University of Toledo: A Non-Responsive Bureaucracy

Do you remember the Roland Hansen Commentary University of Toledo: A Force or A Farce? of last autumn in which I detailed the aggravating and frustrating experiences I had been having as a result of what I perceive as the incompetence of so-called ‘professional’ paid staff of the University of Toledo Alumni Association?

During the course of those events, I had sent e-mails to several of The University of Toledo bureaucrats. I was hopeful that perhaps someone involved with the University of Toledo administrative team would respond to my concerns. As a matter of fact, one of the e-mails I sent to University of Toledo President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs even included a message alerting him of the Roland Hansen Commentary as referenced above with the link to it.

Amongst the people who received one or more copies of my e-mail were:
Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, President of The University of Toledo
Diane Hymore, Administrative Assistant to the President
Penny Poplin Gosetti, Executive Assistant to the President
Lawrence J. Burns, Vice President for Enrollment, Marketing & Communications
Lorraine Hansen, University of Toledo Alumni Association, Phoenix Chapter President

It is now approximately four months later, and not one of those people mentioned above has ever responded to me in any way. How responsive is that? The University of Toledo receives millions of dollars in Ohio taxpayer dollars and untold of millions of dollars in donations. The University of Toledo has an extremely well paid staff. You and I should be so fortunate to get the kind of money that is paid to the ‘professional’ administrators!!!

Hell, the University of Toledo President is provided a compensation package that includes salary, traditional fringe benefits, housing, vehicle, travel allowance, expense account, and more that exceeds the compensation of most, if not all, individual elected officials in the United States of America! It’s a matter of public record; check it if you do not believe me. If Lloyd Jacobs did not want to take some of his “valuable” time to respond to me, the least he could have done, and should have done as a public administrator, was to assign that task to one of his staff. Shame on Dr. Lloyd Jacobs! Is this the way he runs the University of Toledo? Now, I feel compelled to call his competency into question.

Yeah, the University of Toledo continues to want more tax money. Yeah, the University of Toledo continues to raise its already too-high tuition. Yeah, the University of Toledo continues to beg for more financial contributions from alumni, other individuals, foundations, and corporations. Yeah, the University of Toledo continues to expand its already bloated extravagant budget. Yeah, the University of Toledo continues to promote itself in an ongoing and costly public relations campaign.

But, the University of Toledo bureaucracy does not seem to be capable of responding to an alumnus of both the undergraduate college and graduate school, such as I. Nor does The University of Toledo bureaucracy seem to be capable of responding to a former actively-involved volunteer of the Arts and Sciences Alumni Affiliate, such as I, Nor does the University of Toledo seem to be capable of responding to a former member of the University of Toledo adjunct faculty, such as I.

If the University of Toledo were a private enterprise and not an Ohio public institution, it would not survive. The University of Toledo seems to be one big incompetent bureaucracy. If the administrators of the University of Toledo are competent, they certainly do not seem to care about their alumni or former employees. And if they do care, they certainly do not demonstrate it. To me, it appears that at the very most or least, depending on one’s perspective, the University of Toledo is a non-responsive bureaucracy.

Now, will someone try to convince me of why I should support the University of Toledo financially or otherwise?

I really think Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly, and the Ohio Board of Regents might do all us taxpayers a service and take a good hard look at the operations of the University of Toledo.

