We're moving our reporting of the Howell School e-mail FOIA lawsuit over to OutsideLansing.com, even though it began here 17 months ago, since it fits that topical site better. But for those of you following it - the Livingston Circuit Court ruled in favor of us and the schools over the Michigan Education Association. There's plenty to follow, so stay tuned.

Over at the fabulous "Empirical Legal Standards" blog, a new program unveiled by the University of Michigan Law School called "Wolverine Scholars" is criticized as a move away from standards and a "rankings grab" designed solely to artficially bump U-M's average Law student GPA so as to also bring U-M up in national prestige rankings (which include GPA as a criteria).

One of ELS's comments points out the "elephant in the room," that the program, which would allow only U-M undergrads with a GPA greater than 3.80 who have not yet taken an LSAT to apply to Law School under "holistic review", would give U-M a perfect opportunity to bypass Proposal 2 (since it can't ask other undergrad schools for racial IDs, and since a student on U-M's own campus will have a reputation including racial identity that can be easily ascertained by fellow U-M Law School admissions officers with a few phone calls) because it further clouds the process and eliminates a standard of measurement (the LSAT test, meaning that future racial compositions couldn't be easily challenged because some of students wouldn't have comparative LSAT data EVEN AVAILABLE for review). The nice think about ELS's though, in a way, is that it ignores the race preference issue and is critical of U-M solely because the new system is standardless and will create other unintended consequences.

Read the whole analysis, and you'll get the gist of what's going on. We're following the story deeper as well, so stay tuned.

Zarko Research enjoyed 2007.

It was a year in which the Michigan Education Association (MEA) sued (May 8) to stop us from using FOIA to uncover misuse of taxpayer-funded resources by union leaders in the Howell Public School system during a collective-bargaining battle. Nothing wrong with aggressive bargaining - just don't use public resources to tip the hand in your favor. The Detroit News opined in our favor here.

Since that litigation began, Zarko Research has properly joined the matter. The story related to the Howell e-mail FOIA lawsuit spawned this whole category here, and has already resulted in a limited production of e-mails.

In July, this blog again set trends in publishing the salary databases, with serious statistical analysis of employee growth rates and salary increases, of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. The data debunked the notion that higher-education tuition increases were a result of lack of legislative appropriate or "cuts" by the legislature. The increases are explained by grotesque growth rates in bureaucracy and administration at all universities - where competition is either perverse or non-existent. Here is The U-Michigan analysis and the
MSU analysis.

Finally, in August and September, Zarko Research spawned new blogs, with the idea of increasing the penetration and prominence of our publishing business to more niches, locally and statewide. This blog remains intended for the issues we've focused on in the past, and for a "hodgepodge" of other miscellaneous issues not easily fit into the boxes of "OutsideLansing.com" and "OaklandPolitics.com".

OutsideLansing has broke significant original news, including the filing of a campaign finance complaint against billionaire Jon Stryker in November, and FOIA'd e-mail from Central Michigan University on the Dennis Lennox case cited by Dawson Bell in the Detroit Free Press just this month. OaklandPolitics tapped into the presidential election news cycle, breaking the story of Paul Garfield's termination from the Ron Paul campaign, covering Duncan Hunter's speech here in Pontiac with original video, and covering a number of other issues.

And the force is with both blogs as the statewide columnist Jack Lessenberry has equated Zarko Research to "Zark-Vader".

Of course, there are a thousand little threads leftover I haven't mentioned, and several of them will wind their way into 2008, but look forward to more of the same and some curveballs. Full speed ahead.

Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press has picked up on our FOIA request & five part series here in this piece. Here's a link to OutsideLansing.com where we take note of Dawson's piece, and part 3 of our series citing the political diversity issue.

Whoa, and does he ever.  He accuses this writer's past - and society's continuing - nemesis, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), of "killing our children" (and I can't say that's wrong).
This is why Akindele's Unleashed blog is clearly one of the best in the Michigan blogosphere.

Here's a sample of his powerful critique:

Every now and then I look at what BAMN is doing in the community. Here are a socialist group of bandits that causes more hell than a headache.

First, they were against my friend Ward Connerly and the whole affirmative action thing. Thank God my sister Jennifer Gratz and company won that war. We thought BAMN would go away and crawl back in their cave.

I guess not.

