poor districts (in addition to their state aid), but without cutting into or deducting from the state aid that property-rich districts get.

As a source of money to do those two things, it would use the additional $60 million promised by the governor.

Why is this likely to be controversial? Because Grand Forks and Minot both are "property average," it turns out. And being neither property-rich nor property poor, they'd get little new money out of the $60 million in new spending, according to the commission's plan.

Here's the bottom line. Should state aid be means tested? In other words, should "rich districts" and "poor districts" alike get state aid, with poor districts then getting an equity-payment bump? Or, should the aid be more graduated or "progressive," with rich districts -- which, presumably, are better able to pay for their own schools -- getting comparatively little from the state while poor (and average) districts get significantly more?

Like I said, it promises to be a great debate.

My initial take on the politics is that Grand Forks and Minot have an uphill struggle ahead of them if they want North Dakota to keep the mill-levy deduct. By directing substantial gains to both property-rich districts and property-poor districts, the education commission pleased a majority of districts in the state; Grand Forks, Minot and the other districts in the middle will have a very tough time fighting that majority.

To succeed, I think the "middling districts" will have to show the property-poor districts how much more they'd have to gain under a more progressive school finance plan. In other words, the commission's plan pits property-rich and property-poor districts against property-average districts; Grand Forks and Minot probably hope the alliance can shift to property-average and property-poor vs. property-rich.

As background, here is a link to a report Mike Jacobs referred to in a recent column. It's a long but very useful explanation of North Dakota's school-finance system, called, appropriately enough, "Understanding School Finance." It was written by, among others, faculty members at UND's College of Education and Human Development, and does a very good job of taking the reader step-by-step through our complicated system of paying for public schools.

N.D. census news

2006-08-15T15:00:00.000-05:00

Two points: First, what a treasure Grand Forks Life has in the postcard of downtown Grand Forks, circa 1946. I wonder if there's a way of getting the photo blown up and turned into a wall poster? I'd spend a couple of bucks on such an item, and I'm guessing some other residents would, too. It's a gem.

If memory serves, the WPA Guide to North Dakota (which was written during the Depression in the 1930s) describes Grand Forks' southern boundary as being 13th Avenue South, near the "new" Lincoln Park. So, by 1946, would the southern edge have dropped down to, say, 17th Avenue South? Probably not; Red River High School on 17th Avenue South opened in 1967, and people say the school practically was in the countryside then (as South Middle School is today.) In any event, it's fun to look at the postcard and remember that in 1946, the entire city limits of Grand Forks didn't extend very far beyond the edges of the photo!

Now, about the census: I can add to the discussion of the North Dakota census taking place here and here. The Herald editorial board met with U.S. Bureau of the Census director Charles Louis Kincannon on Monday; he visited along with some members of Gov. John Hoeven's staff. Kincannon is in North Dakota because Hoeven and other state leaders have protested so strongly about the annual census updates, which are issued using information provided by the State Data Center at NDSU. "If a state shows that much interest in the census, then we're interested in that state," Kincannon said (that's a paraphrase, not an exact quote).

The basic problem is shown by these figures, which Dale Wetzel of the Associated Press reported on the other day:

"The agency pegged North Dakota's population at 633,666 on July 1, 1999. In the census count the following year, it jumped to 642,200, an increase of 13.4 percent. However, in 2001, the population estimate showed a steep decline, to 634,448."

What's important is that the middle figure -- 642,200 -- represents the actual count, the 2000 census that's taken by everyone to be authoritative. Or is it? Because when tracked against the state Data Center's estimates as shown here (for the 1990s) and here (for 2001 and beyond), the actual count in 2000 is a spike, one that almost seems to have been dismissed by the center in its insistence on holding onto its estimating methods.

The state is taking two actions to try to make the annual estimates more accurate; Kincannon raised no objection to either of them. The first is a law passed a session or two ago to send some drivers license info to the IRS, in order to find out how many snowbirds call N.D. their home of record (on their drivers license) while filing their federal tax returns in, say, Arizona.

"Ron Raushenberger, Gov. John Hoeven's deputy chief of staff, said federal tax return data counts about 12,000 fewer resident North Dakota filiers than state data shows," The AP reported.

"'It's not a small difference,' Rauschenberger said."

North Dakota -- the only state to have passed such a drivers license/IRS law, by the way -- now has sent the relevant info to the Census Department, and the department should release its findings in a few months.

The second effort was the creation of the North Dakota Census Committee, which Hoeven set up as a direct result of his unhappiness with the Census Bureau's annual estimates. The committee is meant to provide more input to the State Data Center. The center, in turn, will send better numbers to the Census Bureau, and the bureau will offer up more accurate official estimates as a result.

The five-member committee includes officials from the state Office of Management and Budget, Tax Department and Job Service; State Data Center Director Richard Rathge; and Rod Backman, the former OMB director who's now a private consultant. For my part, I don't see the committee's influence turning up yet in the census estimates, but over time I expect to.

Shared Parenting Initiative takes a hit

2006-08-09T11:00:00.000-05:00

My estimate of the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative's chances of passing in November just went from slightly favorable to markedly unfavorable. That's because of this op-ed in today's Herald by Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services.

Olson is unequivocal: "If the measures pass, the state could not certify that its programs meet federal requirements, and North Dakota would lose about $71 million in federal money for those programs during the 2007-2009 biennium."

Olson refers to "the measures," but the only measure that has garnered enough signatures to likely make it onto the ballot is Mitch Sanderson's (www.ndspi.org). Here is Clause # 3 of the initiative, whose full text is available at the above Web site:

"Child support payments and allocation of child support obligations will be determined according to the parenting plan, and will not be greater than the actual cost of providing for the basic needs of the child(ren)."

That's the problem, Olson says. The idea behind the clause is to make child-support payments depend more on what the child needs and less on what the non-custodial parent earns. But "federal law requires courts or administrative agencies, as neutral third parties, to determine child support using state guidelines that must be based, in part, on a percentage of all of a noncustodial parent's income," Olson writes.

Then she offers this quote: "Due to the gravity of the consequences that may result, we urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that initiated measures are not enacted that would render the state's statutes out of compliance with the federal law." That's from a letter to a North Dakota state senator by Thomas Sullivan, regional administrator of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Will North Dakotans approve a measure that would result in such a big cutoff of federal funds? I don't think so ... and I'm guessing the initiative's supporters are preparing a response even as you read this. They'll need a good one.

Higher ed news

2006-08-08T10:21:00.000-05:00

Hello all!

Great to be back in the blogging world. I picked up two higher-education tips today in Phi Beta Cons, National Review Online's higher-education blog. The first is this item which reports that "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) quietly has begun an investigation into six years of earmarks won by more than 100 colleges and universities, a sector that has collected billions in federal awards in recent years."

I wonder if UND and NDSU are on the senator's list, given all of the effort they've put into winning federal research grants? Efforts that I entirely support, by the way ... I think college towns are the growth centers for the 21st century in America, and that drawing research dollars is a smart strategy for economic development. As long as the efforts don't include what Coburn describes as "corruption (and) spending mismanagment," that is.

The second item points to this PDF document that claims a) that there is no shortage of engineers in the United States, and b) that reports of China and India's production of engineers have been greatly exaggerated. Interesting reading, if you're interested in curriculum issues facing UND and other schools with engineering programs.