John McCain and Joe Lieberman: The Adynamic Duo

The dynamic duo of Batman and Robin are quite different than the adynamic duo of John McCain and Joe Lieberman.
Remember Lieberman, the orthodox Jewish U. S. Senator from Connecticut, who was the Democratic Party nominee for Vice President back in 2000 and who attempted to be the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2004. To shake up your memory, I suggest you read this Joe Lieberman article.
Remember the comments made by John McCain in the fall of 2007 that pretty much offended the entire Jewish community as being anti-Jewish and was also considered by the community of Islam to be anti-Muslim. Perhaps, I can refresh your memory on that one. Simply read the Roland Hansen Commentary McCain: Pride and Prejudice.
Considering those factors, I can't help but wonder why the two have formed an 'unholy' and 'adynamic' alliance. Of what am I alluding you may ask. Well, read the Fox News report: Joe Lieberman Crosses Aisle, Endorses John McCain For President.
John McCain must really assign credibility and importance to the endorsement of the Jewish Senator from Connecticut because McCain's official campaign for President committee, John McCain 2008, issued the press release Senator Joe Lieberman Endorses John McCain For President. I wonder why McCain who feels only a Christian should be elected President of the United States of America has played that endorsement over and over again as I see through the television coverage that Joe Lieberman has been frequently accompanying John McCain on the campaign trail.
Well, some people are reading even more into this adynamic duo as can be read in the MSNBC story Does a McCain-Lieberman ticket make sense? which provides an interesting perspective. Now then, I answer that question with my own question: Why would John McCain choose Joe Lieberman , a Jewish person, to be his running mate as Vice President when the Vice President is always just "a heartbeat away" from being President and when John McCain has stated his view that a Christian should be President?
What's your take on all this?

Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority: Toledo's Own "The Price Is Right" Show Hosted By James Hartung

I remind people of the October 26, 2007 entry of Roland Hansen Commentary Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority: Public Accountability or Not? in which I brought up the issue of accountability of and for the quasi-public, tax-payer supported agency. If you do not recall the entry or if you had not previously read it, I suggest you read that entry now before proceeding any further.
Apparently, the taxpayers don't much mind authorizing tax dollars to a nonprofit agency that pays a salary to its CEO that is much more than than the salary of many elected officials. I wonder how many taxpayers of the City of Toledo and of the other parts of Lucas County pay attention (let alone realize) to the salary that is paid to James Hartung, President of The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority. For those who may not be aware of the tax support given to that private, nonprofit agency, I draw your attention to the fact that the taxpayers of Lucas County are contributing 2.5 million dollars a year to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority in the form of a tax levy that the voters themselves have approved.
For those who may not be aware of the salary issue, I suggest you read this newspaper account about the issue (or is it really a non-issue) of the salary of the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority President James Hartung. While the vast majority of the taxpayers may not have voiced opinions on the salary, you might wish to read the newspaper opinion Hartung's Gravy Train that was published by the daily newspaper in Toledo, Ohio. At least one taxpayer has expressed concerned as can be read in the "Letters to the Editor" column of the newspaper that you may read here.
This is not the first time the salary issue has been raised. For example, I found one article on the internet that goes back to August 17, 2000, and another article from 2005, and a some-what related side story (Update as of September 29, 2013: all three of the links to those cited references no longer work.)
So, dear readers, do you have an opinion on this issue? If so, I would appreciate reading your comments here.

As a side note: James Hartung telephoned me twice last fall right after I had made this comment
"How can I get Ben Konop or anyone else to put the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and its Toledo Express Airport operations under the same microscope as is the Lucas County Improvement Corporation? The Toledo Express Airport operation has been sadly lacking for many, many years. For the amount of public funds involved with the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and the airport, there ought to be far more accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, and results. Decades have passed with little or no noticeable improvement."
as a postscript to the October 24 Roland Hansen Commentary in which the main subject was Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop and the Lucas County Improvement Corporation. Because I was not at home at the time of the calls, Mr Hartung left messages on my answering machine. Mr. Hartung had asked that I call his office to make an appointment with him and his "airport director" to discuss my concerns, thoughts, and ideas.
Given the fact that he is the highly paid CEO and that he has a well-paid 'Director of Airports' and a whole slew of paid staff to do the professional work, I found it interesting that he wanted me to be a volunteer to aid the paid staff in doing their jobs! Sheesh, he didn't even offer a consultant fee. lol
Incidentally, I have retained copies of those voice messages for posterity.

The Extinction of The Traditional American Family

During the colonial and western expansion eras of the United States of America, the role played by family life was indeed crucial. In those days, a man was expected to marry a woman; and, a woman was expected to be wed to a man; and, together they were both expected to have lots of children. A large family with each member of the family unit "pulling" their own share of work for the common good of the family was not only important but it was crucial back then for the survival of the family.