Now, these misfits are having a town hall meeting on solving the crisis of public education in Detroit. [Dec. 6 if you're interested].
...
Again, where is BAMN on these critical issues [charters, parenting, and choice]? Where are those quacks Steve Conn and Heather Miller?
...
BAMN is doing nothing but keeping our children angry. Our children do not need anger. Our children and parents need options.

Having seen the Conn game and Ms. Miller an action, I'm fond of Akindele's use of terms here, even if it is slightly over-the-top. When you incite riots and take your children out of classes for your political machinations and you're a public school teacher, the term "quacks" is has a descriptive truth to it despite its ad hominem nature.

To its credit, Michigan State University has not yet succumbed to this blatantly out-of-bounds request to censor other students by members of a latino/a student group, according to the Lansing State Journal.

About 30 representatives from Chicanos y Latino Unidos (CLU), along with members of several other organizations, met for about a half hour earlier this week on the steps of MSU's Hannah Administration Center to "challenge the university into having them take a stand about ... what the difference is between freedom of speech and hate speech, fighting words and violent speech," CLU President Gabriela Alcazar said.

Specifically, CLU wants MSU officials to disallow another student organization - Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) - from hosting speakers who "speak against minorities" and "instigate and threaten people and insult people," said Alcazar, 20, who originally is from Imlay City.

"There's a point where they don't have the right to say the things they've been saying," said the international relations and social relations and policy major. CLU wants the university "to begin drawing a line and not keep covering everything with freedom of speech."

That's a clear of a request to violate the First Amendment as I've ever seen. It would take pages to fully cover the missteps in logic contained in these three paragraphs.

The group CLU is attacking is Kyle Bristow's YAF organization, which, as we reported this spring was put on the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) "hate group" list without a serious investigation by Heidi Beirich, their "intelligence" director. Beirich interviewed with Power, Politics, & Money, and when she didn't like the fact that we didn't throw her softball questions, she terminated the interview abruptly and issued strange accusations that we were harassing her. While we're no fan of Bristow's overly-confrontational tactics which appear to lack patience, that is sometimes the sophomoric nature of college student speech - speech which must still be protected Constitutionally.

The Howell Public Schools has witnessed its third school board resignation in six months. In addition to the two elected seats in May, that means that the majority of the board will be completely new by the time the next selection is made.

Howell is clearly a district in turmoil. Zarko Research met (and indeed communicated with) for the first time on Monday evening Howell's notorious Vicki Fyke, at a Duncan Hunter speech here in Oakland County we were covering for OaklandPolitics.com. Fyke informed us of Doug Norton's retirement, and attributed part of the cause of that to Zarko Research FOIA work. Nonetheless, we would disagree with that interpretation and suspect Norton's reasons were broader. The ZR FOIA simply wasn't that important and at best only exposes conditions in the district, not creates them. Clearly the district has issues that are affecting a whole range of people, and our reporting can not be a driving force behind that. Here's Howell's press release yesterday:

The Board of Education of Howell Public Schools announces a second Board Member vacancy, effective October 11, 2007.

Parties interested in applying for this unexpired Board Member term should do so at the Board of Education Office located at 411 North Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone who showed interest in the seat made vacant by Mary Jo Dymond’s resignation, MUST RESUBMIT A LETTER OF INTEREST for filling the vacancy left by Susan Drazic’s resignation.

In order to apply, interested parties must submit a brief letter of intent or Interest in Board Vacancy Form, in hard copy, (no emails or faxes will be accepted) at the Board of Education Office no later than 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Material received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

When the letter is submitted, each party will be provided with a more detailed set of qualifying questions which should be completed and returned in hard copy (no emails or faxes will be accepted) to the Board Office no later than 11:00 AM on Friday, October 19, 2007. Materials received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

Qualifying candidates will be screened and interviewed in person at a Regular Board of Education Meeting set for Monday, October 22, 2007, at 7:00 PM.

During the interview process, each candidate should be prepared to give a brief oral statement. The board will then do its evaluation and decide on the appointment.

The candidate appointed, as early as October 22, 2007, will serve only the unexpired term until the point of the upcoming School Board Election currently scheduled for May 6, 2008.

Philip Westmoreland, President

Howell Board of Education

UPDATE: RepublicanMichigander, a former Howell resident, has excellent ongoing coverage of the issue. 17 people applied for the first seat, and no doubt most will double up for the second. Fyke is among them, apparently.

