Controversial and Polarizing Figure Set to Head Largest Public University System in Late September – The UC Board of Regents on Thursday formalized the move that was reported first last week by the Los Angeles Times and sparked a wave of controversy in both progressive and conservative circles, appointing Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and a two-term governor of Arizona, as the 20th president of the University of California.
Ms. Napolitano, the first female president in UC’s 145-year history, succeeds Mark G. Yudof, who steered the university through the depths of California’s financial crisis that led to sharp cutbacks in state support for public higher education.
“I am humbled by your support and look forward to working with you to build further on the excellence of UC,” Ms. Napolitano said after the regents appointed her president.
Student regent Cinthia Flores was the lone dissenting voice on the appointment. She cited Napolitano’s background as Homeland Security head and role implementing controversial immigration policies.
“Students have raised a number of concerns,” Ms. Flores said. “She must remember that her involvement with Secure Communities will cast a long shadow. I cannot and will not deny countless experiences. I know that their fear is real.”
According to a release from the UC Regents, Janet Napolitano, 55, “an accomplished public sector leader with a long-standing interest in education, was the search committee’s unanimous choice from among more than 300 prospective candidates. As UC’s president, she will oversee 10 campuses and five medical centers – plus a new medical school at UC Riverside – as well as three affiliated national laboratories and a statewide agriculture and natural resources program.”
She was appointed during a special meeting of the board following a recommendation by the regents’ special search committee last week.
The University of California, widely considered the nation’s premier public university system, enrolls more than 234,000 students, employs about 208,000 faculty and staff, and counts more than 1.6 million living alumni. Its annual operating budget stands at more than $24 billion.
Mark Yudof, now 68, served for more than five years and will remain on the job until Janet Napolitano begins her tenure in late September.
UC Regent Sherry Lansing, who chaired the presidential search committee, “called Napolitano a transformative leader and tireless champion for the life-changing opportunities that education provides. She and other regents praised her intellectual curiosity, political acumen, personal dynamism and willingness to tackle complicated issues as attributes that will serve her – and the University of California – well.”
“As governor of Arizona, Napolitano was a strong advocate for public education, from K-12 to the university level,” said UC Regents Chair Bruce Varner. “She appreciates the importance of public research universities, faculty scholarship and research, and UC’s role in shaping California.
“The Special Committee to Consider the Selection of a President unanimously chose Secretary Napolitano from a dynamic pool of more than 300 potential candidates. We were all impressed with her extraordinary character, intellectual curiosity and commitment to higher education,” he said in a statement.
“I am confident that she has the background and attributes needed to build upon the excellent work of her predecessor, Mark G. Yudof, and to lead the university forward to even greater achievements,” he added. “Already, she has expressed an eagerness to join the UC community and to get to know the stellar faculty, staff, students and alumni who make this University great. I am looking forward to working with her and benefitting from her vast stores of expertise.”
According to the UC Regents release, President Barack Obama, who chose Napolitano to head Homeland Security – the third largest federal department – “praised her remarkable career of public service after it was announced she was leaving his cabinet to lead the University of California. He emphasized her leadership skills, tireless work ethic, judgment and advice, as well as the value of her friendship.”
Janet Napolitano was born in New York City and grew up in Pittsburgh, Pa., and Albuquerque, N.M., before coming to California to attend college. She earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Santa Clara University, where she was named the university’s first female valedictorian. She also won a Truman Scholarship, a prestigious fellowship for college students who have demonstrated leadership and an interest in government or public service.
After earning her law degree from the University of Virginia, she went to Arizona in 1983 to serve as a clerk for Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and later practiced law in Phoenix at the firm of Lewis and Roca, where she became a partner in 1989. She was the first female attorney general of Arizona, from 1998 to 2003, and served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona from 1993 to 1997.
Napolitano was twice elected governor of Arizona, serving from 2003 to 2009, and was named one of the top five governors in the country by Time magazine. As the first woman to chair the National Governors Association, she launched the “Innovation America” initiative to align K-12 and higher education curricula to better prepare students for a global economy and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness by improving its capacity to innovate.
At the Department of Homeland Security, she has championed cutting-edge research and development, investing more than $2.2 billion in state-of-the-art solutions at national labs and universities across the country to protect people and critical infrastructure.
Under her leadership, Homeland Security also has strengthened its outreach efforts to academic institutions through the establishment of the Office of Academic Engagement; and she created the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council, involving leadership from more than 20 universities and colleges around the country.