The twentieth century saw an evolution in the traditional American family life. The traditional American family became a unit in which a man married a woman, they had several but not too many children, the man was the financial provider, and the woman stayed at home to be the principal caregiver for the children and to provide emotional and moral support for her husband.

Enter the twenty-first century and we see the impending extinction of the Traditional American Family. It seems as though most married couples are both working now-a-days in what has become known as two-income or dual-earner families and many are delaying having children or deciding not to have children at all. It also seems that more and more couples are cohabiting without benefit of marriage and they may or may not have children together. Furthermore, it seems that more and more women are consciously making a decision to have children without the benefit of marriage and without having the father (or fathers) of their children reside with them.

I wonder if anyone else feels as I do - that the traditional American family is becoming extinct.

Ref: Roland's Ramblings blog entry entitled Family

Ref: U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements

Ref: Hoover Digest, The Changing American Family

Ref: American Culture Studies, American Identity - Traditional American Family values

Ref: PearsonHigherEd.com, The Changing Family

Ref: About.com, U.S. Government Info, The Lone American Grows In Numbers

Teachers on Strike

Should teachers have the right to strike?
Basically, that is the question being posed in the Judy's Jewels blog entry Prohibit Teachers Strike? in which she also has linked to Senate Bill #264 that proposes to change the present collective bargaining laws in the State of Ohio.
I ask another question to those that believe teachers should not be allowed to strike. If teachers should not be allowed to strike, then why should any group of employees be allowed to strike? Why should some unions be allowed to strike but not all unions? Why should there be a doulble standard? Don't give me this taxpayer crap, either. Whether we pay taxes or we purchase goods and services in private industry, we all are paying the cost of goods and services. Any increase in costs always gets passed down to us either in our role as taxpayer or our role as customer or consumer.
And by the way, I know of NO UNION that really desires to strike. That is always the very last resort and almost always comes about when the employer (private or public) refuses to bargain in good faith. After all, the workers' very livlihoods depend on that paycheck. Why would any employee purposely and without just cause desire to throw that to the wind? It seems to me that we should hold employers, including Boards of Education, more accountable than what is generally the case.
Maybe the elected officials and their appointed public administrators and managers as well as corporate CEOs and their managers should be removed from their positions whenever they do not bargain in good faith with their employees.
Or maybe, we should just return to the days of slavery, serfdom, indentured servants, sweat shops, substandard wages, inhumane working conditions, and the like!
What say you?

By the way, Roland's Ramblings has an entry you may wish to read entitled American Labor Unions.

Run Government Like A Business

How many times have I heard people say we should run our government like a business? Actually, I hear it quite often.
Okay, if we run our government like a business, then would not the following also be applicable?
Elected officials as like private industry CEOs should be paid salaries in the millions of dollars. Top governmental employees as like private top managers should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Line staff governmental employees should be paid minimum wage as is paid to many employees in private business enterprises.
The personal lives, financial interests, assets and liabilities, sexual orientation, religious and philosophical beliefs, lives of family members, etc. of all persons in government should be private as it is for those in the private business world.
Just as private corporations stop pouring money into financially losing business activities and enterprises, so should governmental agencies stop giving money to financially losing convention centers, stadiums, arenas, airports, zoos, museums, libraries, public television and radio, senior centers and community centers, etc.
Rather than assessing and collecting taxes for services and programs that benefit individuals or certain groups of people, charge user fees to those specific consumers in amounts that would pay the full costs of providing the goods and services. That would include such things as roadway construction and use, mass transit and individual transportation systems, schools and colleges, school breakfast and lunch programs, libraries, parks and recreation, fire and rescue services, refuse and garbage collection, snow removal, leaf collection, job training and vocational rehabilitation, senior centers, senior nutrition programs, Medicare, and so on and so forth.
Close down any governmental agency that is not financially self-sufficient just like private businesses close up when they are not generating revenue of an amount to be self-supporting. That would include such governmental agencies as driver license and auto title bureaus, dog wardens, public prison systems, government-operated job placement offices, records bureaus, food and environmental health inspection operations, Social Security, and more.
Practice the “free enterprise” system and let the marketplace determine its own needs and future; and therefore, eliminate tax abatements for private businesses, enterprise zones, business tax credit programs, cost-free or subsidized provision of infrastructures to private businesses, wage subsidy programs, and other corporate ‘welfare’ activities.
The above scenarios are just a few areas that are applicable in my opinion of having government operate as a business would be operated. Some may or may not be good applications. My thinking is that it depends on each situation; because, I tend to adhere to the situational management approach.
However, if we take the whole subject as a whole and say it is all or none, do you really think government should be run like a business?
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.