Blogger's away

2006-08-01T14:26:00.000-05:00

I'm out of touch for a few days and will be back to blogging on Monday, Aug. 7. (At least, I think it's the 7th; I'm away from a calendar, too.)

See you then!

Excavating the paper trail at the Big Dig

2006-07-26T12:16:00.000-05:00

As the profile to the right mentions, I'm originally from the East Coast and so keep casual track of of news developments there. This amazing story from the Boston Globe should be read around the country, though.

As you know, a couple of massive, concrete ceiling panels collapsed some days ago in a "Big Dig" project tunnel, killing a motorist. The Globe story reports that in 1999 (!), "the on-site safety officer for the Interstate 90 connector directly warned his superiors ... that the tunnel ceiling could collapse because the bolts could not support the heavy concrete panels, and feared for his conscience if someone died as a result."

The officer wrote that he "could not comprehend how this structure can withhold the test of time." That's understandable, seeing as how the plan called for the three-ton panels to be held in place by bolts secured only by glue!

"He said he really began to worry about the ceiling after a third-grade class from his hometown of Norwell came to visit the Big Dig for a tour in spring 1999," the Globe reported.

"He showed the class some concrete ceiling panels and pointed to the bolts protruding from the ceiling, explaining that the panels would one day hang from those bolts. A third-grade girl raised her hand and asked him, 'Will those things hold up the concrete?'

"He started voicing concerns among his colleagues and then to managers after that. 'It was like the [third-graders] had pointed out the emperor has no clothes,' he said. 'I said, `Yes, it would hold,' but then I thought about it.' "

Good heavens. But that's not all: "The Interstate 90 connector tunnel was originally intended to have a much lighter ceiling than the one that caved in and killed a woman on July 10, according to the state engineer overseeing tunnel safety inspections," another Globe story reports.

"But, partway through the tunnel construction, managers of the Big Dig project switched to a design that called for a heavier concrete ceiling that would be less expensive and easier to install, said Alexander Bardow , state director of bridges and structures.

"By the time Big Dig managers made the change, the eastern end of the tunnel, where the accident would later occur, had already been constructed without steel support beams embedded in the roof to hang concrete panels from. Instead, workers suspended the ceiling from bolts drilled into the roof and held there with epoxy, a superpowerful glue."

Glue. Unbelievable.

In my opinion, there may be a geographic component to this scandal. Critics have long claimed that a culture of corruption permeates Massachusetts state government; books have been written about it and about similar cultures in Rhode Island and other New England states. I suspect that culture helped create the atmosphere in which shoddy workmanship and fatally flawed engineering were papered over and ignored.

And is it my imagination, or are such scandals much less common in the upper Midwest, even after allowing for our smaller population? Lloyd Omdahl wrote in his guidebook, "Governing North Dakota," that "abuses in lobbying do occur although most observers agree agree that they are relatively rare in North Dakota. Bribes are unheard of around the North Dakota Legislature." True? True, as far as I can tell; by national standards, North Dakota politics seem scrupulously clean. My guess is that's why we have comparatively few failed public-works projects.

Although the Garrison Diversion's New Rockford Canal doesn't help me make this case ...

2006-07-21T15:59:00.000-05:00

Virtual Thunderbirds

The first time you watch this video, you'll think it's a news report or promotional material about the real-life Thunderbirds. But it's not. It's produced by the "Virtual Thunderbirds," who, as their Web site (www.virtualthunderbirds.com) states, are "an elite group of formation and aerobatic pilots flying the flight simulator game Lock On: Modern Air Combat."

So, I guess these pilots log onto the Internet from their homes around America, get together in the flight simulator's virtual airspace and then "fly" Thunderbird-style maneuvers, each using his own simulated Thunderbird jet.

You know, the Internet is just an incredible, astounding thing.

Enjoy the real-life air show tomorrow at Grand Forks Air Force Base!

Dems right, Hoeven wrong

2006-07-18T17:31:00.000-05:00

I like and respect North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven a lot. I think he has earned his high popularity ratings, and the state is much better off for his service.

But I'm disappointed with two of his statements -- the first to a radio talk show host June 19, the second in response to recent questions about those statements.

No, I wouldn't call the statements "lies." But Hoeven does seem to be skiriting, dodging or even stretching the truth with them. That's not like him, and that's why the statements are disappointing.

State Democratic Party leaders rightly called attention to the radio interview. Here's the Associated Press' description of the June 19 exchange:

(begin quote) "During the interview on Fargo's KFGO Radio, Hoeven was asked if he agreed with the statement that he had 'not had discussions with ... any members of the state board about Dr. Potts.' Hoeven replied: 'That's it. You know, that's a personnel decision. That's something, the (Board of Higher Education) needs to make those decisions.'

"Later, in a reference to Potts, Hoeven was asked: "You have not been involved in this issue. Is that correct?" Hoeven replied: 'That's what I'm saying. I have always approached it from the standpoint that that is the board's responsibility.'" (end quote)

More recently, of course, we've learned from the attorney general that Hoeven had, in fact, had discussions with members of the board about Potts, the chancellor of the North Dakota higher education system. My guess is that what he was trying to do in the interview was craft a "non-denial denial" -- that is, make it sound like he was answering "no" to the question when he wasn't really saying anything at all. But he's not very good at doing such things, especially on the fly, so he made his "denial" too strong for it to be easily denied later.

Especially in his second answer. Because when a questioner makes a statement and then asks, "Is that correct?", the answer "That's what I'm saying" is close enough to pick the lint off the sweater of "Yes".

Hoeven should have said something like, "Well, I do talk on occasion with board members, and it's safe to say Potts has come up in those conversations now and then." But he didn't. Next time, he should trust his instinct to talk straight rather than to spin.

Make that, the time after next, because the governor ducked and weaved once again in response to questions about the interview. "Hoeven said Friday he had been speaking by cell phone during the June 19 interview and may not have heard some questions clearly," The AP reported. But Hoeven's June 19 answers were on-point and didn't show any misunderstanding of the questions at all. If, in answering the statement, "You have not been involved in this issue," he had said, "Tissue? Who said anything about tissue?" he could fairly claim to have misheard. But instead he answered, "That's what I'm saying. I have always approached it from the standpoint that that is the board's responsibility." And that suggests he'd heard and understood the question perfectly.

Were these fatal errors? No. Everybody makes mistakes, and I expect North Dakotans will forgive Hoeven this lapse. But it was a lapse, the governor should recognize. And he should nip the Artful Dodger-speak in the bud before it becomes a habit.

School Board absurdity

2006-07-11T11:17:00.000-05:00

(Hello readers,

Here's a preview of an upcoming editorial. Your comments? I'll read them and possibly incorporate them into the actual editorial, which I think will appear on tomorrow's editorial page. Thanks -- Tom D.)

Have you noticed? The Farm Bill is in the news again, because some in Congress are questioning it. Others in Congress are questioning the sugar program, still others the war in Iraq, still others the Defense of Marriage Act and so on. And if you add all of these dissident senators and representatives up, and you'd find all 535 congressmen busily "undermining" (read: trying to reform or overturn) some pet-peeve law duly signed by the president and passed by a previous Congress.

Have you noticed something else? Those 535 congresspeople aren't waiting until an issue comes back to the floor. Why, they're going on TV, speechifying in front of Rotary clubs, writing policy papers and newspaper columns, even taking part in interest-group campaigns, all in an effort to get Congress to reverse itself on their issue.

