Month: April 2019

The Buck Creek Foundation began with a dream and that dream was to create a place where regardless of intellectual disability, individuals could come and be taught essential skills that lead to greater independence, social awareness, and that enable them to live the best life they possibly can. Through their two campuses, Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm, the Buck Creek Foundation will create agricultural programs to employ these individuals. These campuses will go beyond just providing vocational opportunities, but will enhance these individuals’ lives by fostering a greater level of confidence in them, so that they may become more active and contribute to society in a way previously unseen.

The Foundation’s goals include changing social perspective. Society as a whole has created a false sense of disparagement by labeling these individuals based upon a disability. The Foundation will not use these individual’s disabilities as a platform to enhance these false stereotypes but they will spotlight these individual’s unique abilities in order to cultivate self-confident members of society with greater levels of self-reliance and self-worth. This growing community deserves to have opportunities just as you and I have been afforded. We must be the generation that changes the stereotype; the generation that creates awareness. The generation that institutes change and that builds a brighter future.

There are few organizations with such a charitable cause at their heart. The Foundation seeks to help those who did not choose the path that they are on, but it intends on offering services to as many as possible to increase the opportunities made available to them. They will focus on enriching lives in a positive environment that encourages these people to be their best selves and to reach for skills that are obtainable to them.

The Foundation doesn’t plan to stop this good work at just vocational skills, but in order to further develop these individuals, they will also provide greater levels of social training and extended levels of applied education. The focus of the foundation is truly on personal growth and without opportunity there can be no growth.

Imagine a day in their shoes. Imagine not having the resources to reach your full potential because of others neglect. Now, for moment imagine a place: where judgment doesn’t exist, where patience abounds, and where hope is the center of all things. This place will be Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm. This endeavor is greater than each of us, for it is a journey to provide opportunities, education, and care for those who function on a level that maybe different but whose value is no less than yours or mine. It is time to change the definition of different because different is unique, different is beautiful, and different is what the future must be in order to make change a reality.

Buck Creek Foundation  https://buckcreekfoundation.org

Should there be an age limit on people who serve as public representatives? You must be 25 or older to serve as a U.S. Representative, 30 or older to serve as a U.S. Senator, and 35 years of age or older to serve as the President. However, there is no age limit on when you must step down from office. Late West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd served until his death; he was 92 years old. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) just turned 86 years old last month. Although RBG may not be a great example as I believe she is indestructible. The woman can plank in her 80’s… the woman can plank period, but I digress. Can people serving into their late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s still have the same mental capacity they did when they were first elected to office? I’m not so sure. Some believe Ronald Reagan exhibited symptoms of early onset Alzheimer’s during his term. Although, CBS News states only about 3% of men and women between 65 to 74 have Alzheimer’s, whereas nearly half of people 85 and older have the disease. Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected, so the likelihood he would have had Alzheimer’s during that time was small and more likely linked to his genetic makeup than his age.

Age, and the link to one’s mental capability, is likely to be brought up as an issue during the next presidential election. Our current president is 72 and two of the democratic candidates are 76 and 77. While there are many septuagenarians who are healthy and mentally fit, I’m not sure I want my president turning 80 in office. I mean, enduring the stress of the presidential office can take its toll on younger men and women, much less older ones. Look at before and after pictures of George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. This job can have physical and mental consequences for even the fittest of men.

According to a Washington Post article titled Can a president be too old? the general consensus is your 70’s and 80’s is not the prime time to be taking on such a difficult and demanding role. The article states “that between 16 percent and 23 percent of Americans over 65 experience some cognitive impairment.” Memory and cognitive speed are not what they used to be. I don’t know about you, and I mean no disrespect to the older audience, but I would rather not have a 75+ year old negotiating major deals and handling complex matters when it comes to the health and security of our nation.