Napolitano has repeatedly testified about the need for comprehensive immigration reform and, earlier this year, she served as the Obama administration’s sole witness in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill. She also testified before the Senate in support of the Dream Act and defended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals process in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
“UC’s Special Committee to Consider the Selection of a President, assisted by the national executive search firm Isaacson, Miller, was involved in recruiting, screening and interviewing candidates for the university’s top administrative position,” the release stated. “In addition to Varner and Lansing, the immediate past Board of Regents chair, the committee members were regents Richard Blum, Russell S. Gould, George Kieffer, Bonnie Reiss and Fred Ruiz. Jonathan Stein (student regent) and Ronald Rubenstein (alumni regent) also served on the committee. Gov. Jerry Brown was an ex officio member. An academic advisory committee was appointed to assist the regents’ special committee. Student, staff and alumni advisory committees joined the Academic Advisory Committee in making recommendations on the selection criteria.”
Despite all of the rhetoric last week about the move enabling the regents to reduce the controversial salary of President Mark Yudof, she will end up receiving a similar salary – more than twice what she earned at the Department of Homeland Security.
As UC president, Napolitano will receive a base salary of $570,000. Her predecessor’s annual base salary was $591,084, plus an auto allowance of $8,916. She also will receive an auto allowance of $8,916.
The regents write, “Her salary is below the 25th percentile of cash compensation for comparable systemwide university presidents, which stands at $617,000. That means more than 75 percent of university system leaders nationally earn more than her annual salary.”
They add, “As a condition of her employment and for the convenience of the university, Napolitano will be required to live in housing leased by UC or later, if one becomes available, a university-owned home.”
She also will receive a one-time relocation fee of $142,500 which is 25 percent of her annual base salary. “Under UC policy, this amount is intended to reimburse one-time and ongoing, unreimbursed expenses associated with the transition and will be paid as a lump sum. If Napolitano leaves her position within four years, these funds must be repaid to the university according to the following schedule: 100 percent if separation occurs within the first year of employment, 60 percent if separation occurs within the second year of employment, 30 percent if separation occurs within the third year of employment, and 10 percent if separation occurs within the fourth year of employment,” the regents noted.
Janet Napolitano will receive standard health and retirement benefits, and a contribution of 5 percent of her salary to the Senior Management Supplemental Benefit Program. “By virtue of her appointment beginning after July 1, 2013, she will be included under the new tier of the UC Retirement Program,” they add.
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada issued a statement late on Thursday stating, “Leading the UC system requires fresh leadership and a global perspective. I look forward to hearing President-Designate Napolitano’s ideas about how she will advance the UC’s mission of teaching, research and community service into the 21st Century.”
Last week, Senator Leland Yee, a frequent critic of UC and President Mark Yudof stated, “Secretary Napolitano’s extensive experience at all levels of government will likely serve her well in the days ahead. I hope she keeps the needs of students, faculty and staff at the forefront after years of devastating tuition increases, questionable spending priorities and a general lack of transparency throughout the UC system. I will be happy to work with her in her efforts to keep the UC’s reputation as an affordable means of bringing quality education to all Californians.”
But there are critics as well.
UCLA law professor Abraham Wagner told a Los Angeles radio station that “Napolitano’s lack of academic experience is a big deal. He points out that she will be making big decisions affecting professors’ scholarship and research.”
“At Berkeley we have the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners on the planet. Many others at UCLA and elsewhere, she’s nowhere in that spectrum at all,” he said. “She’s not going to have the respect of these people.”
“UC student workers are backing a petition by undocumented student activists to stop her appointment,” KPCC out of Los Angeles reports. “The biggest issue for these activists is that until last week Napolitano headed an agency that oversaw the deportation of thousands of immigrants from California.”
The station reports, “Adriana Cortes Luna, a Los Angeles resident who’s worked with undocumented UC students, signed the petition.”
“The UC system has been one of the leaders in supporting undocumented students,” she said.
Angela Chan, a lawyer with the Bay Area group Asian Americans Advancing Justice, said she was “stunned the deportations didn’t seem to bother the search committee recommending her appointment.”
“I think the message they’re sending right now is an unfortunate message that they want a politician at the helm rather than an educator,” she said. “It also shows a lack of understanding or sensitivity to undocumented students and to immigrant students who make up a large part of the UC system.”
