The Des Moines Register. April 8, 2015.
Branstad decision damages Iowa Utilities Board
Whatever prompted Gov. Terry Branstad to force Sheila Tipton off the Iowa Utilities Board, the effect of that change cannot be argued: It has damaged the board and undermined it mission of ensuring that all Iowans have access to safe, affordable utilities.
Tipton says she was pulled off the three-member board to appease MidAmerican Energy and “bring the agency in line” so that future decisions would favor the utilities over their customers, and she makes a convincing case.
Three months ago, the board voted to approve Mid-American’s plan to build 67 wind turbines, but it required the company to return $2 million annually to its customers to help balance out the project’s risks and rewards. Three days after that vote, MidAmerican executives met with the governor and argued that the board’s decision was unfair. MidAmerican told The Associated Press that it looked forward to working with a new board.
A few weeks later, Branstad appointed Geri Huser, who has very little utilities experience, to replace Tipton and take over as the board chairwoman, demoting Elizabeth Jacobs. A spokesman for the governor has said only that changes are intended to “improve the board” and that “the governor is free to make changes that he feels will best serve Iowans, while considering Iowa law to maintain gender and party balance.”
No one disputes the governor’s ability to make such a change. It’s the wisdom of the decision - and his failure to adequately explain it - that are being questioned.
Even if one assumes the governor’s motives are pure, his decision to replace Tipton at this point in time damages the board’s credibility and standing with Iowans. Whatever the reality is, the perception of many people will be that the board now exists not to protect consumers but to do the bidding of the industry.
That perception can only be heightened by Branstad’s close association with MidAmerican. After his first stint as governor, he served on MidAmerican’s board of directors. The company is also a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, whose executives are Branstad campaign contributors.
The governor is entitled to make appointments as he sees fit. But unlike department heads, Iowa Utility Board members have direct oversight and regulatory responsibilities. As Tipton pointed out in a recent letter to Branstad, the board is supposed to operate independently and in the public’s best interest, without facing political pressure or threats of retaliation.
By disposing of Tipton after meeting with MidAmerican officials, Branstad has, intentionally or otherwise, sent a dangerous message to the board and its staff: They owe their jobs to the industry they oversee.
___
Quad-City Times. Aug. 11, 2015.
Grassley takes on government ’racketeering’
On Wednesday, Sen. Charles Grassley will wield his Senate Judiciary Committee gavel to launch a hearing on America’s ongoing racketeering operation: Civil asset forfeiture.
“Racketeering” is our word for systemic looting of Americans under the guise of crime fighting.
“The asset forfeiture program has become too much of a money-making business for the government,” Grassley’s office said in a statement last week. “The rule of law ought to be about protecting innocent people, not padding the coffers of the federal treasury.”
Yet story after story in The Des Moines Register, Washington Post and elsewhere tell of honest, law-abiding Americans losing earned assets without ever being convicted, or in many cases, even charged with a single crime.
- Carol Hinders had $32,821 seized from her bank account by IRS agents, according to Register reports. The IRS ignored her proof the money came from her Spirit Lake business, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Restaurant. Hinders never faced any criminal charges and the IRS was forced to return the money a year later.
- Michael Sanchez-Ratliff, was a Chicagoan heading cross-country through Iowa with $19,000 in gifts and savings, according to the Register. Ratliff had it all seized by a Pottawattamie County deputy who caught him traveling five miles over the posted speed limit. Ratliff never was charged with any crime and police provided no evidence of any criminal activity. A judge later ordered the money returned, but Ratliff still is fighting to get back $7,000 the government wants to keep for its attorneys fees
The Washington Post’s “Stop and Seize” series in in 2014 showed state and federal seizures to be organized operations, not trends or coincidences among different departments. After 9/11, federal and state agencies prioritized forfeiture and promoted training to improve officers’ haul.
“Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of ’highway interdiction’ to departments across the country,” the Post reported in September. “A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing ’trophy shots’ of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.”
Grassley acknowledges the public safety benefits of focused enforcement, but condemns these well-documented excesses. The forfeiture culture fuels a cash stream Grassley suspects is being abused. In a letter last month to the Justice Department’s U.S. Marshal’s service, Grassley fired pointed questions that suggest the marshals, “wasted AFF resources on extravagant office decorations,” funded through forfeitures.