The Michigan Education Association (MEA), a union of teachers, may have a union of administrators go on strike against it for messing with their retirement benefits. Now if that is an irony among ironies, I don't know what is. Here's a clip from Gongwer on the issue:

M.E.A. FACES POSSIBLE STRIKE
Employees of the Michigan Education Association have been considering a strike after MEA President Iris Salters recommended cutbacks in retirement benefits.

The United Staff Organization, the union representing employees of the MEA and its subsidiaries, said it was committed to bargaining around the clock to have a contract in place by August 31, when the current contract expires.

MEA leadership has proposed reductions in pension benefits and increases in retiree healthcare premiums, but the union's employees balked at the proposal, arguing the MEA has been working to avoid such cuts to teachers and school personnel around the state.

"We find it completely unacceptable that MEA President Salters would propose rollbacks that would gut staff's current retirement plan," said USO president Tom Greene. "Our bleak future becomes their bleak future."

Catch that part about "MEA leadership has proposed reductions in pension benefits and increases in retiree healthcare premiums ... " I wonder if MESSA is their insurance provider? Regardless, and even if necessary, the MEA proposal puts the shoes of the school administrators on their own feet.

I wonder if the MEA lawyers in the HEA/MEA/NEA et al v. Howell Public Schools and Chetly Zarko FOIA lawsuit will go on strike too? We could only be so lucky. Alas, the MEA outsources its legal help.

Zarko Research was at Pontiac High School taping a political rally last night. We found this sign to be a particularly ironic thing to see at a school.

In addition to questions raised by a Pontiac city councilman about alleged "threats" made to stop Pontiac school from hosting a political event (the Councilman referred me to his wife, who refused to answer after a political operative told her who he thought I worked for, which ironically isn't true), the sign was about the most interesting thing we saw in a boring three hours. The meeting, advertised as a "Town Hall", was an orchestrated rally. No "Town Hall" style questions were asked, the audience was all partisan and given pre-fabricated "convention-style" signs saying "IMPEACH", and the 5 person panel a hand-picked, lopsided panel all advocating for an anti-war position. When I was asked by an activist/operative from the other side why certain Congressmen (Knollenberg or McCotter) "didn't show up," I clarified that I didn't know what the representatives' thoughts were but asked why Senator Levin didn't show up (answer: how interesting that Carl Levin, who voted to approve money for the war and is also up for re-election, wasn't "invited") and suggested that the event's rules and organization were so biased as to make such an idea ridiculous. This wasn't a "TownHall," as citizens of the 9th District (I am such a citizen) weren't welcome to ask questions and get response -- Bruce Fealk, its organizer, refused (again) to "give me a quote on [my] camera" when I started asking him questions -- I asked him how it was any different from him expecting answers to questions when he barrages into offices and camps out at private homes, but he just walked away. If Fealk really wanted to reach the public and persuade people from both sides of the aisle, he'd take all opportunities to answer questions (and to both Skinner and Peters' credit, they answered questions!).

Finally, I asked Nancy Skinner one question. Is she running. Her response is that she's not in or out and nothing is official yet. For those of you on the Republican-side "itching" for a Democratic primary, I've never been of the opinion that one side should care about whether the other has a primary or not. It's like sports playoffs - if you win too early sometimes the "rest" is good, sometimes the "rest" causes you to lose momentum (Tigers, 2006). Sometimes the "work" of playing into extra games both "steels" you (Piston', 2004) and sometimes it "drains" you (Pistons, in 2005). At best, Skinner adds unpredictability to the race and maybe slightly drains Peters (or even wins), at worst, she could help the Democrats. But it doesn't change the fact that there's a general election in November.

Gary Peters, who didn't give a speech like Skinner, was only available in the lobby afterwards. A Peters operative quickly pointed me out, suggesting I was there as an operative (which simply isn't true, although I have past ties with Knollenberg's son, I do not work for them currently, and am simply an interested 9th District citizen at this point, just as Nancy Skinner claimed of Bruce Fealk in her speech when she asserted that he wasn't paid for his activism). As he walked by, I asked Mr. Peters what his thoughts on the proposed racinos issue was, a reasonable question that I actually have an interest in hearing about from a perspective other than his race for Congress. His response as he walked by hurriedly was that due to Proposal 1 (2004), the people would have to vote on any such expansion and he left it at that.