Four student protestors were arrested at the meeting on Thursday chanting during the UC Regents discussion on the new president’s compensation.
The Daily California reports, “Some of the public commentators voiced concerns over Napolitano’s lack of educational experience, but she addressed them by explaining her credentials in public service.”
“Let me acknowledge that I am not a traditional candidate for this position,” Ms. Napolitano responded to criticism. “I have not spent a career in academia. That said, I have spent 20 years in public service advocating for it.”
She referred to a history as governor of Arizona where she claimed “she spent much of her time investing in the state’s universities, including fighting to keep tuition for students as low as possible and developing loan forgiveness programs for high-demand fields of study.”
The Daily California noted, “Despite the protesters’ concerns over her history in immigration policies such as Security Communities, Napolitano expressed strong support for the DREAM Act.”
“I have been an early advocate of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “Not to do so would have been to dash the hopes and the dreams of many, many young, achieving students.”
But others are not so sure. An Op-Ed in the Daily California argues that Janet Napolitano has championed anti-immigrant policies including the deportation and arrests of many undocumented students in California.
“The secretive process of appointing Napolitano is also an indication of the failure of UC Regents’ leadership. The selection was not transparent, and there was almost no public input. Clearly, the selection was not in the best interest of UC students but rather in the interest of corporations,” Ju Hong, a UC Berkeley alumnus writes. “The bottom line is clear: Napolitano split up millions of immigrant families. If I had called the police back when our home was robbed, my family could have been deported. I will always remember the fear we felt. I will always remember the pain of losing friends and neighbors because of deportation. My sincere hope is that the regents will also remember Napolitano’s troubled record and the pain she has caused for millions for Californians.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”At Berkeley we have the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners on the planet. Many others at UCLA and elsewhere, she’s nowhere in that spectrum at all,” he said. “She’s not going to have the respect of these people.”
[/quote]
I would sincerely hope that individuals having the intellectual capacity to achieve a Nobel Prize would also have the intellectual capacity to recognize that “respect” can be earned within many different areas of human endeavor not just academia.
Napolitano is an unqualified political hack who will have no support from the students or faculty. This will hasten the ongoing decline of UC as a great university.
What I’m wondering is:
Why do we need to pay her $570K (more than the President of the United States and more than THREE TIMES what the Governor of California makes)?
If she was “making ends meet” on her $200K salary at Homeland Security does she need to make almost triple that (is the ‘cost of living” that much higher here in CA)?
If she is getting paid over $500K won’t she have enough to hire a moving company (Why are we paying another $142K in “moving expenses”)?
Does it really cost even close to $142K (more than THREE YEARS of take home pay for the average American family)?
Why does someone making over $500K get a $8,916/year “car allowance” (shouldn’t people making over half a MILLION every year be able to pay for their car)?
I have not read the details yet but I’m wondering if she will be getting a $160K a year “housing allowance” (or getting an extra $127K a year for “security” like Yudof did).
I know a lot of people struggling to put kids through UC and I also know a lot of people that work for UC and believe it or not my UC friends work less hours and make even more money than my firefighter friends (does any other employer in the world give men AND woman an entire semester off with FULL PAY every time you have a kid?)
P.S. I’m guessing that UC will probably keep spending after she moves here and give her a $500K+ for home renovations (maybe even another $30K dog run) like they did for the UCSC Chancellor a few years back…
P.P.S. I’m all for “fair pay” but giving someone over a million in one year (I read an article after Yudoff’s first year where UC spent more than a MILLION on him) so they can live like royalty heading a public university in a state with a struggling economy just seems wrong…
SouthofDavis
I agree with the majority of your comments.
[quote]give men AND woman an entire semester off with FULL PAY every time you have a kid?) [/quote]
Extensive time off for both men and women is common in Europe ( I don’t know about a full semester)
but a few months is common and is seen as an essential for family bonding and thus the strengthening of the family as a whole. On the basis of a 30 year career in ob/gyn I feel this would be a step in the right direction in terms of supporting families and although costly in the short run, would likely pay for itself many times over in terms of family cohesiveness and the well being of the children. This is a goal that I see as being well beyond one’s political ideology.
Here is what really irks me about public sector compensation practices. There are very few executive compensated at this level that don’t have a significant portion of their compensation at risk and tied to performance expectations. The lack of at risk pay had never been notable back when the average public servant was paid less than counterparts in the private sector. But since public sector management and union labor has lavished themselves with so many increases over the years to try and stem their envy and low self-esteem compared to their private sector peers, it is time they adopt the same practice of putting a large chunk of their pay at risk for failing to achieve expected outcomes. Conversely, they should have a higher upside for exceeding expectations.