Roland Hansen: Loose Cannon?

Not too long ago, a person with whom I had worked in a partisan political organization many years ago but whom I had not seen in ages contacted me to request some advice and assistance in a specific political matter involving the 2007 election campaign of another individual. It was the first time since our association those many years ago that I had heard from that individual, who had relocated way back when and had not informed me of whence that person had gone.
None-the-less, I was pleased to hear from that individual and was hopeful that our once close working relationship and friendship would be renewed. When I was contacted for help I gladly delivered, even though the individual had informed me that the word within the specific partisan political circle in which the assistance was requested was that I was considered a loose cannon.
Loose Cannon - that was the phrase used to describe me and was the reason given why the other individual who was seeking elective office had not contacted me direct. No further information was provided me about the “loose cannon” label; I was not told who was using that phrase to describe me, nor was I informed of how many persons may have been using the phrase. “Oh, well” I said to myself at the time and proceeded to assist as requested. After all, I enjoy that type of thing; people are people and think whatever they want; and I believed in the “cause” being presented.
Whatever. I did my political thing and helped the long-time acquaintance that had contacted me last summer and helped the person seeking elective office. Consequently, the candidate was successful in being elected and has since been sworn into office.
I still do not know exactly what was or is meant by the use of the phrase “loose cannon” to describe me. However, I interpret the phrase to mean “a person who looses composure and goes off in tangential directions in an attack mode without regard to facts and concurrently losing focus on intended goals to the detriment of the intended goals.”
Here is the definition of “loose cannon” that I found in the Encarta World English Dictionary: “someone who behaves unpredictably or indiscreetly, often causing trouble for colleagues or associates (slang).”
Incidentally, I have not heard from the person who was elected since the night of the election. Nor did I hear again from the long-time acquaintance who had initially contacted me and with whom I had hoped to renew a friendship UNTIL the past week when that individual contacted me as a result of a public comment I have made about the elected official.
Hmmm. Now that I think of it, I guess I can figure out what “they” (whoever THEY may all be) meant in saying I am a loose cannon! My new interpretation of “loose cannon” as used by the politicos in describing me is as follows: A person who doesn’t “toe the line” regardless of principles, who is not a “yes person” and does not blindly follow the “leader” without regard to individual thought, who does not “go along to get along” for the sake of selfish convenience and expediency, who does not speak or act in a less-than-honest manner in order to obtain personal advantage or to the benefit of a special interest group, and who does not “play the game” for the political advancement of self or of another without consideration of the best interests of the community as a whole.
If that is what “they” mean by using the term “loose cannon” in describing me, then I am proud to be a loose cannon! Gee, it’s no wonder I have not gone further in partisan elective politics!