The sign and councilman's comments prompted this letter and Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Pontiac's superintendent:

Dear Mr. Calvin C. Cupidore, Jr.:

I was at the Pontiac High School last night videotaping a political rally. I took the attached photo of a sign apparently directed toward students.

It is misspelled. It's amazing to me that hundreds of teachers would walk by this and not see to it that it was corrected. Not only does such a sign (errantly) teach students by example, it is embarrassing to find at a school district. I would hope you correct the situation forthwith.

As to the political rally, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, I request all records related to or that document any threats or communications with the district regarding the rally. A city council person claimed in a speech that threats had been made to stop the rally. Additionally, I request a copy of the contract between the rally organizers and district to lease the space, the school policy on leasing space for non-school purposes, and any check and invoice related to that contract. Finally, I request any e-mail or other communication which you or other administrators, or any member of the school board, received or sent on the topics of the rally, the war in Iraq, or any political candidate for office over the last two months.

Thank you for your time. Documents may be faxed to the number below, and email returned here.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

For readers familiar with my work in 2003 Wall St. Journal expose and FOIA work (resulting in another FOIA win for ZR, but only after U-M stalled it long enough to evade impact on the case) attempting to get the simple numerical underpinnings of the so-called expert testimony of Patricia Gurin which eventually became part of the rationale behind Grutter v. Bollinger, yesterday's commentary in the WSJ by Gail Heriot (now a Commissioner for the US Commission on Civil Rights!).

Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander's study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure "risks stigmatizing African American attorneys." At the same time, the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander.

Sander's work on cascading and the implication that race preferences might actually reduce the number of blacks that become lawyers (increased students but increase bar failure rates that more than offset it) is the kind of the work that you apparently only get to do once in the diversity industry. The red-herrings of privacy are oft repeated - but the data almost never contains that personal information because by law and good practices that stuff has to be protected even from the routine users of the data when it is created.

Read more »

This one's a real doosy. Perhaps inspired by the language of the automobile industry, an Oakland University Professor has produced a real clunker, as reported in the Oakland Press:

"As you look at how systems live and die, we're entering the death rattle," Dessert said. "We're entering a phase where there will be no escaping."

That's pretty apocalyptic. I think I'll either have to bone up on my physics and black hole spatial mechanics, or re-read Revelations. What exactly is this guy talking about:

An Oakland University engineering professor well known for developing workplace efficiency strategies argues that Michigan is losing its manufacturing sector to other states and nations because its K-12, higher education and private sector systems have failed to develop a creative, inspired and highly skilled work force.

Oh, wait, this is the same higher education system that is growing every year. Forget about the fact that the University of Michigan and Michigan State hired 3% more people on average every year, that one of their Presidents took an $80,000 dollar twenty-five percent pay raise, and the top 1000 U-M employees average almost 6% pay raises annualized over the last six years while other employees only averaged inflation or less.

That's a death rattle at 80 mph and accelerating.

This is not to say that the professor isn't a serious guy or doesn't have some good ideas. He apparently is and does, we're just short on the specifics.

The assessment has spurred some controversy but is not one that Professor Pat Dessert came up with overnight.

The seasoned professor employs advanced mathematics to model how various components of large and multifaceted systems interact. He can also use his theory to pinpoint potential efficiencies within those systems.

Three years ago, Dessert applied the Unified Systems Theory that he developed to glean insight into state economic challenges and what the future holds for Michigan workers.

The author and editor of the rather long-article just waste the space and don't get to anything other than the jingo. Some obvious truisms, requiring no deep plumbing of the universe for insights, are stated:

Many of Michigan's high school graduates are not adequately prepared by the K-12 system to succeed in college, Dessert said.
...
"When systems are aligned, they work well. The real problem is that we're not aligned," Dessert said.

But the only real solution offered is one program where hands on auto-racing demonstrations by NASCAR-types motivated students in some demonstration project. Unfortunately, its just not the type of program that is "scalable," that is, can be exported to large numbers of schools. It's hard to know here whether it's the mathematician who doesn't have other ideas, or the journalists who failed to find them.

Finally, while no explicit appeal for "more money" is made for higher education, the reporter finds the Oakland ISD both disagreeing with the mathematician and then contradictorily blaming any failure on a lack of money for her pre-kindergarten programs.

Oakland Schools Superintendent Vickie Markavitch objected to the notion that K-12 schools have failed students. She says the majority of graduates who go on to college find success there.

