Speed Gibson

This is the third of my audits examining the quantity and quality of our local evening news, either 9 pm or 10 pm. The analysis begins when the local station takes control and ending when the program after the news begins.

Station: KSTP-5
Date: 25-Jan-2005
Total Elapsed Time: 35:03
Percents: News: 43% (World 3% National 6% State 10% Local 24%)
Weather: 9%
Sports: 9%
Commercials: 34%
Intro, Promos, Credits: 5%

I was very pleasantly surprised to find no fluff in this broadcast, compared with 18% on KARE-11 and 30% on WCCO-4. So while they had slightly fewer seconds of air time, and slightly more commercials, I think that for tonight anyway, KSTP can truly claim to have more news, and it was solid, informative coverage.

I also didn’t think I’d like Ms. Brucato, either. I haven’t watched her since her return, remembering her aggressive style on WCCO-TV many years ago. She’s now much calmer and more poised. Also, she’s the sole anchor, and I find that rather refreshing. There simply is no need for two anchors, and the needless banter and scripted transitions that go with them.

I detected no political bias.

KSTP is in "the lead” so far in terms of both quality and quantity. That doesn't mean I'll return to being a regular viewer, but when there's a big local story, KSTP will be the first choice.

So now I think I'll do another round, see if these numbers for the big three hold.

Again blogging from an undisclosed location due to continuing modem/ISP problems, I can at least report that pound #5 has been lost. This was my quota for January 2005, so today I start February's five pound quota with a five day head start.

January 2005 Averages:

Calories consumed: 2,293
Exercise calories: 180
Fat: 89 grams (34.9% of calories)
Sodium: 3.9 grams
Fiber: 17 grams

This is the second of my audits examining the quantity and quality of our local evening news, either 9 pm or 10 pm. The analysis begins when the local station takes control and ending when the program after the news begins.

Station: WCCO-4
Date: 24-Jan-2005
Total Elapsed Time: 35:15
Percents: News: 48% (World 0% National 6% State 11% Local 31%)
Weather: 6%
Sports: 9%
Commercials: 33%
Intro, Promos, Credits: 4%

Compare with: KARE-11 19-Jan

By my reckoning, there were over six minutes of fluff, needless detail usually of a "human interest" variety that added little or nothing to the story. An excellent example tonight was a piece on how low-carb cereals just don't taste very good. Who could have guessed that? As a percent of non-commercial, non-promo content, this was 30%. KARE-11 was only 18% in last week's audit.

There was a slight aroma of political bias, but not worth detailing. And I was a little surprised that there wasn't any international news tonight, not even from Iraq.

The "happy talk" was a trifle too happy tonight, but otherwise the broadcast was smooth.

As the recent Senate proceedings indicate, we have a number of U. S. Senators of questionable intellect, not exactly compus mentus. You know some of the names: Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Mark Dayton, and to be fair, Arlen Specter. How do such marginal people get elected to this august body?

They get there by being celebrities, and running as such. The Constitution provision that would have blocked most of these was repealed in the 17th Amendment. The Senate was originally supposed to be elected from the state legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed it to direct election, and now campaign finance "reform" has all but made it a millionaire's club.

The likes of a Mark Dayton would never have been sent to Washington, even if the DFL held both houses. Too many others, better qualified, with more experience, having paid their dues within the Legislature would easily have defeated a party back-bencher like Dayton. We might not like their votes any better, but at least they wouldn't embarrass the state, including the DFL.

The millionaires are in charge of the Senate, and are unlikely to propose, let alone pass an Amendment repealing the 17th Amendment for the states to ratify. We can at least point to this and say that repealing Electoral College, taking ultimate control away from the state legislatures, would be equally foolish.

Monday's lead editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (MST) leads off with (emphasis added):

Of all the lies -- let's call them by their right name -- that the Bush administration is spreading about Social Security, none is as vile as the canard Bush repeated last Tuesday, when he said, "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the [Social Security] system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. And that needs to be fixed." That is an entirely phony assertion; it has been debunked by the Social Security Administration, by the Government Accountability Office and by other experts. Bush and those around him know that. For them to repeat what they know to be a blatant lie is despicable fear-mongering.

In my book, you had better be sure of your facts before you call someone a liar, let alone the President. You had better be very sure if you use the strong language I highlighted.

Bush didn't make up this phony line on his own; it comes from the Heritage Foundation, which a number of years ago did a study purporting to show that because African-Americans have a shorter life expectancy than whites, they get less in return for the taxes they pay into the Social Security system.

This didn't originate with the Heritage Foundation. Indeed, it's just common sense. Consider this analysis:

Children from poor families tend to start work - and start paying employment taxes - at a relatively early age; children from higher income families at a much later age. At the other end of the life cycle, persons with lower incomes on the average have a shorter life span than persons with higher incomes. The net result is that the poor tend to pay taxes for more years and receive benefits for fewer years than the rich - all in the name of helping the poor! -- From Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman, published 1979.