If Big Sis can bring in endowments, and lower student costs while improving access and quality, she deserve a big payday. Otherwise, she will be far overpaid.
There is little accountability in government these days. We need to demand transparency in the assignment of specific performance expectations and the design of a performance compensation system that ensures our precious tax money will be wisely spent.
JR
[quote]Napolitano is an unqualified political hack [/quote]
Your statement made me curious. In particular, the use of the word “hack”. Are you using this as a derogatory term for “career politician “? Do you mean that you dislike the specific policies of Ms. Napolitano ? If so, which ones ? Do you feel that no “politician” would have the credentials necessary for this position ? Or do you simply dislike and distrust all politicians enough to use the word “hack” as the adjective most appropriate to the word
“politician” ?
medwoman wrote:
> SouthofDavis I agree with the majority of your comments.
> does any other employer in the world give men AND woman
> an entire semester off with FULL PAY every time you
> have a kid?)
That was not a “comment”, it was a “question”…
> Extensive time off for both men and women is common in
> Europe ( I don’t know about a full semester)
I’m no expert on Europe, but none of my friends and relatives that work there have a job where BOTH the husband and wife get a full semester off with FULL PAY for EACH KID. Do you know of any other company in the US or Europe that gives this much PAID time off?
I’m a fan of BOTH the mother and father spending time with their kids and is why I waiting until I was working for myself and had the ability to take a lot of time off before I had kids. My point is that people working for a “public” “taxpayer supported” university should not have higher pay, higher benefits and more time off than the top 1% of doctors, lawyers and CPAs in America (and the President of the Unites States and the Governor of California)…
> On the basis of a 30 year career in ob/gyn I feel
> this would be a step in the right direction in terms
> of supporting families and although costly in the short
> run, would likely pay for itself many times over
The average (and median) time at a job in America is only ~4.5 years. If the two of us opened a woman’s health clinic in South Davis and hired a recently married husband and wife ob/gyn (at $10K month) who had two kids it would cost us over $200K (about the cost of the average home in Central California that people take 30 years to pay off) to give all the legally mandated pregnancy time off and match the UC paid time off.
Nice if we were rich and kind, but enough to force most business in to BK…
Frankly
As is frequently the case, you brought a big smile to my face this morning.
I saw your conclusion first, and thought, “hurray” something that we are in agreement on.
Then I read the full post.
[quote]We need to demand transparency in the assignment of specific performance expectations and the design of a performance compensation system that ensures our precious tax money will be wisely spent.[/quote]
I fully agree and would take it even further. I believe that there should be transparency in both the public and private sectors so that we can weigh not only whether or not we are getting full benefit from our tax dollars, but also can weigh whether or not the items we are choosing to buy in the private market are not dangerous, or destructive to the environment, or would have another deleterious effect. I am all for transparency.
However, then I went back and read the rest of your post. You know, the part where you make up stories about people’s motivations and decide that you hold special knowledge about what they are thinking when they make decisions.
[quote]But since public sector management and union labor has lavished themselves with so many increases over the years to try and stem their envy and low self-esteem compared to their private sector peers[/quote]
I do not know where you came up with this motivation, but I would like to disavow you of it. I work in the
“private” sector of medicine. Many of my friends, past colleagues, and acquaintances work in ” public” sector medicine at the university. There are a different set of pros/cons, and “perks” to each choice. Arguably I have a
somewhat “safer” career path than they have chosen in terms of the size and longevity of the organization in which I have chosen to establish my career. Arguably, they have greater “prestige” and “bragging rights” having the name of UCD behind them and depending on how heavily they have invested in the academic portion of their career. I simply do not see that “envy” as a component of why individuals choose the public or private sector in which to work and I say this after having been involved in hiring and personal issues for over five years now.
From past posts, you seem to see money as the only motivator and envy as being directed only against those who earn more money. I see career and life choices as being much more complex and existing against a much richer background of values than simply ” how much more does he earn than I do “.
Meds, I don’t disagree with you that people have previously selected public sector work for the reasons you mentioned. But today public sector workers make higher pay. And when you include their benefits, they are compensated MUCH higher than their peers in the private sector for many roles.