"I don't think it's a misalignment issue," Markavitch argued, noting that comprehensive curriculum enhancement in both career-focused and general education programs has targeted both postsecondary study and emerging career opportunities.

Students who do struggle in college, Markavitch said, likely faced academic challenges early in their careers because of a lack of adequate prekindergarten programs in Michigan.

"Until we begin to address the gap that exists when children enter kindergarten, we will not adequately address the gap that exists when children leave the 12th grade."

That's about as crass as it gets. If our only problem was pre-kindergarten programs, you'd think the problem would have been solved by now. But its radically untrue, as well. I live in the small town of Clawson, a medium sized school district by all accounts, and have studied its problems closely. Aside from the town not having the social or financial problems of an inner-city or rural school district, the Clawson schools are considered a fairly successful performer (slightly above average when the whole student life cycle is averaged) when it comes to testing measures. But there is a fall off in students passing the measures that starts in about 7th grade and is very noticeable upon graduation. Students seem to lose touch emotionally with the idea of and methods of school as they become teenagers. This isn't rocket-science, folks. We all experienced those years of our lives. It takes a different teaching paradigm to reach those students. Yet Clawson just hired a superintendent whose primary experience was K-6, despite the numbers, an alternative choice with high school experience, and citizens who pointed out where the improvement needs to come. And the Oakland ISD (which provides intermediate services to Clawson, ironically) superintendent has the same myopia. And even with high schools, its not money that will solve the problem. It's creativity, focus, attention to hiring (and the ability to fire) the right people for the right spots, and proper segmentation of specialties to cater to the individual needs of different students as they grow on their own tracks. How can ZR say this confidently - because there are high schools, even in inner-cities, rural districts, and the average Clawson's, that aren't showing the traditional dip in performance. It's simple policy modeling from that point - its finding and copying rather than reinventing already invented wheels. I'm also lead to ask the question of whether K-12 administrations are dominated by elementary teachers. I have no data on this issue - its just a thought.

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

State Senator Mark Schauer (D, Battle Creek) has attacked State Senator Bruce Patterson's (R, Canton) claim that university cost control failure is the main reason for tuition increases. The liberal blogging machine, supported by self-proclaimed journalist and occasional mainstream media freelancer Eric Baerren, is rushing to attack Patterson by flipping truth on its head. Baerren's sources are "reverse engineering" Patterson's numbers and an anonymous "friend" researcher at Central Michigan University.

Central Michigan is now the third university Zarko Research turns its data analysis talents toward CMU by necessity since that is the subject of Baerren's defense. At the bottom is an image (click for fuller readable size) that shows the Excel spreadsheet of the first and last of nine years of CMU spending, using CMU's own budget summaries.

To be fair, we compared CMU to inflation and the legislator and created a final line that assumes the legislative appropriation grew with inflation and compared it to the expenditures. Even if the legislative appropriation outpaced inflation and 100% went to reducing tuition (or any category), tuition would have skyrocketed. And guess what - two conclusions of Zarko Research's U-Michigan and Michigan State analyses are enhanced. Administrative growth accounts for the majority of increases AND AGAIN liberal elite administrators are paying themselves double inflation adjustments while put the rings to their lowly staff (inflation or less depending on adjustments). In fairness, the Michigan legislature (and Governor) have not kept pace with inflation over the last 5 years, and deserve a small amount of the "blame" --- but when you look at these numbers, which factor in a "model" assuming the legislature met the Proposal 5 standard (increase by inflation or 5%, whichever is less -- represented on the bottom line of the sheet), the average tuition increase is barely dented. The numbers say it all - administrative growth, health care, and raw supply overhead are the killers in relative terms.

Wizardkitten fills us in on a Wednesday tirade by Canton's own Bruce Patterson. Patterson's response to Mark Schauer's statement that Republicans in the state Senate are responsible for prompting big tuition hikes at the state's public universities?

It's the fault of universities. She quotes part of his speech:

I venture to say that the problem isn't in the amount of appropriations; it's in the failure of the governing boards of these universities to contain costs. That's why students are suffering tuition hikes of inordinate amounts--a failure to contain costs.

I venture to say that Bruce Patterson is wrong ... very wrong.

Baerren ventures a long ... long way. Let's follow.

The first university on Patterson's list was my own alma mater of CMU, which Patterson cited as having increased faculty compensation by $15,000 per Full Time Equivalent over the last five years. Is this true? I have no idea, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't pull the number out of thin air.