Since African-Americans are unfortunately still averaging less income and life span than most, the above still holds. If there was any doubt, Dr. Walter E. Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell, two prominent African-American economists have repeatedly made the same point for the same reasons. The MST only focuses on the Heritage Foundation study.

The problem that the MST and liberals in general have here is that once again, they think in only in terms of groups. Fairness within a group or at the individual level is not considered.

The GAO reached the same conclusion. It said that, "In the aggregate, blacks and Hispanics have higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, and thus receive greater benefits relative to taxes [paid] than whites."

But if you're a young black man starting out, you know better. Increasingly, so does every young worker. Their grandparents got back far more than they put in. Their parents won't do as well, but they'll be fine. Your generation will not; if we do nothing, your taxes will be raised and your benefits slashed. Oh, but I must be lying again. Let the MST reassure you:

The system is not in crisis; it has money to last for about the next half century, and even then, if nothing is done the required benefit cuts would still leave retirees better off than those getting benefits today. Pay close attention to this debate, and don't get snookered. The crisis in Social Security is no more real than the "crisis" that led the United States to war in Iraq.

What was President Bill Clinton, really most everyone in Washington, talking about in 1998-1999, when the possibility of running a Federal surplus appeared? "Save" - "Strengthen" - "Shore up" Social Security was the call, priority one for "spending" the surplus. Tim Russert quoted Clinton on Meet the Press to a Democrat, asking what happened to the crisis? He ducked.

As for all the information the MST quoted from the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office, consider these strong words from the normally soft-spoken Roses, again from Free to Choose:

As we have gone through the literature on Social Security, we have been shocked at the arguments that have been used to defend the program. Individuals who would not lie to their children, their friends, or their colleagues, whom all of us would trust implicitly in the most important personal dealings, have propagated a false view of Social Security. Their intelligence and exposure to contrary views make it hard to believe that they have done so unintentionally and innocently.

I decided to embark on another series, examining the quantity and quality of our local evening news, either 9 pm or 10 pm. As I was watching Law & Order tonight, KARE-11 will be first. The analysis begins when the local station takes control and ending when the program after the news begins.

Station: KARE-11
Date: 19-Jan-2005
Total Elapsed Time: 35:14

Percents:
News: 43% (World 4% National 11% State 11% Local 17%)
Weather: 11%
Sports: 11%
Commercials: 30%
Intro, Promos, Credits: 5%

By my reckoning, there were about four minutes of fluff, needless detail usually of a "human interest" variety that added little or nothing to the story. As a percent of non-commercial, non-promo content, this was 18%.

I saw no significant political bias.

Other than the fluff, this was a very smooth, well-edited broadcast for this rather slow news day. High marks for Julie Nelson in particular.

I heard at least three pundits discuss the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr holiday conceptually, now the only American holiday to name an individual. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, even Christopher Columbus are now just a part of President's Day and Explorer's Day. So, the pundits ask, why not here also? Is not the Civil Rights movement, really going back to the beginning of slavery in North America, much larger than any one man? Why don't we call it Civil Rights Day as Rush Limbaugh suggested?

One such man was Frederick Douglass. My old-time radio service (www.rusc.com) began publishing a "new" series circa 1947 called Destination Freedom. Radio historian John Dunning wrote:

"Though it never appeared on a national network, it was one of the most powerful and important shows of its day. It was a striking achievement, a voice whose passion and courage overcame every budgetary shortcoming to become perhaps the strongest plea for Negro rights ever heard on American Radio".

The first episode was about Frederick Douglass, up to where he met President Lincoln. Of the many quotes used, this one stood out:

"Men are whipped oftenest who are whipped easiest." -- Frederick Douglass

Those words had real meaning to Douglass, who had escaped the slavery he was born into in Maryland, but his point lives on, even now to the blogosphere. Twenty five years ago, the Conservatives were whipped often in the media so easily owned by the Liberals. But then came our champion, Ronald Reagan, then Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, Fox News, now ... us. Douglass himself expanded on the point:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, men like King and Douglass sought to improve life for all, not just "their" people. This third Monday in January should be dedicated to all such great men and women of the Civil Rights Movement, that we might be worthy of what they have given us.

Our local Legislators held a couple of town meetings this month, one of the topics being transportation funding.

The proposal to dedicate 100% of the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to transportation came up. I believe about half currently goes to the General Fund. It would seem to make sense to dedicate MVET to roads, but I'm not sure exactly what the MVET really is. Is it the sales tax on purchasing vehicles, the annual registration tax, or both? I did some Google'ing, found no hard definitions and many sites one way or the other.

If we're talking sales taxes here, then I would say 100% should go to the General Fund. A car is a purchase like anything else subject to sales tax. As for the registration tax, the first $35 or so should fund the record keeping, and any excess be devoted to roads (IMO). Better still, just charge $35 for all passenger vehicles.