As I sat in Lee Hall on Clemson’s campus last Thursday, surrounded by my peers to listen to Dr. Russell L. Riley, Co-Chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, present on  “The White House as a Black Box,” I was unsure where a topic like this could lead. As we are all aware, the “Black Box” records the events that happen during any given flight. The “Black Box” gives investigators insight on conversations, decision and in the unfortunate event that an incident happens, the “Black Box” reveals the details leading up to the event. Dr. Riley discussed his work documenting the oral history of the U.S. Presidency as the “Black Box” of the White House. Even though Presidential records become public records upon that President’s exit from office, the documents are not released until they have been examined for security purposes. As you could imagine, this process takes quite a while.

Dr. Riley gave multiple examples, but the one that truly stuck with me was the sheer number of documents from the Obama Presidency, as listed below. During Obama’s Presidency there were more than 15,000 cubic feet of stored textual documents, 6,000 cubic feet of audio/visual documentations, and an astounding 275 MILLION emails. Each item has to be individually reviewed minute by minute or line by line. President Bush’s data that was released in 1993 is only about 25% completed. So, in 25 years after leaving office only a quarter of the information has been reviewed, and if this pace is maintained it could be another 75 years to complete his document review.

Dr. Riley’s work focuses on past Presidents and their top officials. He and his team try to interview these individuals, maybe as many as 100 interviews per presidency, to provide a first-hand account of the dealings within the White House. This endeavor is to primarily fill in the gaps and to provide the public with the “common language,” and Dr. Riley and his team believe that the people who served under the President are usually the most substantive and truthful/critical because they were the closest and know the most. They tend to be internal critics.

D. Riley also informed those in attendance on the reality of how little we know about the sitting President and that we only have access to about 20-25% of the truth and what actually goes on in the White House. It was also stated that the general public can only draw inference on the dealings within the White House. A majority of the information that we are privileged to know is typically through leaks, investigations (i.e., Mueller Report), auto-biographies, etc.

I feel privileged to have attended an event hosted by Clemson University such as Dr. Russell L. Riley’s lecture on “The White House as a Black Box.” Not only was it greatly informative, it has prompted me to start looking more in-depth about the information that is presented by the media, leaks, investigations and reports. It has also made me curious on the free resources available through the Miller Center. If you are interested in the Oral Histories, you can access the documents and videos via https://millercenter.org.

Recently I read The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alistair Smith. This book not only left me with a new outlook on politics but it also left me with some taunting questions. Do politicians really pick power over policies they believe in? Will the continuing divide of political parties and inequality hurt our nation in the long run?

In this book Bueno de Mesquita and Smith share their thoughts on selectorate theory, with the central thesis that leaders, whether an autocrat, president, or even a CEO, do not rule alone. These leaders or politicians are voted in and kept in power by their winning coalition, and depending on the size that may be 61 million (such as in the United States for those who voted for Pres. Trump) or 200 people (such as the Donju in North Korea).  This winning coalition helps to keep the ruler in power and pleasing the winning coalition will be the leader’s focus. The size of the winning coalition will ultimately decide if they will use private or public goods to stay in power. And, through these incentives and benefits to the winning coalition a ruler can solidify their power.

So, if we change our perception on politics and understand that “leaders cannot lead unilaterally,” requiring their winning coalition to stay in power, this should ultimately mean that those who want to stay in power must pick policies that please the winning coalition. Essentially picking power over policies. If we all viewed our democracy this way, it could be a powerful tool for voters. There are many factors on why voters select certain candidates, but why not focus on the candidate’s past voting records and proposals, over what they are promising by taking candidates “at face value on their motives”.

Furthermore, in the 2016 election 77% of Americans were eligible to vote, or the as the theory would call them the nominal selectorate (interchangeables), and only 42% voted or the real selectorate (influentials), and the winning coalition (essentials) was only 19% or 61 million as mentioned earlier. As you may remember, President Trump won by having 306 electorate votes, and not the majority vote, meaning the winning coalition is actually smaller than the majority of those who voted.

