Friday, July 11, 2003
EMAIL-GATE?
You know, I was wondering why Governor Tom Vilsack was going ahead with his silly Iowa Values Fund. I mean, surely if he had read my emails on the subject, he would have realized what a bad idea it is. But now I know what the problem is:
Vilsack: I don't know how to send an e-mail
I can only imagine why Vilsack can’t figure out email. Perhaps he’s just too busy trying to figure out if he can line-item veto policy bills. Or, perhaps, this is the reason:
“Is this the computer? Where’s the keyboard? I mean, what is a “keyboard”? I can’t see the screen! Where are my pants?”
Anyway, just to bring those of you visiting here for the first time up to speed:
Gov. Tom Vilsack says his inability to use a computer helped lead to the destruction of public records pertaining to a controversial pay plan for a state agency director.
Vilsack acknowledged that workers in his office failed to properly respond to The Des Moines Register's demands earlier this year for e-mails pertaining to the Iowa Department of Economic Development Foundation. At the time, Vilsack was planning to use money from the privately financed group to supplement the state salary of Mike Blouin, the new director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development.
Vilsack said during an interview that his own lack of computer savvy was a contributing factor in his office's improper response.
"I'm 52 years old, and I don't know much about technology," Vilsack said. "I don't even know how to send a response to an e-mail, that's how technologically deficient I am."
While that provides fodder for many a joke, it isn’t clear what it has to do with the Des Moines Register’s open-records request. If Vilsack doesn’t know how to use his email, then he wasn’t the one deleting the email from his computer. It was largely the doing of his staff:
Gleason has acknowledged that the governor's staff:
* Failed to publicly disclose dozens of foundation-related e-mails stored on individual computers in the governor's office.
* Failed to respond to numerous requests from the Register for information about a promised search of an electronic archive of e-mails from the governor's office.
* Allowed the electronic archive to be destroyed before it could be searched for foundation-related e-mails.
Gleason said he was dismayed to learn recently that previously undisclosed records about the foundation still are stored on computers within the governor's office.
"I was just so appalled that we (found) more e-mails," Gleason said. "I'm just very apologetic and humbled by the stupidity of the staff and myself."
This is even too much for the Des Moines Register editorial page, usually a big Vilsack cheerleader:
Vilsack is a lawyer, for heaven's sake. And he relies on the governor's legal counsel, Brian Gentry, for advice. They must know better. Excuses like Gleason's that the governor's staff had "too many things on the plate" when the Register began asking for the documents don't ring true. Delays in responding to the Register lasted months.
Neither, by the way, does the governor's suggestion ring true that his being "technologically deficient" was somehow a contributing factor to his office's improper response.
So what if he doesn't know how to send a reply to an e-mail? What has that got to do with his office's failure to respond to a legitimate request for public documents? The deficiency lies not in the governor's lack of computer skills but in his failure to direct his staff to respect the right of Iowans to have access to government information that belongs to them.
However, the editorial page appears to express some surprise that does not seem altogether genuine:
But, Gleason claims, none of this was deliberate.
If not, it was arrogant.
It looks as if the governor and his staff decided they wouldn't be bothered - despite their legal obligation to provide the e-mails. They probably didn't want any more attention to the controversy, and hoped it would die down.
Is the editorial page just now realizing that our Governor is arrogant? Surely not. Off the record, many state legislators complain Vilsack acts like he is smarter than everyone else. Apparently he doesn’t like have anyone around that is smarter than he is. This is probably what led to the dismissal of so many the agency heads at the end of his first term. Instead of hiring competent people, Vilsack hired ones that were his subordinates in every way. It seems that a scandal of this sort was only a matter of time.
Another article in the Register slyly notes that Vilsack has been a big booster of E-technology for government:
In his 2001 speech to the Legislature on the condition of the state, Vilsack set a goal for state government to be "100 percent E by 2003." It was a plan to make state information and services available to all Iowans electronically by the end of this year.
"Together, we can create E-government so that every Iowan who seeks information, applies for a license or permit, or files a tax return or other document, will be able to do so whenever and however is most convenient for them," Vilsack said then. "Let us accept the challenge of 100 percent E by 2003. Iowans need it. Leadership of a new economy requires it."
Three years ago, Vilsack was among 73 national Democratic leaders who signed a declaration saying "government information and services at every level should be thoroughly digitized, enabling citizens to conduct business with public agencies online."
This easily inspires all sorts of nifty scenarios:
-An advocate for the fishing industry who doesn’t know how to bait a hook.
-A sponsor of a race-car team who doesn’t know how to drive.
-A spokesman for a breakfast cereal who doesn’t like eating the cereal. (Oh wait. That actually happened.)