You'll note I said roads, not public transit. And you'll note I said public transit, not mass transit, because it now handles such a small percent of the trips. Governor Pawlenty's proposal for a 60-40 split between roads and public transit is yet another reason why he will likely not get my vote for re-election. Like Light Rail and related proposals, this makes no sense at all. Public transit can benefit from some road construction, like bus lanes and park & rides. But the operating losses should come out of the General Fund like any other subsidy.

Roads can and should be paid for by fuel taxes, including the fuel consumed by public transportation buses. If that takes an increase in the gas tax, so be it. At least we know where it's going. Pawlenty has waffled on so many other topics that he might as well raise taxes, too. Just call it a "pump fee" as one candidate did recently.

People's Republic of Minnesota found a newspaper that "gets it" regarding blogs, which got me thinking. Yes, this at least acknowledges the bloggers, and the paper can make a little money with banner ads. But suppose a paper (SPPP?) did this:

1. Encourage staff to blog, replacing "ombudsman" column.
   
2. Publish paper online for free, with 7 days' access to archives.
   
3. Those who subscribe to "dead tree" edition get 30 days' access to archives.
   
4. Provide your own web hosting site. You get one blog account with with an electronic subscription that gives you full access to archives. (The paper can revoke your blog for indecency, idiocy, etc.)
   
5. These Junior Woodchuck bloggers are the new copy boys and stringers. Some might earn a byline covering local high school sporting events, for example.
   
6. Work out a deal with SuperAmerica and/or Holiday (and Caribou, Starbucks, ...) to have a "full" subscription - both electronic and dead tree" where you present your prepaid "card" to pick up a dead tree copy. Long term you phase out carrier delivery. But now, St. Paul could use this to market in Mpls and vice versa.
   

This is how newspapers, otherwise dying, could re-invent themselves.

The Federal Government has issued new diet and exercise guidelines. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture have been issuing these since 1980.

The guidelines ... recommend eating many more fruits and vegetables, more low-fat milk, more whole grains, and increasing exercise to as much as 90 minutes a day for those trying to keep off the pounds.

With America's increasing weight problem, the guidelines now focus on weight maintenance and loss. Diet and exercise are the means to that end. There is continued emphasis on reducing fats, particularly saturated and "trans" fats, increasing fiber, and some discussion of heart-healthy exercise, but mainly, it's about weight.

There is a general recommendation to reduce salt to 2300 mg (1 teaspoon) per day, about half what I current consume, and I seldom salt anything at the table, even corn on the cob. Most people, thankfully including me, do not have to worry about sodium. There is even some newer evidence that reducing sodium intake, while generally successful for treating high blood pressure, may not the true culprit. High sodium intake reflects a poor diet, as in fast food and TV dinners. Shifting to more healthy foods increases other nutrients such as calcium, which may cause the improvements seen.

The new fiber requirement seems quite high to me, about double what I currently consume. My quick scan of internet articles suggests that I would get virtually all of the benefits with just a modest increase. These higher fiber and lower salt guidelines would all but force you to eat all those vegetables and whole grains they want, and maybe that's the point.

The 30 minutes of daily exercise minimum has been raised to 60 just to maintain your weight, 90 if you're trying to lose weight. That, too, seems beyond most people's schedules. Next, we'll have to make bricks without straw!

I was glad to see this reaffirmed: "Controlling calories -- not limiting carbohydrates, as some popular diets recommend -- is key to controlling weight." As Dan Rather would say, you can take that to the bank.

Clear Channel Communications has apparently decided that there are too many commercials on their programming for their own good. I posted on this last September noting the ever increasing number of ads on TV and radio.

Starting this week, Rush Limbaugh now has about 3 minutes more content per hour, to about 39 minutes per hour. Rush says this is a reduction in local spots, not his filthy lucre. Regardless, this is a day I thought would never come, a reversal of the long slide to 50% content.

Since I subscribe to both Rush Limbaugh's and Dennis Prager's web services, I can report that for hour one yesterday, Prager ran 35 minutes as usual, Rush 39 minutes. It's Salem's turn now. They can't be getting much for Hugh Hewitt's incessant pleading that we buy Iraqi currency anyway, so how about a little more real Hugh Hewitt?

Hugh Hewitt is unhappy that the bloggers haven't reacted more strongly to the CBS report and actions regarding those infamous forged memos. In fact, he asked the rest of us bloggers to take up the slack and thereby push NARN, LGF, etc. OK, here's my small contribution.

What catches my eye is Hindrocket's theory that CBS moved up the TANG piece from late Sept 2004 to early Sept because the Kerry campaign was taking hard hits from the SwiftVets.

First, the fact the CBS (and the MSM generally) ignored the SwiftVets with real evidence and testimony eliminates any thought that CBS was just pursuing a good story, with no political bias. The real evidence available against John Kerry didn't matter. The imaginary evidence against George W. Bush did. Further, unlike the TANG story, the SwiftVet story was germane to the election, since Kerry ran on his war record. Case closed.

Second, is the timing. Supposing the SwiftVets hadn't bothered. Without such pressure, CBS apparently would have run this story much later in Sept. And with time, someone might have realized they needed better forgeries and made some, plus a better story to corroborate their existence and sudden discovery.