And have you noticed one more thing? This has been going on every day, every week and every year for the entire 230-year history of our country. It's been happening far outside of Washington, too, as it's the stuff of political life in all 50 state capitals, all 3,141 county seats and all 87,525 local governments in the United States.

All but one local government, that is: the Grand Forks School Board.

The board should quickly repeal the absurd "collegiality" provision of its "Annual Governance Review Checklist".

As Herald staff writer Paulette Tobin reported here, the board thinks effective governance means all debate stops when a policy wins a majority vote. They couldn't be more wrong. In America, two fundamental principles of democracy are that a) the minority in any legislative body is required to obey any law passed by the majority; but b) that minority is not at all required to agree with the law -- and, in fact, the minority retains the full freedom to lobby the majority, the public and anyone else in an effort to convince them that the law is misguided.

The board members in favor of silencing minority voices suggests this policy flows from John Carver's "policy governance" board-leadership model. But that's a misreading of Carver, at least as applied to school-board governance. Carver doesn't say school boards should present a united front to the public. He says they should present a united front to the staff -- especially the superintendent, the CEO so important in Carver's plan.

In other words, embittered board members shouldn't go to school-district staff and encourage them to undermine the board's actions. Sez who? Sez Carver himself, in his article in the March 2000 American School Board Journal, titled "Remaking governance: The creator of 'Policy Governance' challenges school boards to change."

Here is Carver on the specific topic of, as he puts it, "one voice from plural trustees":

"2. One voice from plural trustees. Trustees have authority only as a full board -- but few boards behave accordingly. Staff members take instructions from and answer to individual trustees and board committees. Individual trustees judge staff performance on criteria the board as a body has never stated. Superintendents seek to keep individual trustees happy quite apart from fulfilling board requirements. Trustees enjoy getting things 'fixed' for constituents. There is often unspoken agreement that 'you can meddle in your district if you'll let me meddle in mine.'

"It is not enough to dismiss these phenomena as simply politics and personalities. Whether the board intends it or not, the realpolitik of school systems demonstrates regularly that staff members do, in fact, take direction from individual trustees.

"If a board seriously intends to speak with only one voice, it must declare that the staff can safely ignore advice and instructions from individual trustees, that only the explicit instructions of the board must be heeded. Excellence in governance will not occur until superintendents are certain that trustees as a group will protect them from trustees as individuals.

"Commitment to the authoritative unity of the board in no way compromises board members' right to speak their minds. Vigorous disagreement among trustees does not damage governance, but allowing intraboard skirmishes to affect the staff is irresponsible. (emphasis added)

"In short, trustees who disagree with the vote may continue to say so, but may not influence organizational direction. It is in boards' interest that superintendents treat a 5-4 vote as a 9-0 vote."

In the interest of avoiding controversy, the Grand Forks School Board has passed a foolish, heavy-handed guideline that tries to stifle dissent and deny elected officials their constitutional right and even duty to speak out. The guideline should be rescinded without delay.

The reporter's new tool

2006-07-10T15:04:00.000-05:00

If you haven't read Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem's opinion on the Robert Potts/Joseph Chapman affair, it's here in PDF format and definitely worth your time. As Herald editor Mike Jacobs said in his Sunday column, the document is "part detective story, part gossip column and part shoe-leather reporting," and gives exceptional behind-the-scenes details that left North Dakota journalists shaking their heads in admiration.

Starting with, for example, State Sen. Ray Holmberg's original source for his April statement to The Forum newspaper that "the votes are there" on the board to oust Chancellor Potts. The press had tried for months to learn who Holmberg's source had been on the board, but all the attorney general's office had to do was ask. (The answer: board member Bev Clayburgh.)

Anyway, the AG's opinion goes into so much chronological detail that the document's Open Meetings Law material almost seems to be an afterthought -- even though, of course, it was an Open Meetings Law query that prompted the AG's investigation in the first place.

So here's a tongue-in-cheek idea, North Dakota media types: Are you wondering what the real story is behind a City Council resolution, County Commission vote or any other mysterious public-policy decision? Then figure out an Open Meetings Law angle and ask the attorney general to investigate! True, a reporter could ask all of the same questions of public officials -- as, in fact, reporters did in the recent Board of Higher Education episodes. But while public officials can and do give reporters the brush-off, they turn out to be plenty willing to talk when assistant AGs come calling (armed with subpoenas, I wonder?) from from the state attorney general's office.

Hmm ... I wonder if more than two Grand Forks School Board members ever met privately to talk about, say, televising the school board meetings, publishing the board's minutes or making sharper cuts in the GF mill levy? Gen. Stenehjem, check it out!

The Meridian Road

2006-07-06T11:29:00.000-05:00

It's a lazy time here in the Red River Valley. So, let's take a few minutes to dream of days gone by ... and remember Grand Forks as it used to be ... when Ford Model T's put-putted around the city ... and a family might, on rare occasions, set out for Fargo on the gravel track that ran straight and true to the south of the city ... a track that, despite its primitive appearance to modern eyes, at the time was then one of the best and most famous highways in America: the Meridian Road, pictured above (from a still-existant stretch in Nebraska) and explained below.

The Meridian Road! It was North Dakota's own Route 66, and it's worth remembering today.

I always knew that U.S. Highway 81 was the road to Fargo that people used before the coming of Interstate 29. What I didn't know, but found out while researching a recent editorial on the interstate highway system, is that Highway 81 itself has a long and fascinating history.

In fact, it dates back to the early 1900s, when proponents of the "Good Roads" movement came up with the idea of a north-south route from Canada to Mexico. That was the start of the Meridian Road, later renamed the Meridian Highway, as the link to the Nebraska State Historical Society marker relates. The road was designed to follow the 6th Principle Meridian, principle meridians being the key longitiude lines that surveyors used to plot range lines.

And in Grand Forks, the road (scroll down to the U.S. 81 information) "followed the 'Mill Road', passing by the State Mill and Elevator (ahhh, prairie socialism at its zenith!) and continued on into Grand Forks. I'm pretty sure (don't quote me on this) that it followed Belmont Road out of town until South Washington Street was upgraded to four lanes," the info at the link relates. (By the way, scroll down on this fun page to see the Meridian Highway's identification sign, which is pictured to the right, in a lineup with dozens of other signs, including a bunch from old Route 66. Are there any of those original MH markers to be found on walls or in attics or museums around Grand Forks?)

The Belmont Road idea mentioned above seems right, because if you follow the current Mill Road from Home of Economy south into Grand Forks, the road becomes what's now 5th Street, which then connects easily with Belmont Road. I bet the old WPA Guide to North Dakota has a lot more information about this.

Two more nice links: This one from Thayer County, Neb., talks about how important the Meridian Highway was to the community of Belvidere; and how the town both rejoiced and mourned the road's passing: "In general, Belvidere will welcome the absences of the dust that the heavy traffic has stirred up for years, but will miss the business that the tourist and truck traffic has brought."

And the second link is here, the place where the beautiful picture above came from. Apparently, Nebraska found and protected a still-gravel stretch of the original Meridian Road ... so the pictures there give a great idea of what the road looked like in North Dakota, too, I'm sure.

