A perfect example of running government "like a business"

 

 I have a friend...

A friend who knows why the recent 2018 Arizona Primary election found 62 sites not ready to accept voters.

At least as he sees it...

The title kind of says it all.  

Somebody thought it was a good idea to treat a public trust, a sacred act and a cornerstone of democracy like some general contractor picking up day laborers in a Home Depot parking lot.

Treat this as an editorial even if it is grounded in truth.

I know, a rarity especially with all that "Fake News" out there...

The core problem, as reported by the media, revolves around a lack of necessary manpower to effectively get all of Maricopa County's election technology ready in time for Tuesday's primary vote.  

The county blames the contractor who in this case happens to be Insight who Tuesday upon being blamed for botching the setup of the voter ID "sitebooks" in a number of locations, pointed a finger squarely back in the direction of the county.  Insight remained firm in their stance that the "County wasn't ready" after claiming the county equipment wasn't functioning properly and contrary to the county's claims, Insight had provided "more technicians than required"

What you don't know and my friend does is that Insight, the primary contractor, subcontracted with another staffing firm to supplement it's own staff to do the work.

Not that it really mattered... 

I was told that training of subcontractors mirrored Insight's "regular" employee training consisting of watching a 15 minute video and a multi-page instruction sheet that was to be printed out.   In addition technicians were required to view another video on the use of Insight's  SmartPhone APP which was clearly identified as being in BETA.   In other words, not in final WORKING form.  This "APP" was to be the "preferred" means of communicating and managing assigned jobs.

At no point in this process was any other training provided to the subcontractors meaning technicians unfamiliar with both the equipment and Maricopa County election procedure were expected to somehow "magically" set up a site without ever having touched the equipment they were responsible for.  The backup plan, that same printed instructional document and vague references to a support hierarchy which as we now know was insufficient.

In addition my friend related that throughout the preceding week and weekend numerous procedural and  schedule changes were made some right up to an hour before the first work was to be performed creating an atmosphere of chaos with little to no resolution in sight.

The Chaos was further reinforced by a frequent lack of communication between Insight, the County and the secondary contractor.   Ultimately it lead to conflicting directives where my friend would receive multiple communications from multiple sources and no clear path as to which was to be followed.

The key takeaway here isn't who is to blame.  It really isn't folks.

The blame falls squarely on treating an election like just another IT contract.  Governments are NOT businesses.  I've said this before.  

Governments aren't organized to make a profit for shareholders.  That's what corporations are for and their loyalty is to profit not the public good.  

By the Way, I'm way ahead of you.  Don't fool yourself, you're NOT a shareholder any more than the employee of a corporation wields the boardroom power of  a Warren Buffet.

If you still contend that government should be treated like a business then you must also accept that in doing so you may as well tear up the Bill of Rights and surrender such inconsequential tenets of democracy like:

Freedom of Speech - Businesses don't have to allow you to speak your views.  Free speech stops at the street.

Equal rights - Sure you can try to sue if you're wronged but there's a reason most people don't.  It's an expensive, lengthy process in a David Vs. Goliath battle that few rarely win largely done on your dime.  That can be tough if you're out of a job.

A fair days work for a fair day's pay - OK, far too many are trapped making less than a "living wage" but at least we get paid in something we can spend where we choose.  In the 19th century, corporations would frequently engage in the "Company Store" model issuing payment in their own currency useless anywhere but a company owned business.

Perhaps we're too far removed from those days of corporate indentured servitude to recognize the flaw in the logic.

But we're not talking about politics here.  I could care less who you voted for but I do care when something like an election is treated as just another business deal.

What you get is corporate greed, minimal effort and abdication of responsibility with no recourse.

Public/Private partnerships are a great idea but only if the Public part is firmly in control of someone whose interests are to the people and not to a corporate bottom line. 

Especially if it has to do with something like an election.

Dismiss this and you reject the fundamental principles of what this country was founded upon.

Fixing the lie of "for profit" schools (revised and angrier!)

After my last article about the lie of for profit schools a friend of mine wrote to me saying that while he agreed with most of my take on the Devry's of the world he couldn't completely agree with it. 