It would have been much harder for the Bush campaign to fight off a more competent fraud, executed several weeks closer to election day. Perhaps we owe the SwiftVets more than we know.

The City of Minneapolis is broke, heading toward default. The Legislature, also broke, is back in session, but Minneapolis is no longer able to curry favor with them, particularly the Republicans whom they have snubbed for decades. Things are desperate enough now for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and others to consider needed, overdue change.

The current system of ward politics has generated much of the past trouble, and certainly will be no part of any real solution. As the Star Tribune wrote on Dec 19, 2004:

The problem with Minneapolis' current structure -- and political culture -- is that it values inefficiency and insularity; residents tend to think in terms of neighborhoods only, instead of a single, living, breathing, more broadly competitive city. The focus tends to become my park, my school, my council member, my ward, my intersection. Frequently, those ownerships are invoked in preserving my things against the claims of others -- and especially against any attempt to bring the city together in an effort to enunciate a shared vision.

The Star Tribune has proposed a consolidated government with a City Manager. There are other choices, like dividing Minneapolis into, say, three smaller cities (East, North/Downtown, South?). It's not a solution to the financial crisis, but such reform is essential to avoiding the next one.

We can't just allow Minneapolis to collapse like a dying star into a "forbidden zone" where everyone who can moves out. The Legislature, having created much of the problem in the first place and having put off the day of reckoning for 20 years or more, does in my opinion, have a responsibility to assist righting the financial ship. But the needed reforms needed to keep Minneapolis solvent must be part of the package.

Curious, isn't it. Almost all of the voting irregularities cited by presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000, and now Sen. Barbara Boxer and others in 2004 occur in solidly Democratic party precincts. The Democrats run the machinery, most of the voters are Democrats, but somehow the Republicans are to blame. The dead have no trouble voting, but the living can't seem to figure it out.

I have a suggestion. The Republicans should form some teams of veteran poll workers that can go in to run the elections in these places, since the locals apparently cannot. Voting equipment is staged in semi trailers, ready to roll when the call to the hot line comes in.

If they don't call, they can't complain.

So far, we've heard from the proponents of reforming Minneapolis's charter, currently of a "weak mayor, strong council" nature. But as Jim Boyd reported, the current charter is really just the codified collection of the state statutes in effect in 1920. There is no real grand design connecting its dots.

We've also heard from the independent Library and Park boards who contend this arrangement works for Minneapolis, not against. But let's now review what the City Council has said, as reported Dec 18 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, starting with its president Paul Ostow.

Focusing narrowly on our form of government ... fails to consider the very significant measures we have taken to make City Hall both more efficient and more accountable

For the first time in the city's history, each department is preparing a five-year business plan. These plans align resources and services and require managers to plan for the long haul. We have developed performance measures to assess our efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services.

Those of us in the private sector know that a five year business plan is a relic of the past. Three years is about tops these days. But to Mr. Ostow's procedures can hardly be expected to work if no one is truly invested in making the work, as is the case today. Paul Zerby, Ward 2, notes:

[The] decisions [to severely cut our local government aid and to shift our tax burden onto residential property] were not inflicted on us because Minneapolis has a "strong" council or a "weak" mayor or doesn't have a powerful city manager.

The suggestions for improving our city government that your editorial writers make certainly should be given the consideration they deserve. However, to suggest that any such changes in our governance structure will of themselves significantly change what happens to us at the Legislature strikes me as extremely unrealistic...

I would turn this around a bit. As others implied in initial spread on Dec 5, the Legislature covered the host of sins facilitated and committed by Minneapolis's awkward structure. Until recently, Minneapolis has seldom needed to "choose" one way or another; with state help, they got it all. That protection is being withdrawn now, exposing the underlying flaws. Barb Johnson, Ward 4 writes:

I was disappointed in the articles that portrayed Minneapolis as full of dysfunction. Yes, we are complicated, but citizens have unprecedented participation in their government. That is a good thing. The portrayal of our employees as obstacles to change denigrates the good work they do.

"Unprecedented participation" does not work in business or the military. Can you imagine a general beset with all kinds of free advice from the privates who only know what's happening within a few hundred yards? Why should it work in government? Citizens don't want to participate in plowing their streets. They just want them plowed, whether that involves calling a city department under a City Manager or your ward's council member. Me, I'd rather talk to the public works director, not my council member.

And no one is portraying employees as the obstacles - it's the positions they've been assigned. Good people will do even better with clear lines of communication and accountability. Next up, Lisa Goodman, Ward 10:

Change for change's sake is not what's needed at this critical time in our city's history; change in order to ensure a better community for future generations is.

Again, the cart is before the horse. The current chaos, the lack of change, that's what's created the critical time in your city's history. Further, no solution can take root in such poor soil. As Dan Niziolek of Ward 10 notes:

Minneapolis' flat, ward-based organizational structure inhibits clear accountability, discourages departments' collaboration and encourages parochial governance.