Still more on the nickname

2006-06-23T15:30:00.000-05:00

Another long and very well-done interview with UND President Charles Kupchella on the nickname issue is here. Hats off to Patrick Miller, the U.S. College Hockey Online writer, for asking such detailed and thoughtful questions, and to Kupchella for his no-nonsense answers. And a hat tip to St. Cloud State econ professor King Banian at SCSUScholars.com for the original link.

Scroll down; there are a couple of UND-related entries ... including this intro to Banian's post about the conflict between North Dakota's Higher Ed System Chancellor Robert Potts and NDSU President Joseph Chapman:

"This has to be seen to be believed. A state university system chancellor asks his board for a vote saying he's in charge of the university presidents ... and loses."

The 70 percent solution

2006-06-22T13:43:00.000-05:00

Here's a very well done post that takes a critical look at the claim, heard most recently in the Grand Forks school board race, that if the Legislature only would live up to its commitment to pay for 70 percent of public education in North Dakota, all would be well.

The post notes that state support of K-12 education has, in fact, increased since 1985, even when adjusted for inflation:

"In 1985 state support per student was $1,755. Adjusting this figure to 2005 dollars, it would amount to $3,107. Rather than merely keeping up with inflation the state spent $3,419, a real 10 percent increase in state support of education since 1985."

The post then notes that by comparison, the individual districts' support per student has gone up much more dramatically since '85. So, the reason why the state's share of the total level of support has fallen is not that the state cut back. It's that even though the state boosted spending per student, the local districts did so more aggressively. The net result is that yes, the state's share of overall public-education spending has fallen -- but attibuting this to the Legislature's "stinginess" doesn't tell the whole story.

Then the post makes the logical inference that setting a "hard target" of 70 percent figure would be poor public policy, because it would license districts to spend money so freely. After all, each district would know that for every dollar it spent, the state would spend a little more than two. Not a bad racket.

And read the comments after the post for a great back-and-forth on teachers' salaries. Question: If a school district has enough applicants to fill its teacher vacancies, why would it even consider raising salaries?

I can answer that question, to some extent. The main reason why a district might raise salaries above the "market rate" would be to attract more and better applicants, not just those who are minimally qualified. Lots of people would accept minimum wage for the job of playing pro basketball. So why do teams pay millions of dollars above that "market rate"? Because the real "market rate" that the team owners are looking at is the one that yields a winning, not just a functional, team. That bids up the salaries of basketball superstars, and so yields the situation we have today.

In my view, it's in the public's interest to pay salaries that attract, say, dozens of applications for teacher vacancies, rather than only four or five (as happens in many rural North Dakota school districts these days). In any event, using this "number of applications" benchmark certainly is a better measure of the appropriateness of teachers' salaries than is the comparison to teachers' salaries in other states. Better from the taxpayers' point of view, at least.

Speaking of teachers and salaries, here's a ripe and unexplored area for comment: The differing roles of the teachers' unions in North Dakota and Minnesota. In Minnesota, the labor laws and teachers' right to strike gives the unions great power; in North Dakota, a "right to work" state, that power is moderated considerably. Which is one reason why teachers in East Grand Forks, Minn., pop. 7,500, get paid more than teachers in Grand Forks, N.D., pop. 52,000, I understand (and if I'm wrong about this, teachers, please let me know). Readers, any thoughts on and/or other examples of this difference in union clout?

William & Mary's logo dispute

2006-06-20T13:49:00.000-05:00

The College of William and Mary is appealing the NCAA's decision to censure the school's logo.

Two things about this case are notable. First, the logo in question does not portray the stylized head of an Indian man, as does the UND logo and Florida State Seminole logo. Instead, the William and Mary logo simply includes two feathers -- but that, in connection with the school's athletic nickname of "the Tribe," renders it unfit, the NCAA ruled in this letter.

The letter also declares that the school's actual nickname of "the Tribe" is OK for various reasons.

Earlier, the NCAA had ruled that the University of Utah Utes' nickname and logo are acceptable, too, because of the formal approval of the Ute Tribe's leadership. But click back and forth between William and Mary's logo and the University of Utah's logo. They're identical.

How can one be acceptable while the other is hostile and abusive? There's an arbitrariness about the NCAA's rulings that nickname supporters are smart to take note of, even though the NCAA itself is smart to point to "tribal support" as providing a crucial difference.

The other interesting point about the William & Mary situation is the school's formal appeal document. Written by the college's coordinator of legal affairs, the letter echoes UND President Charles Kupchella's own arguments and rightoeus indignation on the subject, and skillfully dissects the arbitrariness mentioned above. This passage is notable in that way:

"Because the NCAA has recognized exceptions to its policy and has now placed an official stamp of approval on uses of Native American nicknames, mascots, and imagery in the cases of Florida State University, the University of Utah, Central Michigan University, and Catawba College, it is sending a decidedly mixed message. Put another way, the NCAA is now a complicit partner in the practices it claims to condemn. (emphasis added). These inconsistent and illogical rulings also undermine the ability of rational and fair-minded people to understand and accept the NCAA’s position with respect to institutions such as William and Mary and seriously call into question the credibility of the NCAA as a fair and impartial arbiter of its policies."

So is this one, which attacks the NCAA's claim that by restriciting its sanctions to championship games, the NCAA is recognizing its member universities' institutional autonomy:

"The sanction imposed is unprecedented in its severity, especially when compared with NCAA sanctions in other areas. For example, a member institution that cheats in the most flagrant fashion imaginable – by violation of generally straightforward rules that are documented at length in the NCAA’s manuals – typically will face a sanction lasting only a year or two and applying only to the specific sport involved, with all other teams representing the offending school remaining eligible to participate in NCAA championship competition.

"By contrast, violation of the NCAA’s policy on nicknames, mascots, and imagery – which is not included in the NCAA’s manual and the enforcement standards and procedures for which are undisclosed – results in a perpetual sanction for all the member institution’s teams. ...

"In addition to the ban on use or display of allegedly hostile or abusive uniforms or 'paraphernalia' at national championship competition, in a little noticed provision of the NCAA’s policy, the NCAA Executive Committee recommends that member institutions consider not scheduling regular season or non-conference competition with 'offending' institutions. Simply put, the NCAA Executive Committee supports and encourages its member institutions to boycott other member institutions" (again, emphasis added).

In his Sunday column, Herald publisher and editor Mike Jacobs repeated the Herald editorial-board's suggestion of a two-year cooling off period, in which "UND would forgo the lawsuit and seek support for the nickname among Indian people." Fighting Sioux nickname supporters should adopt that plan, Jacobs suggested, because they should understand that "without the support of Indian people, the nickname never will be legitimate. ... even if UND wins the lawsuit."

I wholeheartedly agree. But I also think opponents of the Fighting Sioux nickname should support that plan, because it includes the key provision that UND abandon its lawsuit. Nickname foes should favor this because as is becoming clear, UND might just win this thing in court. It has a case against the NCAA, as attorney general Wayne Stenehjem declared and the William and Mary appeal document essentially confirms.

And if UND wins in court, then the nickname will be etched in the university's "cultural granite" as deeply as it is in the Engelstad Arena's flooring and walls. The situtaion will not be "status quo ante," meaning as it was before the NCAA's action. Instead, UND will have emerged triumphant from a risky and expensive battle with a powerful national organization.

I'd guess that such a victory would cement the nickname at UND for decades to come.