Of course this sparked a larger discussion when I saw him a few days later.  Briefly, his position was that while for profit schools may be more apt to focus on their bank account than the curriculum it didn't necessarily elevate public universities to Mother Theresa status.

He related a few key points in his argument. 

•      Nobody's forced to attend a post-secondary school.
•      Non-profit doesn't necessarily mean eligible for sainthood.
•   Schools aren't completely responsible for the success or failure of a student. 

Let's take a look at these...

Yes, education after high school is completely voluntary  but I'd argue completely necessary.  That is unless you think cashiering at your local fast food joint is a career path.  Considering I could barely count change when I graduated from high school, a little extra classroom time was beneficial.

When we're talking about non-profits it's a given that anything touched by humanity is by default corrupted by its ambitions.  Even the Bible couldn't escape that truth and neither does a non-profit school.

He pointed to how non-profits may not offer stocks traded on the NYSE but it never stopped them from wasting millions on something other than their stated reason for being. Admittedly, it's hard to frame the building of a new football stadium at "(Insert State here) University" as a catalyst for advancing education.

Still, at least the money went back into advancing something other than a quarterly dividend to some shareholder.  I'd also remind you that there are plenty of non-profits that don't have their own football stadium. 

His last point goes without saying, we are to at least some degree in control of our own destiny.  If in the pursuit of it we're mislead into making a poor decision, however, somebody needs to be held accountable.  It's the reason we have the Federal Trade Commission.  If you mislead the public about your product expect to pay the consequences.  That's the set of rules you have to accept if you're in the "business" of selling education like Oscar Mayer sells hot dogs. 

Yes, public universities also suffer the sin of selling unnecessary classes too but they're a damned sight cheaper and at least the credits transfer.  Oh yeah, and they're not setting up the curriculum based on a revenue projection.

That's really the crux of the argument.  As I said in the last article, if you're going to just sell education as a product then your focus isn't on advancing knowledge.  Rather it's advancing your bottom line.

So here's the part where my friend agreed with me.

I hold the belief that any educational institution that operates as a profit entity shouldn't have access to public funds.  Yes, I'm suggesting that taxpayer backed student loans and grants shouldn't be given to institutions whose reason for being is the make money. 

I see no reason to provide public funding to someone's private venture with virtually no oversight and dubious value to society.  It's not unlike the uproar over the AIG bailout or the furor over saving domestic automakers.  The difference here is that there's even less oversight of public monies in for-profit schools than there was for the billions we gave to banks and insurance companies. 

If your school is in it for the money then put it where your mouth is.  The Devry's and ITT's of the world  shouldn't be getting the bulk of their revenues from government backed student loans and grants.  If they want to offer financing they should be providing it themselves and not passing it on to taxpayers.

That means your education may still cost $50k for a Bachelor's degree but if it doesn't live up to the hype and you go broke because of it at least there's always bankruptcy. 

It's not that I'm against private schools or even alternative education, on the contrary.  I myself was attracted to ITT Tech and then the University of Phoenix exactly because I didn't want to waste time on classes that had nothing to do with my chosen course of study. 

That's been a failing of public universities in the past and it caused a drop in enrollment which ultimately benefitted alternatives like the for-profit schools.  A problem, by the way,  that's only recently been addressed by many universities adopting a similar program structure to the for-profit schools.

So if the Not for profit schools have been able to adjust their programs to match the profit schools and still be 2 to 4 times cheaper for the same degree then where's the justification for the extra cost? 

As much as I may have enjoyed my time at ITT Tech nobody holds that degree in the same regard as say a year of study at M.I.T.  So how can you justify charging almost the same money for a year of education at an IVY league school ?

The simple answer goes back to that old marketing adage, Sell benefits not features.  Advertising a benefit is essentially selling an intangible product that's almost impossible to challenge.  Where features like power windows, cruise control or Air conditioning are tangible.  Looking Cool, being admired and improving your station in life are not. 