A council/city-administrator form of government would celebrate the high level of participatory democracy in Minneapolis, while partnering it with more professional management.

After their Dec 5 opening round of comment and proposals for reforming Minneapolis's convoluted city government structure, some somewhat predictable rebuttals were published Dec 18.

Gregory Gray, former DFL State Representative and current Mpls Library Board trustee wrote that "... many of the suggestions offered in the editorial are poorly thought out and often unsupported by facts." For example,

The Star Tribune has proposed reducing council members to part-time status by specifying their salaries could be no more than one-quarter or one-third that of the mayor's. Yet even though council members would be making a fraction of what they now do, the editorial seems to suggest they should be responsible for even more work.

For example, the council would still have to perform constituent service work, which, while rarely making the news, constitutes the largest block of time in an elected official's day.

Further, the Star Tribune's plan would cut in half the number of wards, thereby doubling the number of constituents that each remaining ward council member would have. The paper's plan also would add responsibility for managing libraries and parks to the council.

Give Mr. Gray partial credit on this one. Each of six wards would have over 50,000 residents, huge by suburban standards. But a suburban style City Manager operation would field much of the constituent work that today has nowhere else to go but the Council. He may also be overly discounting all the time consumed by day to day operations, sub-committees, and cross-memberships that the Star Tribune outlined.

Guiding the park and library systems through tough economic times has required numerous meetings with the general public, review of volumes of information and the examination of numerous policy alternatives. These are not staff responsibilities since they go to the heart of what kind of library system the people of Minneapolis deserve and can afford. A part-time City Council could never have devoted the time and attention these precious Minneapolis resources deserve.

I totally disagree here. Going through volumes of information is what staff does, not elected officials who should set direction that, yes, goes to the heart of what the people want for their city. Let the City Manager and his departments handle this, i.e., review the situation and present alternatives for the Council's consideration.

Eliminating the library and park boards would result in very little cost savings, since both boards pay only small stipends to members. These stipends are more than offset by the cost savings generated by the strategic decisions made by these boards. While we, as board members, remain open to becoming even more efficient, we must keep in mind that short-term efficiencies sometimes result in long-term problems.

The cost of a separate board isn't the main issue. By definition, an independent Library board is simply out of the loop when it comes to the city's strategic directions, especially a city choked by many such independent agencies. It will always tend to turn inward towards its own concerns as history has shown.

Now let's hear from Jon Olson, president of the Park and Recreation board, published Dec 18. First, though, let me acknowledge that Minneapolis has one of the best park systems in the country. But now that they're built, the current question is how to keep them exceptional.

The extraordinary quality of the Minneapolis park system has developed with leadership from the independent Park Board, particularly in recent decades. We strongly disagree with the opinion expressed on these pages on Dec. 5 that the Park Board be folded into the Minneapolis city government. Park needs cannot be left unattended no matter who the mayor is and how streamlined city government becomes.

No one is talking about abandoning the parks. If the Council wants to keep the parks vibrant, it will so order the City Manager until the proposed new charter. The City Manager will come back with the costs and some alternatives. The Council will choose one and vote the funds. Meanwhile, the parks can be more professionally managed, by qualified staff, not politicians however dedicated.

The independent Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board works closely and directly with citizens and partners for the benefit of residents and visitors alike. This powerful and professional advocate for the preservation and development of parkland should retain its independent leadership.

This smacks of fund-raising, not park management. Such levels of "professional advocacy" would not be necessary if Minneapolis didn't have so many chiefs affected by each decision.

How can the Park board negotiate a deal with the Legislature if they want a quid pro quo from another department? They can't; that requires that be someone at the top with such overall responsibility. That's why the current system should be replaced.

The furnace is running again thanks to a new motor, and I'm thawed out enough to resume my series. Today, I take my first look at a Lori Sturdevant column, the one she wrote Dec 5 as part of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's initial spread on this subject. She describes how the "Structure of Minneapolis works against it at [the] Capitol."

Legislators tend to be a small-r republican bunch. They tend not to cotton to an excess of democracy, with a lot of messy citizen involvement and multi-phased decision making by boards and commissions.

That's why there's always been some scorn at the Capitol when Minneapolis calls. The caller might be somebody from the office of the mayor, or the City Council, Park Board, Library Board, school board, Neighborhood Revitalization Program or the Board of Estimate and Taxation (whatever that is; even some legislators aren't sure). Minneapolis appears to be governed by a multi-headed hydra, with no one head in charge.

I'm curious why the "school board" was the only hydra head not capitalized, but I'm glad she included it. It's a big part of this picture that I'll revisit later.

But things didn't get tough for Minneapolis at the Legislature until the big-R Republicans took control, beginning with the GOP takeover of the House in 1998.

That was 20 years after the last election in which the city sent a Republican to St. Paul. If Republicans had ever been in the habit of currying favor in the state's biggest city, the habit had long since been broken.