(Hat tip on the William and Mary news: SCSUScholars.com; scroll down to the 10:57 a.m. note for the entry.)

This and that from here and there

2006-06-15T11:59:00.000-05:00

Coupla points:

1. The Grand Forks blogosphere really has come into its own -- and what fun it is to read and track daily! I'm so impressed by the lineup of comments on Tu-Uyen's site, Dakota's, Boyd Drive Follies, Grand Forks Life and the others that now seem to be popping up every other day. It's a tremendous addition to civic life here in town ... and it's just a matter of time before it becomes a political force, too. Was it a force on Tuesday? Well, no, I don't think so; I don't think local blogs have a "critical mass" of readers yet. But more about the election in a minute.

2. Real quick-like, I just want to respond to a few of the comments on my Dunkin Donuts post. To the readers who asked about the Canadian Tim Horton's chain, I absolutely agree: A Tim Horton's would be great ... I've had their brew up in Winnipeg, and it's terrific. In fact, Tim Horton's itself is a amazing business story: This extensive Wikipedia entry notes that "Tim Hortons has supplanted McDonald's as Canada's largest 'fast food' operator," and "holds 62 percent (!!) of the Canadian coffee market (compared to Starbucks, in the Number 2 position at 7 percent)." There's even a hockey connection, as the original Tim Horton played in the NHL.

AND the company has U.S. expansion plans "in the Northeast and Midwest," according to this excerpt from a 2005 Wall Street Journal story. With Canad Inns opening here, I'm guessing that a Tim Horton's in Grand Forks might not be far behind. Yay!

Personal to Tu-Uyen, who's not a big chain store fan, judging by his calling me and other DD and TH fans "corporate-juggernaut loving freaks": Hey, buddy, let me repeat: It's the coffee! I like the Urban Stampede, love its atmosphere and have spent and will spend a lot of dollars there, but gourmet coffee is ... I don't know, too strong or too bitter for me or something. Donut shop coffee is smooth.

Here's what you do, Tu-Uyen: Hop on a jet (using those new and lower Northwest fares that you wrote about), wing out to Theodore Frances Green Airport in Providence, R.I., find a Dunkin Donuts (it'll take you about 30 seconds), sample the coffee, then fly back here and tell me what you think! Take the Dunkin Challenge, mah man!

3. Now, about the election: I've got a theory that Grand Forks is a little like Minnesota circa 1975, which was about the time Time magazine ran its famous "Minnesota: The State that Works" cover story. The Minnesotans I've talked to say they remember that cover story as accurately reflecting their feelings about the state, because their dominant feeling they recall from that time was contentment.

And why wouldn't they be content? The schools worked. The city governments worked. The state government worked -- and the Time headline about this Scandinavia on the Prairie captured it all: "The State that Works."

Sadly, that feeling proved unsustianable. In the 1980s and 1990s, the public's discontent grew, fueled especially, I believe, by the crime rate's shocking rise in the Twin Cities, St. Cloud and a few other places. That set the stage for Jesse Ventura and other twists in the state's political history, such as its current split between a liberal DFL-majority Senate and conservative IR-majority House.

But in my view, Grand Forks (and even, to some extent, North Dakota as a whole) has a touch of that "State that Works" mentality right now. I think the mood among most, though clearly not all, of the population is contentment -- not happiness, mind you, but contentment, regarding the city's good schools, low crime rate and overall level of decent and reasonable public services.

Think about it. This would explain the low turnout in the election, in that people generally are satisfied with the way things are and see no real reason to vote. (When they do see a reason, they do turn out to vote, as they did in the October 2003 special election on the water park.) This would explain why those residents who did vote gave a resounding "yes" to the status quo -- Mac's election being the important exception here, but one that's explained, at least in part, by Mac's Marine officer status and service in Iraq.

The theory also would explain why whole years pass between letters-to-the-editor complaining about Grand Forks schools or crime. Those things dominate debate in so much of America, yet they're almost non-issues here.

I agree that the local rise in property taxes is a big issue. But I'd argue that the ho-hum turnout suggests that, on balance, people think the City Council, School Board etc. are dealing with the issue adequately by moderating the taxes' rise. There's a problem, and public officials respond: That's what happens in a "State that Works."

So that's my basic theory on the election. Let the comments fly! I'm very interested in hearing what others have to say.

The Herald's sale price

2006-06-13T23:41:00.000-05:00

Before Grand Forks gets saturated with election-return coverage, I want to take a minute to highlight the importance of the Herald's sale price.

To my mind, it's a very strong vote of confidence in the newspaper and in Grand Forks' prospects for growth.

Forum Communications is paying $65 million for the Herald, a number that I believe is higher than most analysts had expected. You can sense its significance when you see the price for the other paper Forum Communications bought: $70 million for the Duluth News Tribune.

Why is that important? It's important because the News-Tribune is half-again as big as the Herald, and serves an urban market nearly twice Grand Forks' size. Plus, the News-Tribune now is the monopoly paper in Duluth, having handily dispatched its local competition (in the form of the Superior, Wis., Telegram and some other, smaller papers) some time ago by buying them.

So, why are the prices for the two properties so close?

An anonymous commentator on the Grand Forks Life blog (scroll down for the comment) suggests that: "1) The Forum wanted access to the Herald's new presses, (2) The Herald's other publications, such as Prairie Business and Agweek, have a lot of value, (3) Grand Forks is perceived as having more growth potential relative to the others, (4) Herald readership is more stable and loyal, and/or (5) the Forum sees an opportunity to lay off staff (i.e. like advertising, printing) in either GF or Fargo to compensate for the higher sale price."

I'd strongly agree with No. 3, the perception of the Grand Forks market. But I suspect our new presses (Anonymous' Reason No. 1) played a more modest role in Marcil's decision. New presses mean little if the paper that the presses print is a loser. Likewise, I don't think Bill Marcil, Forum Communications' owner, plans to cut staff here or in Fargo in order to raise profits. Read this very well done Duluth News-Tribune story, and I think you'll agree.

Instead, I think Marcil simply was impressed with the Herald's business fundamentals, and somewhat less impressed with the News-Tribune's. For one thing, the News-Tribune has stronger unions than the Herald does, making it less attractive from a new owner's standpoint. For another thing, the News Tribune also had a very tough competitive situation for years before it bought those other papers. As a result, the paper currently has a weaker position in the Duluth market than the Herald has in Grand Forks.

All of that added up to the Herald's price rising in the bidding process and the News Tribune's declining or standing still, I'm guessing. By the way, I think the Duluth market has absolutely great potential, thanks to the presence of Lake Superior and Duluth's proximity to the North Shore and northwoods. So the News Tribune is well positioned to soar.

As for Grand Forks, what should local readers conclude regarding this deal?

They should take note and be proud of the fact that Bill Marcil, a longtime observer of and investor in the regional economic scene, clearly is as bullish on Grand Forks as is Leo Ledohowski of Canad Inns fame. And, I think readers should be proud of Marcil's solid confidence in the Herald, too. I know I'm reassured by the news.

Dunkin' Donuts: Grand Forks, Update 1

2006-06-12T14:42:00.000-05:00

Well, THIS is just about the best news ever. But check out the list of prospective cities for the expansion: "Cincinnati; Nashville; Jacksonville, Fla.; and Indianapolis." Excuse me, Mr. and Ms. Dunkin' Donuts executives -- but aren't we forgetting something? A certain metro area called GRAND FORKS, perhaps?