They work fewer hours and make more money and get greater benefits.
And they are happy about it. Why wouldn’t you be happy about it?
Before the pay shift, many that were unhappy that they made less than their private sector peers. I wish money didn’t cause that level of emotional turmoil in some people lacking the risk-taking drive and determination to go out and try to make more, but it does. And so they now have their ego filled with their fortune of landing that well-compensated public sector job and they don’t want to let go.
I think it was actually a total of six protesters who were arrested (then cited and released).
Also, the UC television people were directed to turn off the sound when another group of protesters did a long “mic check”, which is a bit Orwellian.
SouthofDavis
[quote]The average (and median) time at a job in America is only ~4.5 years. If the two of us opened a woman’s health clinic in South Davis and hired a recently married husband and wife ob/gyn (at $10K month) who had two kids it would cost us over $200K (about the cost of the average home in Central California that people take 30 years to pay off) to give all the legally mandated pregnancy time off and match the UC paid time off.
[/quote]
Agreed. And this is one of the major reasons that I do not think that we should rely on the private sector to provide sufficient funding to allow individuals to take what I see as invaluable time to strengthen their families.
I much prefer a system in which all individuals had paid time off, provided through the government, to be able to spend the time necessary to strengthen their families. For me neither “private sector” nor “government” be seen as “the gold standard”. There are strengths and limitations to what each can provide. What I think that we should be aiming for as a society is what provides the maximum benefit for as many as possible over all. If we stopped bashing each others concepts of what the “private sector” should do or what the “government” should do and chose to look at specific remedies for identified problems, I think it would strengthen both individuals and our society as a whole.
Frankly
[quote]Before the pay shift, many that were unhappy that they made less than their private sector peers. I wish money didn’t cause that level of emotional turmoil in some people lacking the risk-taking drive and determination to go out and try to make more, but it does. And so they now have their ego filled with their fortune of landing that well-compensated public sector job and they don’t want to let go.[quote][/quote][/quote]
Allow me to paraphrase your statement.
Now that there has been a change in pay shift, many ( in the private sector) are now unhappy that they are making less than their public sector peers. I wish that money didn’t cause that level of emotional turmoil in some people lacking the risk-taking drive and determination to go out and make more, but it does.
So in your frequently stated view, where people with enough initiative in the private sector can always go out and make more money, why do they not simply do this instead of blaming “public sector” workers for their own lack of initiative either in moving up in the private sector by seeking higher paying work, or by seeking a job in the public sector if they now see that as preferable ?
[quote]I would sincerely hope that individuals having the intellectual capacity to achieve a Nobel Prize would also have the intellectual capacity to recognize that “respect” can be earned within many different areas of human endeavor not just academia.[/quote]
I think Wagner (the UCLA law professor) meant she will have difficulty garnering respect qua UC president, i.e., speaking to the issue of whether or not she is qualified to be UC president. So “respect” is a shorthand way of referring to that in this context.
Let’s not allow ourselves to be duped by the power elites’ typical method of choosing a woman as a method of making a unilateral top-down choice slightly less oppressive.
That being said, I think Napolitano will actually be a small improvement over Yudof. That’s a reflection of how bad Yudof actually was, not how good Napolitano might be.
[i]So in your frequently stated view, where people with enough initiative in the private sector can always go out and make more money, why do they not simply do this instead of blaming “public sector” workers for their own lack of initiative either in moving up in the private sector by seeking higher paying work, or by seeking a job in the public sector if they now see that as preferable ? [/i]
People generally pursue their own self-interest and the path of least resistance. So, I don’t blame people for seeking and landing work in the public sector knowing that it will provide them a higher standard of living than they would get pursuing a public sector career. However, some people cannot tolerate the lower productivity and performance endemic in the public sector caused by a lack of competition and related urgency. These higher achievers used to be able to take career risks and earn more, but there are fewer opportunities to do so now as the public sector became the great gravy train from the years of Democrat-union pay back for campaign money.
This corrupting of the mechanisms to compensate for risk-taking, drive and performance, and the lack of spending sustainability, are the two big social ills caused by over-compensating public sector employees, including JN, are the basis for the justification of my arguments for rolling back and changing the way we pay public sector employees.
For you, I would expect your egalitarianism and your demand for economic fairness to motivate you to join me on this topic. However, maybe your political affiliations run too deep.