Another habit had replaced it. Call it the Willie Sutton theory of legislating: Try to take money from Minneapolis, because that's where the money is.

Ms. Sturdevant was doing fine until this last paragraph. Yes, Minneapolis receives more education money, local government aid (LGA), etc than any other city, but you won't get rich skimming off a layer within the limits of political outcry. I'm guessing she's specifically referring to the LGA cuts of the past two years.

During long years of DFL domination at the Legislature, Minneapolis had fared well. That wasn't only because DFLers were looking out for their own. They also saw a legitimate state interest in keeping the state's biggest city livable and prosperous.

State school aid formulas were modified to help city schools cope with rising numbers of poor and non-English-speaking children. Property tax relief programs were designed with the city's aging homeowners in mind. State money flowed into city policing; state bonds built sports and cultural facilities; state assistance encouraged urban redevelopment.

That's what a smart state does for the city that is its biggest economic engine, regardless of which party dominates that city or what governance structure prevails at City Hall. But the DFLers of the 1980s and 1990s apparently didn't sell that idea very well to their Republican peers. Maybe they thought they didn't have to. If they did, they were wrong.

The general theme here is DFL good, GOP - short-sighted? But she doesn't explain why Minneapolis should be unique versus St. Paul or any other Minnesota city. St. Paul differs in size only, and can rightfully demand the same special treatment for the same sets of problems.

Minneapolis DFL Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher was first elected in 1998. She remembers being shocked by the level of anger and resentment toward her city that she heard voiced by some of her Republican colleagues.

"The feeling was that Minneapolis had been getting more than its share, not because it deserved it, but because it could," said Kelliher. "I'd hear things like, 'We're going to get you now.' It was like a vendetta."

Even if we take this testimony at face value, Rep. Keliher's biggest argument should be with her DFL predecessors that poisoned her well.

That's when the city's weak-mayor, strong-council-plus-independent-boards design became more than an oddity in Capitol eyes. It became an excuse for legislative neglect. It provided the city's critics with chapter and verse to make the case that Minneapolis is inefficient, ineffective and unworthy -- especially when compared with its GOP-favored twin, St. Paul.

Sturdevant speaks as if this inefficiency and ineffectiveness were an illusion. But the numbers and the organization chart don't lie; Minneapolis is all that. It is therefore not unreasonable for the Legislature to budget as if Minneapolis were more efficient and effective, forcing some needed reforms. This is tough love, not neglect. Why should Minneapolis change if the money keeps flowing in regardless?

Kelliher and other Minneapolis DFLers, including Mayor R.T. Rybak and City Council leaders, have been working ever since to persuade Republicans at the Capitol that a healthy Minneapolis is in the best interest of every Minnesotan. They've had help from some enlightened Republicans along the way. They could use more -- especially from the ones in the governor's office.

It may be there, more than in the legislative chambers, that the city's many-headed structure is doing its cause the most damage. Gov. Tim Pawlenty's insistence on no new taxes has put government on a strict diet, and has turned his staff chief, Dan McElroy, into a productivity hawk. McElroy calls the city's governance structure "burdensome," and holds it at least partly responsible for the city's workforce being almost twice the size of St. Paul's. He sees structural reform in Minneapolis as a "tremendous opportunity."

That it is -- for the city, and for the governor. Other Republicans can look at Minneapolis as somebody else's problem. Tim Pawlenty can't. As the one Republican at the Capitol who has constituents in Minneapolis, he is obliged to do more than carp about its problems.

After decrying all the problems with Minneapolis's structure, we're back to square one. More state money for Minneapolis, with or without reforms.

As I've indicated, I believe that changing to a new stronger mayor - city manager form of government would pay many dividends, including a fresh start with the Legislature and the Governor. The Governor can help, but only the DFL can make this or an equivalent reform happen. The ball is in the Democrats' court.

Last month, Swiftee told the story of Pat Harvey, Superintendent of the St. Paul Public Schools.

Four years ago, when Dr. Harvey actually tried to bring change and accountability to the district she was vigorously attacked by the teachers union and it’s minions already on the school board at that time. Her strongest supporter..at that time..was board member Becky Montgomery who paid for her failure to heel to the union’s commands with her board seat during the next election after a particularly vicious campaign against her was mounted by her disgruntled masters.

She, and two others (who did not run again) were replaced by three candidates hand picked and supported by the union. In fact, then union president Ian Keith’s wife acted as campaign manager for one, Toni Carter.

Could it be the same thing is now happening in Minneapolis, to their new Superintendent, Thandiwe Peebles? A lengthy article about her in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune certainly has me wondering. It goes three times around the barn but never enters. Writer Steve Brandt simple quotes people for and against, mostly the latter.

But there is also this gem:

Also departing within weeks of Peebles' arrival were five of seven people in the district communication office; one retired and three formed a business together. That has left the district with less staff experience to handle news events such as a recent TV report on playground bullying.

Seven people in the communication office? Seven? That has to be more than the Governor has. Just how much public relating does a school district need to do?