In the book it says “we have learned that just about all of political life revolves around the size of the selectorate, the influentials, and the winning coalition. Expand them all, and not the interchangeables no more quickly than the coalition, and everything changes for the better for the vast majority of people.” However, we are in a time where the partisan gap continues to grow (according to Pew Research Center). So as the partisan gap grows wider, the winning coalition essentially would continue to grow smaller. Party values become more extreme and bipartisan values become rarer, forcing people further to either side or to the middle.

Yet, I find myself wondering, as the inequality in America grows, will this force the majority of people to come together to form a winning coalition? There are many factors and questions to debate regarding this topic as our democracy does not necessarily implement wealth-equalizing polices. Nevertheless, according to Bueno de Mesquita and Smith “change the coalition size and you can change the world.”

The Spring Fling was memorable, fun, educational, stimulating, intellectually challenging, boundary expanding, and “a hoot.” Folks who attended got a chance to work on a case study, tour the Clemson campus, go to a football and a baseball games, tailgate, have meals together, taste some classic FRIED OKRA, and enjoy the company of fellow MPA students and faculty.

Lisztomania by Phoenix from “Mozart in the Jungle”

Without a doubt, my favorite (and most dramatic) piece of legislation is Colorado Amendment 64 of 2012, commonly known as the recreational marijuana bill. This amendment to Colorado’s state constitution has been the catalyst to countless conversations, debates, and arguments. The potential consequences of placing what was once considered a highly addictive gateway drug in the hands of the public is nothing to be taken lightly.

Proponents of Amendment 64 stated that the purpose of this bill was threefold: to maximize the efficiency and allocation of law enforcement resources, to produce revenue for public purposes, and to enhance the freedoms of the people of Colorado. Understandably, there were many who opposed this bill and these adversaries made compelling cases for its removal from the ballot. The case against marijuana was very strong, and while some of the fears were rooted in justified concerns, the proposed bill alleviated many of the concerns directly. In its essence, Amendment 64 viewed marijuana as no different than alcohol and believed the two substances should be regulated the same. Identification and age verification would be required prior to purchasing marijuana, just like alcohol.

However, regardless of initial fears and apprehension, there are studies that show that the legalization of marijuana has led to a decrease in adolescent marijuana use in both Colorado and Washington (see, for example, American Journal of Nursing, issue 10 in 2017). According to the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), approximately $90.3 million in revenue for CDE was generated by marijuana sales in FY 2017-2018. These funds went toward funding school construction, dropout prevention programs, anti-bullying programs, and hiring of resident health professionals.

The fears of handicapping law enforcement and subsequently causing danger to society with an influx of “high” drivers was also addressed in the bill. Very clearly, at the end of the legislation, there is a passage that states that nothing in the bill prevents law enforcement from arresting marijuana impaired drivers. Additionally, new devices are being developed that can measure THC on a subject’s breath and can determine if the subject has smoked or ingested marijuana in the last few hours.

Amendment 64 took a huge leap in combatting not only a failing war on drugs, but the failing war on freedom. Too many civilians have been incarcerated over possessing small amounts of marijuana and it’s time we as a people admit one simple truth: marijuana isn’t this ominous, dangerous drug. In my personal and professional opinion as a patrol officer for the Clemson University Police Department, it causes much less damage than alcohol abuse, but hey… what do I know?

Public administrators in the State Board of Education and district school boards face an uphill battle. Funding usually comes from federal, state, and local sources. Federal funding in South Carolina averages about 11% with state (46%) and local (44%) funding splitting the rest, according to the appropriations bill ratified by the SC General Assembly in June 2018 (hereinafter, H4950). The consumers, students, and parents rarely have an inside look at how funds are allocated and spent until funds are grossly misused at the school level. Additionally, education funding, which is only 19% of the state’s 2018 budget (H4950), is one of the single largest line item expenses next to the Department of Health and Human Services at 31%. However, education spending is in the same discussion as funding for the Department of Transportation at 10% and the next highest line item, the Department of Corrections at 2%. If the state is already funding education more than most other items in the budget, the issue must be with efficient use of funds.