They're the warm fuzzies that you can't quite put your finger on and if you can't define what it is that's motivating you then you can't challenge their value either.   Convincing me that I'm going to be just as valuable to the world as an M.I.T. graduate based on a bare bones"heat and serve" boilerplate curriculum is just a lie.

That, my friends, is exactly what for-profit schools are selling.  Not the quality of their programs but the promise of improving your condition for a premium price.  Whether or not it's justified is entirely subjective but I'd rather not be putting taxpayers on the line for it. 

If you're a for-profit school and your programs fail to deliver you still have the taxpayer's money no matter how successful the students are.  You've effectively conned the government into supporting your corporate bottom line. 

Perhaps it's the biggest con game of all when you can get public money to support private enterprise that by its very nature is set up to only enrich itself.  

I mean at least Boeing has to deliver helicopters that don't crash in the desert for the billions they get from the Department of Defense.  Where's the accountability for the University of Phoenix and Devry's of the world who take billions in public education money? 

Does it make any sense that government financing has turned these schools into multibillion dollar corporations whose only reason for existence is to keep the public money pump primed and flowing?  They can't deny it, their "business" model is set up to support a revenue stream no matter how much it degrades the product.  It really is that simple.  If you're a corporation, you're in it for the money anything else is just marketing.

This actually speaks to the flawed logic of people who believe that government should be run like a business.  It just doesn't work simply because where business exists for the enrichment of itself, government exists for the public good (or at least it used to).

Government that exists for the betterment of itself usually has a dictator at the helm and that's not good for anybody. 

The logic fits for education as well.  Hopefully my point is a bit clearer now.

  

Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession

Article first published as Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession on Technorati.

Arizona is certainly a trendsetter, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons...

This week, hot on the heels of President Barack Obama's second term the local news reports that over 14,000 Arizona residents have signed a petition to ask "permission" to secede from the union.  The petition was started by the mysterious Nicholas M. of Gilbert, Az. 

Using the White House's We the People website a petition submitted by our Mr. "M" states...

 "The citizens of the great state of Arizona have the right to stand for their principles,” and  “That man is granted unalienable rights, which are not the dispensations of the government, but find their beginnings in God and come from God alone. These are the principles that our forefathers stood for, the principles upon which our Constitution is based, and those in which we firmly place our belief and resolve"

I'm not sure which constitution he's talking about. 

To hold up the U.S. Constitution won't work since it governs the body you're trying to leave.  To hold up a  state constitution is folly since the last state to have anything resembling a secession clause was Texas.  In fact one of the conditions of statehood is to specifically remove any secession language from the constitution of the prospective state.

Arizona isn't alone in its activism and apparently all  50 states have similar petitions in the wake of the election with some more successful than others.   

In Texas an equally mysterious character in the person of Micah H. has managed to collect over 100,000 signatures for his Texas secession petition. 

Strange how all these mysterious characters are suddenly starting petitions.  It's almost as though there was some type of organized effort.  Perhaps by a conservative group pre-occupied with politics and hot caffeinated beverages?

Petitions require only 25,000 signatures to receive an "official" response which upon meeting that threshold is likely to go something like this, "Thanks for your petition, we value your opinion but No"

Even Arizona's fiery state's rights advocate, Gov. Jan Brewer, has publicly stated she did not support the idea of secession.  Of course she doesn't.  Her distaste for the federal government may be obvious but no state can afford to lose its share of the Federal dole.

Unfortunately for the secessionists, they're not likely to find much support from other state governors either.  Setting aside the legal ramifications, state governments are far too dependent on federal funding to seriously entertain the idea of secession. 

When the South lost the Civil War (a secessionist movement)  it was due to a failing economy and flawed economic construct.   Perhaps it is the best example of the dangers of an extreme ideology overruling reason.   Apparently history has few lessons for a secessionist. 

So much for the bloodless revolution.

They want your SSN.....again...

How they do try...

I received this email today that instantly went to my junk email folder but the scary thing is that for a split second I believed it was actually from the Social Security Administration.

It's definitely a fake especially the part about "Don't miss out on your Social Security Number benefits"

Yeah, wouldn't want to miss out on that...