Lindsay Webb: The Broken Promise

It’s a brand new year; and, it’s a new City Council in Toledo, Ohio. At the organizational meeting held on January 2, 2008, a new President of Council was selected as a result of the newest DIRT.
Having just taken office as one of the three newest members of city council, Democrat Lindsay Webb joined Independent D. Michael Collins and Republican Tom Waniewski, the other newest members of Toledo City Council (DIRT), in a coup d'etat, albeit a nonviolent and legal one) by voting to toss out Michael Ashford as President of Council and by voting to install Mark Sobczak as the new President of Council. The vote of these three DIRT members along with the concurrence of three veteran councilpersons (Republican George Sarantou, former Democrat/now Republican Betty Shultz, and Democrat Mark Sobczak) and the opposing vote of six Democrats (Michael Ashford, Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, Mike Craig, Joe McNamara, and Frank Szollosi) resulted in a tie vote. The tie vote allowed the Democrat/former Independent/former Republican Toledo Mayor (more DIRT) Carty Finkbeiner to cast the deciding vote.
Read this newspaper report of the upheaval on Toledo City Council.
Is this more politics as usual in Toledo?
And what of Lindsay Webb, the new councilperson who is also an attorney? She had promised to vote for Michael Ashford. Has anyone ever heard the phrase breach of promise?
Why did Lindsay Webb make a promise, and then break her promise? Could it have anything to do with new additional information or some type of political deal or something else entirely?
I may or may not agree with the ultimate decision on the selection of Toledo City Council, but that is of no concern to me.
Actually, the answer to the question of why Lindsay Webb broke her promise is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. A promise is a promise is a promise.
There is a question that always enters my mind when confronted with a situation involving anyone who has broken a promise:
What other promises that have been made in the past or that might be made in the future will be broken?

Christmas and Zoo Lights: Destroying Our Planet Earth.

Green is the “in” thing. By green, I make reference to green Earth, saving trees, less use of plastics, less use of non-biodegradables, increase in the use of renewable energy, and decrease in the use of fossil fuels.
A “green” attitude is a healthy attitude. A “green” approach is a “save our planet Earth” approach.
Many, many people have jumped on the green advocating bandwagon; but, most are hypocrites as the most recent Christmas season has proven once again.
Yes, I said Christmas; and, I mean it.
Christmas celebration rituals, at least in the United States of America, are anti-green. USA Christmas observance celebration traditions contribute greatly to global warming. Christmas observances, excluding religious services, are downright anti-Earth and lead to the destruction of our planet.
What? You ask. How dare I say that! You say.
My answer is: “I say it simply and easily.”
Why? You ask. How? You ask.
My response is as follows:
Think of all the evergreen trees that are cut down to be used as Christmas trees and in the making of Christmas wreaths. Think of all the non-biodegradable Christmas decorations and artificial Christmas trees that are manufactured. Think of all the plastic products (made from petroleum and non-biodegradable) used during the Christmas season celebrations. Think of all the Christmas lights used in homes, in yards, at business establishments, in public displays, and such, all of which use enormous amounts of precious electrical energy mostly generated by dirty, atmosphere-polluting coal, a fossil fuel nonrenewable energy source.
And then, there are the ever-increasingly popular Zoo Lights ---- UGH!!! Think of all the nonrenewable energy used in those displays! What a tremendous nonproductive, nonutilitarian use of electricity at an exorbitant cost to all of us, directly or nondirectly.
Think of all of that and more! Now, can you honestly tell me that the popular Christmas observances are helping to save and preserve our Earth? I say it all adds up to the unnecessary use of our valuable natural resources, an increase in global warming, and a hastening of the destruction of our planet Earth!
To all those who are destroying our planet through the guise of Christmas celebrating energy-wasting Christmas displays, zoo lights, and the like, I say:
Bah! Humbug!

Government Mortgage Bailouts: Welfare for Big Business

I don't know about you, but I think all this stuff about the government helping people save their homes by providing government financial assistance is a bunch of crap. The bottom line is that it really is a form of welfare to the mortgage industry -- banks, financial institutions, speculators, and the like.
Think of it. Who really benefits from the government intervention? I say let the mortgage industry eat it all up! Let that industry lower its rates or let them get stuck with all the homes they want to forclose upon but cannot sell. Do you really think the mortgage industry really wants all those homes? I think not. If the government does not intervene, the mortgage industry will have to negotiate new rates with homeowners or the mortgage industry itself will go bancrupt.
Read this just for enlightenment.