Two concluding thoughts: First, will this scandal have any legs? My initial inclination is no; most scandals seem to die quick deaths these days, as we saw during the Clinton Administration. But this one involves disrespect toward the major newspaper in this state. That may very well keep it alive for some time.
Second, Vilsack should look at the bright side. If he ever runs for President, he won’t have to endure barbs about how he created the internet.
. . .
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM
Yesterday the New York Times was calling for government regulation in an area that is plagued with could have problems:
The idea sounds great in principle. Instead of confining elderly Medicaid patients in nursing homes when they become infirm, why not give them a broad array of options, everything from home care to adult day care centers and assisted living? That would please many of the elderly, who prefer to stay at home near friends and family as long as possible. It would also please state and federal Medicaid administrators, whose budgets are swamped with the high cost of nursing home care for elderly patients. No wonder the Bush administration has encouraged states to experiment with home- or community-based care under so-called Medicaid waivers, and no wonder many governors have responded enthusiastically. The trouble is, in many cases no one seems to be monitoring the quality of the care provided, or even whether it is provided at all.
So is there evidence of abuse of home care? Well, not exactly:
A new report from the General Accounting Office — described by Robert Pear yesterday in The Times — lays bare the nature of the problem. While the administration has been boasting about the record number of waivers it has granted, it has not adequately monitored the programs or ensured that the states do so. In many cases, the state waiver programs failed to provide necessary services or adequate nutrition and did not properly assess the needs of patients. How many people have been harmed, if any, is not known because state and federal records are so spotty.
If this isn’t quite the epitome of the liberal world-view, it is darn close. We don’t need actual evidence of a problem before the government should meddle further. No, we only need the possibility of a problem.
. . .
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
DMR DISCOVERS ORIGINAL INTENT
The Register editorialists are gnashing their collective teeth because K12 Inc., a private, for profit online school wishes to use Iowa’s open enrollment law to set up shop here. By forming a partnership with Pochantas Area school district, K12 Inc. can get paid by the state when the funds follow the kids who transfer to the Pocahantas district.
So what’s the Register’s problem? Are K12’s standard not up to snuff? Actually, by the description in the editorial, they’re pretty tough.
No, here’s the real problem:
Meanwhile, the Iowa Department of Education is scrutinizing K12's plan to enter Iowa through the open-enrollment door. It should decide the cyber school doesn't qualify because it is not what the Legislature intended. If that needs to be spelled out, lawmakers should do so.
Holy Dissenting Opinions Batman! The Register has discovered the concept of original intent! Of course, when it is a matter of interpreting the U.S. Constitution—a document that is not supposed to be changed except via the amendment process—in matters like sodomy or affirmative action racial quotas, what the writers of the document intended is subservient to the whims of the nine wise men and women—or at least a majority of them.
But when it is a for-profit school that wants to move into Iowa, well, adhere to that original intent like a fly stuck in molasses! Never mind that, unlike the Constitution, state law can be altered with a simple vote of the legislature and the Governor’s signature. No! That would be going against what a previous legislature intended. And we can’t have that, especially when some upstart company is threatening the public education blob.
. . .
Monday, July 07, 2003
WHAT IS LIBERTY? THE MODERN-DAY LIBERAL VIEW
In an editorial cautioning us about losing our liberty to that nasty Patriot Act, the Des Moines Register editorialists wrote this revealing sentence:
What's more, liberty is not just the freedom to act without fear of repercussion, it is also the right to be free of intrusions by a suspicious government.
That sentence is typical of the left-wing misunderstanding of liberty. Liberty means primarily the right to be free of government interference. The Bill of Rights is full of language such as “Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed.” There are exceptions to restriction on government interference, of course, but that’s beside the point. For the Register, concern about government sanction is almost an afterthought when contemplating freedom.
It certainly does not mean the right “to act without fear of repercussion.” I’m certainly free to publicly badmouth my place of employment, but that does not protect me from my boss firing me for doing so. (Note to my boss: that was merely a hypothetical example.)
Also, the Register editorialists are free to write their myopic editorials. But they do not have they right to be free from criticism.
Heh.
. . .
QUAGMIRE, QUAGMIRE, QUAGMIRE
There are plenty of things I could smack around in the Des Moines Register knee-jerk, herd-mentality editorial from Wednesday titled “Not One Quagmire, But Two.” For example, they claim that “Women are oppressed and attacked” in Afghanistan. Yes, I’m sure it’s much worse than it was under the Taliban, when they could hang out on Afghan beaches in bikinis. Anyway, Best of the Web had a pretty good takedown, which you should read.
Rather, I'll just throw out a Register-inspired debate question: Does it seem like the word “quagmire” is increasingly losing its meaning other than a word with bad connotations to be used to describe a foreign policy one does not like?
. . .
|
. . .
|