It's not clear yet if Peebles is a true reformer or simply a bull in the china shop. We'll have a better idea after the 2005 Legislative session is over. Education Minnesota's job description for Superintendents is to raise money. If Minneapolis falls short of their targets, Peebles can expect the some of the same treatment that Harvey and Yecki received.

I'm here at home, waiting for a furnace repairman to replace my blower motor that is giving up the ghost. So, I have some time to continue my series on the Minneapolis City Charter.

I think it's important because Minneapolis is clearly in deep financial trouble, and right or wrong, that will affect us all in Minnesota. Even if the Legislature stepped in to pay off its debts and pension fund shortages, the best of city leaders could make no meaningful promise to avoid a repeat. There is simply no overall accountability to either the voters or the Legislature.

Celebrated gatekeeper (Deputy Editor) Jim Boyd contributed an interesting history of how the current Minneapolis City Charter came to be. The Legislature via a Constitutional amendment granted cities the right to enact their own charters in 1896. Six times between 1898 and 1913, a proposed charter was defeated. Meanwhile, the Legislature which seemed to enjoy governing Minneapolis created still more independent agencies such as the Civil Service Commission and Board of Estimate and Taxation. The Park and Library boards had been created in the 1880's.

"Then in 1920, the charter commission decided to take another crack at the problem. This group must have been dominated by thoroughly pragmatic people, for what it did was gather up all the existing state statutes governing Minneapolis, passed in 28 legislative sessions, squish them together and call it a City Charter. Voters approved, and Minneapolis finally had itself a charter, the 62nd in the state, and far and away the largest."

Editorial writer Steve Berg provided more background on the financial crisis, largely one of debt. External debt service already takes 15 percent of the 2005 proposed budget, and it be the major reason for ongoing spending increases. A sweetheart pension deal for Minneapolis's unions has run aground, much like the Minneapolis Teachers pension has. Shortfalls are being papered over by issuing still more debt.

"Internal fund debt takes a bigger bite. In the 1990's, the city habitually borrowed money from itself to buy new police equipment and information technology, while pushing repayment obligations into the future. The future has now arrived with a thud. One result is crumbling infrastructure, streets and sewers that would have been maintained had the internal borrowing not occurred."

Minnetonka City Manager and frequent OpEx contributor Jim Gunyou provided a great example of how Minneapolis works.

"[In Minneapolis,] a faceless group called the Board of Estimate and Taxation [sets property tax levies.] Its seven members include the mayor, two City Council members, one Park Board member, one Library Board member, and two citizens elected at large. In 2001, the mayor negotiated a handshake agreement with the other members for their respective shares of the total levy pie. Then the back-door dealing started."

"The Park Board decided it wanted more, so it cut a separate deal with the Library Board and some of the others so they could all get a bigger cut. Sounds a little like "Survivor," doesn't it? When all the deals were totaled, the result was a preliminary levy increase of somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Only the mayor and one citizen rep voted against that largesse at the public meeting no one ever attends."

As several have noted, it's amazing that this process has worked at all.

Continuing my generally positive review of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's series about recasting Minneapolis's city government structure, let me quote from their opening Editorial of Dec. 5:

"Two realities have conspired to make Minneapolis' strange form of government untenable. The first and most urgent is the severe, although quiet, fiscal crisis confronting the city. [Property] tax levies would need to triple by 2010 just for the city to continue providing the current level of services and pay off its internal and external debt. This fiscal crisis was caused in part [because in] commission-led Minneapolis, the City Council drives what happens, which means that ward politics drive what happens."

"The second reality is [that] Minneapolis has an absolutely bum reputation with the Legislature, including with members of the city's own delegation. It is regarded as an inefficient, bloated, wasteful, arrogant, hidebound city, dominated by one party and intimidated by the unions that represent city workers. Why care about a city that is such a mess?"

This is breath-taking language from the Star Tribune Editorial Board. They admit that the current structure, so conducive for Democrats, won't work even if "the right people are in charge." But here, no one is in charge.

"Department heads report to individual council members who chair the committee in charge of their department. City government is a bunch of fiefdoms from which it is difficult to wring savings, consolidate services, set proper priorities or communicate Minneapolis' needs and desires to other levels of government. Compounding the problem are the independent, frequently dysfunctional park and library boards."

For once, the Star Tribune's position is well-taken, and their proposed new charter well worth consideration.

A new statistic, the "price of government" or "official price of government" has been appearing frequently the last 2-3 years. It is the percent of taxes out of personal income. Charts as in today's Star Tribune or handouts from my State Senator show this as dropping. Suppose it is. So what? If anything, that's good news.

"No, no, we're underfunding government!" claims the DFL, urging that taxes be raised accordingly. But the truth is that spending continues to rise significantly above the inflation rate, which is the point the DFL wants you to miss.

Your personal income doesn't matter to your grocer or your piano tuner. You don't have to disclose your salary when buying gasoline or a Timberwolves ticket. These products are priced according to their cost, and so should government products and services.