But, the question is what this costs the university. Here, Patterson's facts were surprisingly in short supply. But, thanks to e-mail, we can fill them in by simply contacting the university. The university, as of November of last year, employed 1,105 FTE as faculty (the university employs another 1,513 FTE as staff). By sticking my pointer finger straight forward and pushing some little black buttons on my calculator, I deduced that 728 FTE multiplied by the $15,000 in extra compensation over the last five years equals $16.5 million. Mind you, this isn't something that comes in one big chunk, but was spread over the last five years (and through a couple of faculty contracts). On the other hand, state support for CMU has decreased by roughly $10 million over the last decade, and today -- according to an official I spoke to there -- funding levels are approximately what they were in the late 90s.

In 2003-2004 (which I don't fill in in the chart because of time considerations), there was a one-time $9 million cut from $89 million to $80 million, but that is still higher than the 1999-2000 appropriation ($79M), and it was during the fiscal year following 9/11 and national recession (which never ended in Michigan), and it was actually the decision of Granholm. One should expect that during times of recession everyone has to make concessions. Since 2003, legislative appropriation has stagnated and slightly increased, but at less than inflation. Again, to be expected during a stagnant economy. But it didn't fall 10 million "over the last decade" - if rose $10 million from 2000-2002 (13% in two years) and the legislature took that back during the recession at Granholm's suggestion (there's a nice 2003 CMU press release blaming Granholm, but I don't have the link handy). ZR doesn't blame her for that action - it was necessary and appropriate. But it was a cut of an increase - not a full cut. But even if we adjusted for inflation and gave CMU an inflation-locked increase (exactly as if Proposal 5 of last year existed), it would make a tiny dent in the gross tuition increases - which in raw terms doubled during the 9 years and in average percentage terms adjusted for inflation and a compensating legislative increase, rose at more than 5% annually, and more than 6% annually gross.

But let's follow Baerren and Schauer on their venture of reasoning.

How does this break down, in terms of pay and benefits? If it's just salary increases, CMU's faculty received salary hikes of about $3,000 a year ... which, if this is what has Patterson so exorcised, means he's angry about pay raises that are just a little bit more than COLA increases (this, for a university primarily regarded as a regional teachers college and trying to cultivate a national reputation in advanced nanotechnology research). There are raw numbers, and there is context. Patterson had one, lacked the other.

We'll address this competition thing in a moment, but Baerren is the one devoid of context. It's not the faculty hikes that are the killers - although ZR thinks they are bit high. Look at the image provided - the big increases are the "other/administrators" and the supply costs and, as everyone admits, the killer in benefits. Administrators are fleecing us for more than double the inflation rate consistently - year in and year out. They're also shorting staff and faculty -- this is not about competition in attracting quality nanotech - its about padding the President's pockets and his staff. Proposal 5 doesn't sound so bad in this environment (evil, but lesser of two) - and if we could put a spending growth cap on with it?

If Patterson were including total compensation, to include benefits, then he is also alluding to increases in health insurance. In this regard, the university has taken steps to keep costs down, because during the 90s -- seeing rising health care costs coming down the pike, they started a self insurance program, which has been successful.

Baerren's venture has found the cliff. He has bought into some sales pitch by the university. Benefit growth is the highest of all categories - not successful. Is there probably a grain of truth being exploded into a mountainous lie somewhere in that claim - sure: CMU pobably did do some self-insurance in some program, or it tweaked something else, and their claim a "potential savings" that no one really can measure. But it's clearly facing the same problems everyone else is (and look, health care is soaring, but the market has spawned the greatest innovations in life-saving technology humanity has ever witness and its expensive sci-fi kind of stuff).

Baerren ventures into the land of the hook, line, and sinker. He believes what he's told, like any good reporter would:

The interim vice president of finance told me during an interview last month that the university has been more successful doing this than educational institutions and governments that haven't. In short, they anticipated rising costs, and took steps to mitigate their impact on costs ... the kind of thing meant to bring under control costs Sen. Patterson intoned darkly were out of control.

Judge for yourself. The key question:

There are two questions here ... is this outrageous, and has CMU passed along to its students an unfair share of that burden?

The answer to the first is no. As Wizardkitten notes from a Gongwer article, Michigan university compensation is in line with other Great Lakes universities.