Memo to Sen. Dorgan: Once you've finished slapping around those Northwest Airlines executives and wrangling Airbus 380 service from Grand Forks to Paris and Berlin, how's about jetting up to Canton, Mass., for a little confab with Dunkin' Donuts' coffee-grinders-in-chief? Tell 'em that the great state of North Dakota awaits, and that in Grand Forks, they'll find 50,000 customers avidly awaiting the first ... well ... OK, 40,000 customers, who hate being deprived of their ... um ... Scratch that. Five thousand customers, each of whom promises to drink quarts of the hot ... Hmm. Five hundred customers? Fifty?

Senator, in Canton, you can tell the good folks at DD that one customer in Grand Forks eagerly awaits their arrival -- and that while one customer does not usually make for an attractive market, this one is EXTREMELY LOYAL and could just about support the whole franchise by himself.

Now, gentle reader, I know that you're asking, "Tom, what is it with this goofy Dunkin' Donuts kick? When we click on your blog, we expect the latest news on zoning ordinances and municipal bond issues. We don't want to read about your weird psycho-sicko bakery preferences! So get with the program, you big oaf!"

But that's where you're wrong, you see. Because my affection for Dunkin's Donuts has nothing to do with its "bakery", meaning its donuts. I don't care about their donuts. I never order donuts, and neither do any other DD fans I know.

It's the coffee.

The coffee is just unbelievably good. You've heard the way people describe different varieties of whiskey? You know, "deep blonde in color and remarkably smooth on the palate, and with lots of spices in its flavors (including cinnamon, allspice and black pepper), all overlaid by a hint of butterscotch and a light nutty flavor," and so on ... Well, that's that's the kind of language that fits Dunkin Donuts coffee. Except for the black pepper part.

Here's the bottom line. A medium DD coffee with sugar and cream is the next best thing to a coffee milkshake, except with, say, 50 calories as opposed to 500. Plus, it's cheap at around $1.50 a shot. What more could a guy ask?

Look, maybe this will explain. I mentioned that I'm from Rhode Island, and in Rhode Island (according to this story), there is one Dunkin Donuts franchise for ever 6,000 people. It's a "fortress market" for the brand -- and how! That's like having eight Dunkin Donuts outlets in Grand Forks alone!

Hmm ... eight? Yeah, sounds about right. Senator, your aircraft is on the tarmac, gassed up and ready to go!

Forum Communications and the Herald

2006-06-08T22:07:00.000-05:00

Dakota is wondering, Grand Forks Guy is wondering, Rob at Say Anything is wondering, too: What will happen to the Herald once Forum Communications (of The Forum fame) becomes our new owner?

Here's my prediction: I think it'll be great.

I can't say that with 100 percent certainty. But I can say it with confidence, because the indicators right now are so upbeat and strong.

Here's why. Over the past 20 years, every American newspaper journalist has learned a crucial lesson: Ownership is everything. That is, the single biggest factor in whether yours is a good or a bad newspaper is not who the employees are. It's who the owner is.

We who work at publicly-traded companies have learned this the hard way, as Wall Street's astounding demand for profits squeezed us like a whalebone corset. In the late 80s/early 90s, the Herald had something like 50 to 60 people in its newsroom, I hear. Today the number is about 40, and the shrinkage is directly attributable to shareholder pressure on Knight Ridder -- because the company then had to transfer this pressure to its properties (that's us) in the form of demands for higher profits.

I don't blame Knight Ridder for this. Tony Ridder and the other executives did their level best. But from the perspective of good journalism, they were fatally handicapped by the fact that Knight Ridder is publicly traded, because that structure rewards moneymaking rather than quality newspapering. The two, we've learned, are not the same.

We've also learned, however, that there are three other ownership structures that tend to generate better newspapers. They are:

a) Ownership by a nonprofit or foundation, as at the St. Petersburg Times;
b) Corporate ownership with two classes of stock, which is the ownership structure of the New York Times and Washington Post; and,
c) Ownership by a benevolent family or individual.

By "benevolent," I don't mean an owner who lavishes money on employees. (Although I'm not knocking that practice, believe me! Hey, I hear it can work wonders, especially with newly acquired properties ... and editorial page editors are said to respond really well to the strategy!)

Seriously, I mean an owner who's proud to produce a fat, newsy, first-rate paper that generates, say, a 15 percent or 20 percent profit, as opposed to an owner who wants 30 percent or 40 percent and tolerates the thin, usually third-rate papers that deliver it.

To the best of my knowledge, Forum Communications falls into that Category C: benevolent family owner. I have absolutely no insider information about the company's profit expectations of its newspapers. But I do have a strong sense of and respect for the company's newspapers, especially The Forum itself. And, I've now heard Forum Communications co-owner Bill Marcil himself refer to those newspapers as "a public trust."

Those things suggest to me that Forum Communications takes its mission very seriously, and runs its properties with a eye to quality journalism as well as business success.

So: I expect the Herald to be a noticeably better newspaper next year than it is today, as some share of the money that has been going to San Jose instead goes to hire more reporters and get reinvested esewhere in the business. (San Jose is the location of Knight Ridder's corporate HQ, by the way.)

That's the bottom line, and I think it's a change readers will appreciate and enjoy.

Will another change follow -- that is, the Herald evolving into a North Valley Forum? No, I don't think so. Forum Communications tends to leave its operations alone, other than communicating business expectations to the publishers, as far as I can tell.

All in all, I'm very excited about the transistion. The Herald today could have been under even more extreme cost-cutting pressure than it already has endured, if another bidder had bought the property. Instead, Forum Communications won the bid, and so the talk here is of rebuilding and growth. Ownership makes all the difference.

Unanswered questions about Division I

2006-06-04T16:30:00.000-05:00

I've reviewed the report by UND's NCAA Classification Task Force, which President Kupchella convened to list the pros and cons of a full move to Division I. (It's available here in PDF format.)
I'm very impressed with the task force's detailed compilation of financial information, and with the stakeholder survey that the members undertook. But there are social aspects as well to a Division I move; and unless I missed the references (which is quite possible; let me know if I did, task-force members), the study didn't look at the social aspects very thoroughly.

Take the matter of scandals. As I've mentioned before in Herald editorials, President Kupchella has said that when it comes to athletics, he feels as if he's died and gone to college-president heaven. In other words, in the past it has been hard for Kupchella to imagine how the situation with athletics on campus could be improved ... a feeling that makes me suspect he'll reject his athletic-director's "Go DI" recommendation, and will choose instead to delay a decision or stay DII.

But that's another blog entry. For today's purposes, it's safe to say Kupchella believes athletics at UND already operates very, very well. Why would he think this? For three reasons, I believe -- two of which would be put at risk by a move to DI.

The first reason is that UND already plays in a championship level DI sport, namely hockey. This brings the university a great deal of national recognition, although DI boosters say that attention would grow if the university were to play all sports (except D-IAA football) at the new level.

The second reason for Kupchella's contentment is that the current program operates basically scandal free. For whatever reason, DI hockey doesn't generate many academic or sex scandals of the sort that the University of Minnesota, University of Colorado (where a state Board of Regents probe "concluded that drugs, alcohol and sex were used to entice blue chip recruits to the Boulder campus," The Associated Press reported) and so many other universities have endured.