The correct question is "how much does that cost?" not "how much have you got?"

The Minneapolis Star Tribune first posed this question in a special OpEx suite of articles four weeks ago (Dec 5). A number of responses were published Dec 18. Yesterday, Republican and former State Senator Fritz Knaak wrote that "As Minneapolis founders, GOP can't stand by."

Minneapolis has a "weak mayor" / "strong council" form of government. The council comprises 13 ward members plus the mayor, who has relatively little power over and above the council as a whole. The council directs day-to-day operations, as there is no City Manager like most of the suburbs. Minneapolis also has a number of separate legal entities such as the Park Board with its own police and elected officials.

I'm rather impressed with the Star Tribune's work here. The problem is real, and the reporting much more focused on policy than politics. There is open admission that even the DFL has much to do with the current state of affairs.

Minneapolis is in serious financial trouble. Annual per capita spending is approaching $4,000, and that doesn't include the Minneapolis Public Schools. A generous Legislature and Congress have provided cover in the past, but budget deficits here and in Washington are drying up these sources of revenue.

The Star Tribune's position is that productive reform, even a productive dialog about reform, is difficult at best given Minneapolis's obsolete structure. The mayor's position is largely ceremonial, and the council makes each decision based on the ward politics of the moment. It is both inefficient and ineffective, and even the Star Tribune seems to understand why further "investment" in Minneapolis is unappealing to the Legislature given this near total lack of accountability.

I don't know how long these articles will remain on the Star Tribune web site, but they are currently grouped together under Editorials. You'll even find a proposed new Minneapolis City Charter.

More to come...

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports today that the Minneapolis teachers' pension fund is in trouble, only 51% funded. There's a lot of interesting information in this article.

• There are four such teachers' pension plans: Minneapolis (51% funded), St. Paul (72% funded), Duluth (92% funded), and the statewide plan (100% funded) that covers the rest.
  
• The Minneapolis plan's best such result was 67% in 1999.
  
• The Minneapolis plan was short by $851 million as of June 30, 2004, a record increase of $126 million from the prior year. This means the fund will default in about 15 years.
  
• Due to declining enrollment, the number of active teachers paying in fell 7% to about 5,000. But the number of pensioners grew by 3%.
  
• Teachers pay about 6% of their income into the fund, matched by 17% from the state, city, and school district.
  



The Senate, led by Larry Pogemiller (D-Minneapolis), want to merge this program into the state plan, selling pension bonds to make up the difference. Presumably, the state would be paying off these bonds. But the House, led by Jim Knoblach (R-St.Cloud) prefers to just tinker for now.

Yes, something has to be done. Promises were made that must be kept, as with Social Security. But also like Social Security, it's time to consider a far better option for new and younger teachers: a 401K plan.

Pensions are an anachronism. Most of the private sector is now using the newer "defined contribution" (e.g., 401K) model, and few employees want to go back. You own your 401k. You control its portfolio, and its entirely in your name, not your employer's, not some pension agency.

Forbes Magazine many years ago published a study of private pension funds, titled "Too Many Monkeys, Not Enough Bananas". As one would expect, the "amateur" investment decisions of the funds' trustees consistently and significantly underperformed "professionally managed" mutual funds. Not only did the pension plans make less investment income (bananas), they had higher trustee expenses (monkeys). In some cases, the monkeys were clearly helping themselves to some of the bananas.

The House and Senate should get together to end the Minneapolis plan. Current retirees should be merged into the state plan as Sen. Pogemiller suggests, possibly with some of the changes Rep. Knoblach suggests.

But the legislature should also establish a 401K system for all new public employees, phasing out the old plans, and giving younger workers an option to switch. By bringing the matching contributions (today an astounding 17%) into line with the private sector, we can cut some excess spending long term.

One final point: If you consult the Minneapolis Public School's web site and do the math of dividing enrollment by class size, you'll get less than 1,700 classroom teachers. But there are reportedly 5,000 active "teachers" in this plan. Just who are these additional 3,400 people?

Like a couple of other bloggers, I was slightly over-served on New Years Eve, waking up about 10 am. Fortunately, I had no hangover. I felt so good, in fact, that I decided to do some housework, and I will be doing more today.

I didn't get out walking yesterday, thinking I would today, not thinking we'd get a thunderstorm of freezing rain. But I did get off to a good start on the diet. My wife made an exceptionally good batch of chili, and that was breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Turner Classic Movies played Casablanca, at 7 pm, always great to watch for the nth time.

My diet web site is up, too, where I will accumulate my results and experiences.

As I note briefly there, my diet is simply calorie counting, with an emphasis on a lowered fat intake. Actually, I typically average 35% calories from fat, reasonable, but I'd like to get that a little lower.

I'm not into fad diets like South Beach or supplements like Cortislim. There are some excellent web sites out there that discuss and debunk them. Losing weight, barring an unusual medical condition, is simply calories consumed vs calories burned. Fad diets can take this too far, creating harmful nutritional imbalances.

One day down, 364 to go.