Grassley convenes Wednesday’s hearing to push for regulations that keep cops focused on criminals, not just cash. The Register and Post investigations unearthed sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. The pattern of abuses points to systemic seizures that no longer can be hidden under a cloak of law and order.
We’re glad to see Grassley use his Judiciary Committee power to curtail these abuses and end the racketeering tactics we’d hoped our Justice Department would prevent, not employ.
___
Fort Dodge Messenger. April 8, 2015.
Conservation efforts get a big boost
Clean, safe water is important to all living things.
Consequently, it’s very good news that the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has announced that nine new Urban Conservation Water Quality Initiative Demonstration Projects located all across Iowa have been selected to receive $655,194 in funding. These initiatives join 16 already supported Water Quality Initiative demonstration projects in targeted watersheds that are focused on helping farmers implement and demonstrate water quality practices.
The newly funded projects are located in Ames, Calmar, Cedar Falls, Des Moines, Granger, Lake City, Storm Lake, Webster City and West Des Moines.
“This is an exciting next step for the Iowa Water Quality Initiative as we work together with communities, businesses and homeowners in our towns and cities,” Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey said late last month in announcing the latest awards. “Expanding the Water Quality Initiative to include these projects builds on the important partnership of urban and rural areas working together to protect and improve water quality.”
According to IDALS, Iowa has provided $7.4 million to fund water quality projects. To augment that effort, the department has leveraged an additional $11.7 million of funding from partners and landowners.
The goal of the new projects is further conservation measures that capture and allow storm water to be absorbed into the ground and reduce a property’s contribution to water quality degradation, stream flows and flooding, according to information released by IDALS. Reducing nutrient loads in surface waters is also an objective.
Northey and other officials at IDALS deserve applause for getting these important new projects underway. The department’s water quality initiatives warrant the enthusiastic support of all Iowans.
___
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. April 12, 2015.
Observe existing review process if pulling a book from classrooms
Anytime a book is pulled from school classrooms, it’s bound to create a bit of a stir.
Such was the case recently when Waterloo Schools officials pulled the novel “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” from the middle school curriculum.
However, the matter could have flown under the radar had the district simply followed its own policy. First some background.
A parent complained about the novel. Debbie Lee, the district’s executive director of K-12 curriculum then sent an email to teachers, staff members and administrators.
“I am requiring all copies of the novel, ’The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian’, be removed from our classroom booksets,” Lee wrote. “This book is not appropriate for use as an instructional tool in our middle school classrooms.”
The decision was made after Lee consulted with Superintendent Jane Lindaman.
That led to a protest from a small group of teachers via e-mail responses. The e-mail exchange made its way into the literacy education community at the University of Northern Iowa.
“I think this situation deserves a cold, hard look,” said UNI English education professor Jeff Copeland, who forwarded the e-mail to Sherman Alexi, the author. “If people in Ms. Lee’s position can decide for themselves what is appropriate and not appropriate in the classroom, without involving at least a “book reconsideration committee” … where does something like that stop?”
The district does have a policy calling for the creation of a Challenged Materials Review Committee which — should a complaint be filed — would read, examine and discuss the novel before providing a written report on whether it is appropriate for classrooms.
In this case, a review committee was not formed. According to Lindaman, the complaint from the parent was not a “formal challenge” and did not warrant a review. The parent, apparently, never filled out the requisite paperwork to elevate the “complaint” to a “challenge.”
That seems a quibbling detail. It’s our stance district officials should think about going through the review process any time a book is to be pulled from a school in which it is being actively used in classroom curriculum.
None of the members of this editorial board have read “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” so we’re certainly not going to make any assumptions. And we want to be clear that we don’t necessarily disagree with the ultimate decision of the district in pulling this book, which has been banned in dozens of schools across the nation.
Our point: If you go to the trouble of creating a process to review books, why not use the process?
As with any literary work, there will be arguments on the merits of its contents. We respect the right of any parent to object to literature they deem inappropriate for their children.
We see this case as a learning opportunity for all involved.
Here’s a couple suggestions we think would work in the future when deeming what books are inappropriate.
1. If there’s a policy in place, follow it.
2. If there’s any doubt on if the policy should be used, follow it.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.