First, all universities suffer from the academic elitist view that they are worth ever escalating amounts with no checks in place from the market (let's bring back those anti-trust lawsuits filed against the Ivies in the 80s and 90s -- and Democrats usually like anti-trust laws but not when it impinges on their constituencies) and with government subsidies providing a "free shock absorber" to prevent market forces from stopping administrative growth. Second, the "in-line" analysis is obsfucated by the fact that universities literally collude in trading their data (through a process called the "Data Exchange")(anti-trust!) and that the "comparative data" from universities is all "in-line" because they try to be "close" to each other. The argument justifying salary explosions is that is "normal" and everyone else is doing it so we must. Classic collusion - although not always "conscious" - the system has built the collusion in, from the top cascading down.

In short, if you want to compete -- and I think we do -- then you need to spend money like you're serious about doing it. And, unless Gongwer is lying to the people of Michigan, the state's universities are doing what they need to do to compete against universities in neighboring states -- quality professors aren't going to work for free, you know (in fact, I know a local chemistry professor involved in nanotechnology research who tells me that he got offers from bigger, more research intensive universities but that he decided to stay at CMU because they offered him better research facilities ... he's also just released the first textbook in an emerging part of chemistry).

Reporter resorts to his friend the "local chemistry professor" in nano-tech. Hard for us to verify or cross-examine and analyze, but its a nice anecdote.

The answer to the second is also no, at least in the case of CMU.

As most of us know, CMU hiked its tuition by 21 percent this year, and the compensation costs for their faculty have risen by $15,000 per over the last five years. In fact, for all of the universities Patterson cited, only the University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor campus' faculty costs have increased more (and, why, I wonder, would a university competing for students with Ivy League students see its faculty salaries increase faster than everyone else?). Clearly, CMU's administration is screwing its students, and clearly the Board of Trustees -- appointed by the governor -- are guilty of lax oversight.

Not so fast there, Sparky. CMU's tuition hike of 21 percent is the only tuition hike its freshmen class will see. That is, unless some of them go on the Bluto plan and stay undergraduates for seven years, their tuition will remain what it is this year for their entire careers.

So, what is CMU's 21 percent tuition hike averaged out to four years? About six percent for a student who finishes his or her degree in four years; or five percent for five years. This puts the university, with its $15,000 over five years increase in compensation, close to the bottom rung about impact of their students.

He can't even get the basic division right here - but what guarantee is there of no additional hike? And the real measure is not what the hike is for the 2008 freshman amortized - its what the hike is for the 2009 freshman - which could be 30% if the school chose.

The flip side of this is that CMU plans to make another $1.39 million in cuts come October. Where is this money coming from? Well, the state took money away from the university it said it was going to give it, which has put CMU's budget out of whack.

Chump change, but Baerren even admits its not a "cut", its a reduction of an increase that the state "said it was going to give". So much for the reform-type of cuts.

They're waiting for school to start and professors to return to classes before making the cuts[non-increases], because for some silly reason university officials think that professors should have a say in whether or not proposed cuts[non-increases] will ultimately hurt[not pad] their ability to attract and retain quality students and faculty.

Finally, as a quality journalist, Eric has eliminated the ability of his critics like Zarko Research from commenting on his website, and endorses Michigan Liberal's similar censorship. If we could comment, we might be able to at least correct a few of his factual errors - there probably not intentional, but they're negligent.

The University of Michigan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Office (LGBT-O) has decided that it must change its name for these reasons. Let me note up front that while I oppose "gay marriage," I believe we should at least be respectful of all human beings, and I don't write this to make fun of anyone or judge lifestyles. But if the liberal argument is that conservative government shouldn't interfere with individual lifestyles, then U-Michigan, a government the size of a mini-state, shouldn't have bodies that promote or hinder those lifestyles.

Hat tip to The Stranger out of Seattle for picking it up. Even some liberals like Donn Fresard in Ann Arbor, think its "silly."

It's more than silly. Look at the bureaucracy and bureaucratic mass that is involved in this "name change." It's as if they have nothing else to do, so they create a huge amount of work. And the name change itself is Orwellian.

Even "office" doesn't "reflect the work that we do for and with Allies."

*The current Office name does not reflect the work that we do for and with Allies."