And DII sports in general seem to lack the killing pressures that can push coaches, alumni, players and others to cut corners and misbehave.

These scandals have cost a great many DI coaches and AD's their jobs, dominated sports headlines for years, resulted in formal Knight Foundation and other investigations -- and proven impervious to change.

Basically, "there are great problems in intercollegiate athletics in America, and while these span all the divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, most scandals seem to be associated with Division I." Who wrote that, you might ask? Well, that would be one UND President Charles E. Kupchella, in 2002.

UND's NCAA Classification Task Force study would have gained credibility if it had addressed Kupchella's statement of fact.

The third reason for Kupchella to favor the status quo -- by the way, be sure to read his 2002 letter on this subject, which is linked to above; it's an eye-opener, and reinforces my guess that he'll keep things the way they are -- is that UND teams across all sports win and win handsomely at their current level.

Again, this situation very likely would turn for the worse if the school shifted upward to D-I, at least for sports other than football (which could compete well at D-IAA). Would swimming, basketball and other athletes and fans be disappointed to see their teams compile consistently sub-par records?

I wish the task force also had openly addressed this question.

One fact that the task force did uncover was the notably lukewarm sentiment among UND stakeholders for the move. Given that sentiment; given Kupchella's own skepticism; given the real costs of the move vs. the more speculative benefits, I don't think the evidence yet favors the change.

One final point. I believe the task force owes its existence to this clause in UND's Strategic Plan:

Priority A, Goal 5, Action Strategy 1: "Continue to consider optimal NCAA classification positioning for UND through the establishment of a task group to explore (a) strategies for influencing the improvement of the NCAA classification system, e.g., extending the opportunity for schools to split Division I and Division II levels of different sports as is now done in hockey, and (b) explore rationale, stakeholder interest, opportunity, and financial means to move all UND athletic programs to the Division I level as currently organized."

The task force addressed Item B in that strategy. I think UND's future might be better served by a renewed focus on Item A.

Mayville State's future

2006-06-01T12:54:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts on Mayville State's financial difficulties (congratulations to The Forum, by the way, for its well-reported scoop on Wednesday):

First, this is a very old issue in North Dakota, with roots that go back to the earliest days of statehood. "The following public institutions of the state are permanently located at the
places hereinafter named, each to have the lands specifically granted to it by the United States in the Act of Congress approved February 22, 1889," begins Article IX, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. It not only mandates "a state normal school at the city of Mayville, in the county of Traill," but also locates the seat of government in Bismarck and state university in Grand Forks, among other pronouncements.

Here's Elwyn Robinson on the effects of that clause, in his "History of North Dakota" -- published, remember, in 1966:

"Unfortunately, North Dakota had too many institutions of higher education, more than it needed or could adequately support, an excess which sprang from each large town's desire to have one. Once established, the newer schools sought to expand their programs, to crowd into fields already occupied by older institutions. So they fought among themselves for students and appropriations. There were not enough of either to go around. ... In 1913-1914, North Dakota was ninth among the states in per capita expenditures for higher education, but overexpansion was robbing it of the quality of education its expenditure could have bought."

So, does this mean it's time for North Dakota to "bite the bullet" and close Mayville State?

Absolutely not! In fact, the long history of this issue works in Mayville State's favor, because it makes it much more likely, not less, that the state will step in to help.

Basically, this isn't the first time a North Dakota campus has experienced financial difficulties. Back in 1895, it was UND's turn. Here's Robinson again: "When in 1895, Gov. Roger Allin's veto of appropriations threatened the existence of the university, (UND board of trustees member William) Budge led in raising, by private subscription, the $26,000 which saved it. On one occasion, he paid its fuel bill ($700) out of his own pocket." And other institutions also have had their at-times serious problems over the years.

The bottom line is that the state Legislature and North Dakotans aren't about to let one rough patch spell the end of a constitutionally mandated state institution. One way or another, the Legislature almost surely will step in to help, especially considering that the state economy today is unusually strong. The landslide vote a few years ago to reaffirm the constitutional mandates fits in with this analysis.

But Mayville faculty, staff and students mustn't use this prediction as an excuse to relax. For there is one outcome that could ultimately threaten the school's survival: Continued financial problems in years to come. Sooner or later, the state's patience could run out if Mayville State doesn't turn its financial and enrollment situations around. North Dakotans don't mind subsidizing success, but I don't sense much appetite in the state for subsidizing continuing, long-term failure.

So: What Mayville boosters should focus on right away is hiring the strongest possible president for the school. (The current president is leaving to work at a university out of state.) The new president's leadership will be absolutely critical in determining the university's future. Can he or she succeed?

Well, Medora, N.D., bordered on being a ghost town in 1940 but is the state's biggest tourist attraction today, thanks in large part to the famous Harold Schafer. Of course Mayville's new president can succeed, if he or she has the vision and drive to make the college succeed. Leadership will tell the tale.

Thanks, fellow bloggers

2006-06-01T12:03:00.000-05:00

A big thank you to Rob at Say Anything blog and Grand Forks Guy at Grand Forks Life for calling attention and linking to this blog. I read and enjoy both blogs daily (as well as several other North Dakota blogs) and am so impressed at the writers' thoughtfulness and sheer productivity. How do bloggers find the time?

As I e-mailed to Rob a few days ago, there's an old saying in journalism about the ecstasy and agony of writing a five-day-a-week column, the way the late, great Mike Royko in Chicago used to do: "It's like being married to a nymphomaniac." Blogging takes those demands and rewards to whole new levels. Another of my favorite blogs, Power Line in Minnesota, sees its three contributors posting fresh and fabulous material at all hours of the day and night ... and the Power Line gents all are successful attorneys with full-time, high-powered jobs. Again, so impressive ... though I'm sure it's got to be like being married to several nymphomaniacs, in some weird computer-journalism version of "Big Love"!

This perceptive column in Editor & Publisher, the newpaper trade journal, basically says "You ain't seen nothin' yet." Not only will the journalists of tomorrow have to throw out any notion of a 9 to 5 job, but also they'll need skills in video and other media forms:

"What seems to be becoming the norm in newsrooms these days is that a growing group of reporters, photographers and editors are now working in jobs where there's a wide variety of tasks to be done each day: feeding the newspaper's Web site; writing for blogs and interacting with blog readers; gathering audio for the website and/or radio partners; recording video clips; participating in online chats and discussion forums ... Oh, and writing for the newspaper's print edition."

I definitely can see that happening in the Herald's newsroom, and expect to be podcasting our editorial-board interviews with newsmakers soon and posting video editorials not long after that. Though a part of me can't help admiring Bill Whittle at the blog Eject! Eject! Eject! ("You're a former liberal. Your worldview has been hit by heat-seeking reality and you're on fire and out of control. You have only a few decades in which to react! Think fast! ... Eject! Eject! Eject!") Whittle does "long form" posts every few months. He hasn't posted since January, yet he's still being quoted. That's family-friendly blogging, the way it ought to be!

2006-05-30T13:28:00.000-05:00

A few people have asked me what happened to the old "Northscope" blog that the Herald's editorial board started up a few months ago. The basic answer is, we killed it because it ... well, it just wasn't working the way that we'd hoped.