School level financial transparency is believed to lead to more accountability in this area, as covered by The Atlantic in January 2015. The idea is to promote openness in the management of funds through reporting how, why, and where funds are allocated with indicators of performance to establish returns. Many states are mandating school level transparency and ensuring compliance via online portals where the information is uploaded for public consumption.

The way funding is typically allocated is on a cost per student basis. In theory, a school would get more funding allocated if it has more students. In South Carolina, the cost per student is currently set at $2,425 with a proposed increase to $2,510. However, according to a recent study conducted by Clemson University’s own Holley Ulbrich and Ellen Salesman in 2017, the projected base cost per student is $2,984. That leaves $474 per student to be funded by other sources. In the same study, the researchers recommended updating the formula that the state uses to calculate base cost. Even if consumers know this information, it still does not highlight where the problem is and why exactly there seems to be “poor” schools and “rich” schools. One of the problems was settled in Abbeville County School District v. The State of South Carolina in 2014 (hereinafter ACSD V SC). It was decided in that case that the method of allocating funds without regard to district wealth caused some schools to be even more underfunded because wealthy districts with the same number of students would receive more funding from local taxes than schools in lower economic districts. It became so pervasive that the underfunded schools could not even provide the state constitution’s definition of “minimally adequate education.”

What are the standards of learning that are being used to measure a “good return” and what is a “minimally adequate education”? In ACSD V SC, the court defined it as “the provision of adequate and safe facilities in which students have the opportunity to acquire: The ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science; A fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and Academic and vocational skills.” One real measure of reading ability is the literacy rate among 4th graders. Studies show that if students do not have adequate reading skills by the 4th grade, they will continue falling behind as they are not able to keep pace with classroom instruction. Learning to read and then reading to learn, yet in 2016, two thirds of all 4th graders in South Carolina were unable read at grade level, which was 39th place in the nation in literacy, according to the executive director of Reading Partners, a Charleston-based ngo. The South Carolina Read to Succeed Act was implemented in 2014 to address the falling literacy rate in the state. However, it was seen as a mismanaged band aid that cost $214 million and in 2017 the National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed 4th graders in South Carolina ranking 47th in the nation in reading. The bulk of the funds was used to hire reading coaches who trained teachers how to teach reading from the 3rd to 4th grades. The unsuccessful program may have highlighted a key problem that was not addressed by the Read to Succeed Act. By targeting the outcome and trying to improve literacy, legislators ignored the inputs.

The teachers are a funded input, and the investment was not paying off. This could be that, from inception, inputs were not considered with a mind to investment efficiency. Legislators believed that, at $2,425 per student, they were paying for inputs that would end with students acquiring a “minimally adequate education” and when that didn’t happen, they looked toward fixing the output instead of the inputs. In fact, when Gov. Nikki Haley signed the Read to Succeed Act, she said, “If a child cannot read by third grade, they are four times less likely to graduate on time. That changes now because we are now going to say that no child will move forward past the third grade if they can’t read.” All the while, the public sentiment was that South Carolina was doing a bad job in educating students. However, South Carolina teachers are among the worst paid in the nation and maybe some of the worst teachers. One part of transparency reform would be to conduct a skills gap analysis to identify disparities in staff expertise when it comes to teaching, as suggested in the SAF School Management Blog. It could be argued that in South Carolina, a skills gap analysis is not necessary since it is known that in the worst performing districts; almost 30% of teachers failed to achieve full certification in accordance with the State Constitution (ACSD V SC).

Congratulations to my colleague and friend, Dr. Marc Bonica (@mbonica), for a great presentation of “Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies” at the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) National Congress, held in Chicago in March 2019. Marc was able to present at the conference and the paper is forthcoming.  Link to the presentation and citation for the paper appear below.

Dr. Bonica is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Hampshire. We previously served on faculty at Baylor University together. As a fellow ‘master practitioner,’ I love the opportunity to keep one foot in academia and be associated with the Clemson MPA. Go Tigers!

Bonica, M., Mayhugh, C., and Mellott, M., (Forthcoming). Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies.The Health Care Manager. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EUDRPV4R8&feature=youtu.be