How far can we take this linguistic assualt? "Office" isn't inclusive enough? By the way, what's government doing choosing "Allies" among its own citizens? Inclusiveness suggests everyone - not just "Allies". I thought diversophiles weren't supposed to see the world in "us v. them" terms. So much for true diversity.

The Ever-Changing Target of Diversity

What's the real thrust, other than to create work for the array of diversity bureaucrats who could find anything else to do with their time?

# The community is more complex than the letters L-G-B-T

*The letters LGBT, as representative of the identities lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, are no longer inclusive of the diversity of the community.

Hmm. The "letters" ... "are no longer inclusive of the diversity." It's changed? ZR has repeated used the term the "fad" to describe diversity. The "diversity" movement has pinned American values on an ever-changing, malleable fad. Principles and values - like equality - do not change. That's why values are valuable.

Below the fold I paste the whole document for your humor:

Read more »

Time to revive an old ZR analysis of U-M data manipulation. Read that along with with last week's ZR exclusive on U-M administrative growth, and yesterday's piece by Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News who writes here about the statewide wave of tuition increases.

And guess who's allegedly to blame again - anybody but the administrators at the schools. The legislature isn't appropriating enough of your money.

Hammered by six years of state appropriations reductions, U-M has taken considerable cost-cutting measures, from motion sensors that activate lights only when someone's in a classroom to reducing the number of deans in the College of Engineering, said U-M Provost Teresa Sullivan. "But finding additional things to cut is getting harder and harder."

In 1960, state funds comprised nearly 80 percent of U-M's budget; now that's 24 percent, and tuition is the largest stream of revenue, she said.

"We are in a situation in which our state appropriation has been under considerable pressure," Sullivan said.

Wait, there hasn't been "six years of state appropriations reductions" - there have been six years where legislative appropriations have stagnated or modestly increased. More importantly, that quote on the 1960 comparison of "relative % of legislative funding" is an extension of the fabulous lie first perpetrated by former president James Duderstadt in the mid-90s, when he pointed out that U-M's 1986-1996 "share" of state funding as a percentage of U-M's overall funding fell from 18% to 12%, and blamed the legislature for the "cut". Sullivan deserves credit for the novelty of expanding the time-frame to 1960 to increase the magnitude by a factor. Still, ZR debunked the original horrible twisting of statistics which applies today, pointing out that U-M averaged 17% growth in administration over the same time while the legislature gave 8% more over the time. That's twice the rate of inflation (quadruple for expenditures and other revenues including tuition increases and federal sources) - the legislature lived up to its end of the bargain, yet U-M blamed it on them in the bustling 90s and still uses the same old saw today.

Although the Detroit News writer is doing the best she can with the beat she's assigned, the problem is when you're forced to take the word of U-M officials you're in for some surprises.

"Time and time again we've made the cuts and we've done the reforms," said Regent S. Martin Taylor, noting U-M has slashed $120 million in costs in five years. "We've done those things and then we recognized that (in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues."

Just last night State Senator John Pappageorge told a Rochester gathering a story. You go into your boss's office and ask for a $5,000 raise. After much discussion about your value and productivity, and the budget of the company, your boss gives you a $2,000 raise. You walk out of the office and tell your office-mates you just took a $3,000 pay cut.

In the University of Michigan shadow world of budgeting, an increase can be a cut. A look at the Provost's data reveals how words can be twisted - but ZR's favorite is when James Duderstadt tried to play the same trick in the mid-90s and ZR broke it down with this analysis showing that the decline was really an increase but decline relative only to outrageous 17% annual growth by U-M bureaucracy.

If U-M "cut $120 million" in expenses, it doesn't mean that it reduced its overall bureaucracy by that size. Either they cut a hypothetical $120 million that they might have spent in ideal circumstances, they cut something they were going to cut anyway or was at a natural end, they cut something but spent twice as much elsewhere, or any number of explanations. Regardless, I'd like to see the documentation of exactly what their cuts were, and methodology. And even if they saved a $120 million in future costs, its nearly a $3 billion dollar budget. Compare these explanations with last week's ZR statistical analysis of the last five years of U-M administrative growth.

Flip S. Martin Taylor's statement around. Instead of, "(in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues," it should be "to keep Michigan great, we have to decrease costs." Does it really matter whether a student pays for his university education in tuition - or through his or her parents and future taxes. It's just a shell-game either way. The key is to reduce costs and provide better value. And with the salary analysis ZR has done, clearly that isn't happening.