Early on, we'd thought that the members of the editorial board (that would be me, publisher and editor Mike Jacobs, columnist Dorreen Yellow Bird, chief financial officer Anita Geffre and managing editor Kevin Grinde) would bat issues around on a daily basis, maybe in advance of writing an editorial on the topic. This sort of thing works well at some other newspapers, after all.

But the editorial board members at those other newspapers also tend to be editorial writers, meaning full-time opinion mongers who pen arguments for a living. So, they have the inclination and can make the time to blog ... whereas in our case, I'm the only full-time editorial writer, so I guess it wasn't surprising that I wrote most of the blog entries. (And there even were too few of those, in my view. So, if you see me walking down the street flogging myself with a cat o' nine tails, you'll know I'm either on my way to a "Da Vinci Code" costume party or am motivating myself to stop stalling and make a blog entry!)

In any event, we all thought it would be better if the effort just evolved into my own blog. Hence, "Prairie Pundit."

Near beer: GF and drinking

2006-05-25T09:31:00.000-05:00

In Grand Forks these days, a lot of people are wondering why the recent report of a task force on underage and binge drinking is generating so little enthusiasm. True, the report's recommendations seem to miss the boat: They single out bartenders for special training and licensing, even though few underage drinkers get their liquor in bars.

But here's my take: I think the report's being greeted with a yawn because most people in Grand Forks don't think binge and underage drinking is a big problem. (That also would explain why the task force's public meeting on the subject drew a scant 100 participants.)

What's more, at this point I'm inclined to agree with the skeptics in town. Is binge and underage drinking a problem in Grand Forks? Absolutely, as it is in every community in America, especially college towns. But is it a problem at such a high level here as to warrant task force and similar attention?

Frankly, I don't think it is. Mind you, I could be persuaded otherwise; but that's the point. So far, the evidence I've seen just isn't enough.

In my view, the situation with drinking here is analogous to the situation with guns. My guess is that a survey would reveal a high level of gun ownership in Grand Forks, as in the rest of North Dakota. But who cares? As North Dakotans know in their bones, the issue isn't guns. The issue is what people do with guns -- and in this state, people tend to use their guns in a lawful manner. So, Grand Forks consistently ranks among the safest cities in America on the issue that really counts: crime.

So it is with drinking, I think. If GF really had a problem with excessive drinking, then you'd expect that problem to show up in public-health statistics. Does it? For example, does Grand Forks have an unusually high rate of, say, car accidents, many of which likely would be alcohol-related?

Well, I don't know the accident rate in Grand Forks, although I can attest that my car-insurance premiums were cut in half when I moved here from Pennsylvania.

And I do know that Sioux Falls, S.D., was ranked as recently as yesterday as "the nation's safest driving city." I've checked the Allstate Insurance study that reported the Sioux Falls finding, and can't find Grand Forks (or Fargo, Bismarck or Minot) on the list of metro areas.

But I can find this quote in the Allstate press release linked to above: "Midwestern drivers also appear to heed the safety call. Five out of the 10 top cities are in America's heartland, according to the report."

More importantly, I also found this very interesting item in USA Today. Remember that 2004 study in the American Journal of Public Health, the one that first identified Grand Forks as a top binge-drinking city in America? The above link takes you to USA Today's report on the story; click on it, and look at the chart of "highest binge drinking rates," the one that puts Grand Forks and San Antonio, Texas, right at the top. Which city is No. 5?

Well, whaddya know:

Sioux Falls, S.D.

How can it be that apparently beer-soaked, whiskey-sodden Sioux Falls nevertheless has the lowest car accident rate in America? How can it be, in fact, that "binge drinking is most prevalent in the upper Midwest," as the USA Today story notes, while Midwestern cities also rank low in accident rates, according to Allstate?

There's a huge disconnect there.

My guess is, it's true that Midwesterners on average drink more than, say, Californians. But it's also true -- again, I'm guessing -- that Midwestern drinking has fewer public-health consequences than the raw "drinks consumed on one occasion" statistic would suggest.

Here are some headlines that would make me change my mind: "Altru ER reports nation's highest incidence of acute alcohol poisoning." "Study: GF cirrhosis rates top the charts." "Drunk-driving arrests in GF far exceed national average." "Empty chairs: Absenteeism up as Red River students 'sleep it off,' teachers say."

In other words, if drinking in Grand Forks were a documented public-health problem, I'd agree that it'd be time to take very special notice. But I don't sense that the evidence is there, other than the infamous binge-drinking ranking.

Again, I could be persuaded otherwise. But for now, that lack of evidence, I think, is why people in town aren't paying much attention to the local task force's results.

2006-05-23T22:17:00.000-05:00

Here's an incredible resource for anyone who cares about Minnesota, which will include many thousands of the people reading ... um, many hundreds? ... dozens?... OK, many individuals among the six people reading this blog.

Seriously, give it a click. It's the new Atlas of Minnesota Online and is an electronic creation of the Center for Rural Policy and Development in St. Peter, Minn. The center is a non-profit outfit dedicated to sponsoring and publishing original research about rural Minnesota, which of course includes just about all of the northwestern corner of the state. Their new quarterly publication, Rural Minnesota Journal, also is available online and is well worth your time.

But the atlas is even more useful and impressive. It's a Minnesota map with dozens and dozens of social, cultural and demographic overlays, most of which simply appear as you move your mouse around different corners of the state. Want to know how various school districts fared on the eighth-grade test of basic reading skills, the infant mortality rate in different counties and what percentage of people's income in the counties comes from federal farm support? Then seek no further, fellow policy wonk, because the Atlas is the electronic book for you.

Now, if they'd only include an overlay with the the locations of various Dunkin' Donuts outlets around the state ... ;-)

2006-05-18T14:11:00.000-05:00

Hello! Welcome to my blog.

I'm Tom Dennis, and I'm excited about joining the blogging world -- a world I admire and every day enjoy.

Here are my thoughts about how this blog will work. As the Herald's opinion editor, I write the newspaper's editorials most days -- but when I do so, I'm always conscious that I'm representing the editorial board. That's the difference between a column and an editorial: A column is a writer's personal thoughts; an editorial is the consensus or majority view of an editorial board -- that is, unless the publisher exercises his or her prerogative and insists on a particular view.

A quick aside about that: I used to work at an editorial page in Pennsylvania, and heard a story there of how the paper came to endorse the first President Bush in 1992. It seems the editorial board members took a poll around the table, and the vote went something like this: "Clinton." "Clinton." "Clinton." "Clinton." "Clinton." Then came the publisher's turn, and he said with a grin, "OK, who's going to write the Bush editorial?"

Anyway, in MOST CASES an editorial is a consensus view of an editorial board. But columns are different -- and blogs are different, too.

Here, I won't have to mentally pass the entries through an editorial board screen. I'd call it "Tom Dennis Unplugged", if I weren't convinced that that would make most readers throw the nearest paperweight through their computer screen.

Actually, I'm afraid "Tom Dennis Unplugged" is likely to be a lot like "Tom Dennis Plugged" ... I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw; it showed a bunch of guys in suits at a poolside cocktail party ... some of them sunbathing, some of them swimming, some of them jumping off the diving board but all of them in suits.

And this one guy is saying to another, "Who says Republicans don't know how to have a good time?"

So expect the semi-unexpected on this blog of notes about the passing scene. As for the Dunkin' Donuts reference in the blogger profile: There'll be more, much more, about that topic in the weeks and months to come.