[quote]For you, I would expect your egalitarianism and your demand for economic fairness to motivate you to join me on this topic. However, maybe your political affiliations run too deep.[/quote]
It is not my political affiliations that run too deep. It is my sense of egalitarianism and demand for equal treatment in all spheres of life that leads me to see this differently from you. It is not that I feel that public employees are too highly paid ( some in my view are paid too highly, some not enough ), it is that I feel that the same is true in the private sector. I also do not believe your mantra that people in the public sector fail to work as hard as those in the private sector. I have seen very, very hard workers in both sectors having been employed in both at various points in my life. I have also seen workers in both sectors who will do exactly as much as they must to keep their job, and not one iota more.
I feel that it is your insistence that some how, people in the private sector are more ambitious, harder working or more noble than those in the public sector that is rooted in your world view, but not in reality.
People share a variety of different traits, goals, desires, ambitions and emotions. They do not leave their unique combination of traits and experiences behind whether or not they work in the public or private sectors.
This belief, to me, reads more like an Ayn Rand fiction that a reflection of the world as I perceive it.
meds, the US Department of Labor confirms that public sector employees work fewer hours and are paid more than the private sector. So, from a general perspective, you egalitarianism and demand for equal treatment should have shifted to be less critical of the private sector and more critical of the public sector.
You can find exceptions in every dataset. I am reporting on the general statistics and facts.
I do believe that non-unionized workers in the private sector, in general, tend to be more driven to perform and produce. It is a system issue because of the existence or the non-existence of competition, and maybe partially the result of filtering on personalities.
Related to the filtering, some people are not comfortable competing. They don’t handle conflict well, stress easily and don’t have strong coping capability. These people are probably more likely to gravitate toward a government job. In fact, I have encouraged employees to consider a government job career for these reasons. It used to be that this person would be accepting a reduction in pay in consideration of the lower stress workplace… something that they would materially value.
I think I know how you will respond to this. First you will repeat that you value cooperation over competition. But as I have said before, this is a silly point because all significant work requires cooperation but, as it relates to the private sector, it is usually within a framework of competition… just like a football team will cooperate to win even as the players compete for positions and playing time… and, they will compete with other teams trying to beat them. That is just the reality for most jobs in the private sector. The fact that you don’t experience this in the medical profession is one of the prime reasons why healthcare costs have exploded and continue to rise far faster than the rate of inflation. Too bad you don’t have more competition in that industry.
I think you would also have a problem discounting people lacking similar stress coping skills and competitive drive (assuming all other things being reasonably equal). You would point to a vision of social and economic nirvana where we pay employees in each role the same only adjusted by an assessment of effort. So, in your view, the stressed out person might deserve to be paid more because it takes him more effort to do the same job.
But, let’s assume that I am wrong about this and you think the stressed out, low competition person should be paid the same or less. Well, today that person, if he is working in government, is likely making more… much more considering the value of his benefits.
So again, I have to question why you defend the practice of over-paying for public-sector labor. Even when you know that the money being spent there endangers social programs, schools, etc. It sure looks ideological to me.
[quote]Ms. Saifuddin is an ill-advised choice because she promotes activities that marginalize a large group of students on campus, and she advances extremist positions[/quote]
[quote]Saifuddin graduated from the Council on American Islamic Relations’ Youth Leadership Program in public speaking, media relations and governmental activism in 2008 and has maintained close ties to the organization, which has been accused of promoting radical Islam[/quote]
[quote]CAIR has strong ties to the terrorist group Hamas:
“[CAIR] was formed not by Muslim religious leaders throughout the country, but as an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Incorporated in Texas, the IAP has close ties to Hamas and has trumpeted its support for terrorist activities.”[6] Former chief of the FBI’s counter terrorism section, Oliver Revell, called the IAP “a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.”[7]
CAIR’s head, Nihad Awad asserted at a 1994 meeting at Barry University, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.”[8]
Former FBI counter terrorism chief, Steven Pomerantz, stated publicly that, “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”[9]
CAIR promotes extremist views and a radical Islamic vision:
At a speech in Fremont, California, Omar M. Ahmad of CAIR proclaimed that, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”[10]
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper equates Christian leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Rev. Jimmy Swaggart with Osama bin Laden because he claims that given the chance, they would commit mass murder against Muslims. “They’re the equivalent of our Osama bin Laden,” Hooper told WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg. When asked to clarify if Osama bin Laden’s goal was to kill Christians, Jews and Westerners, Hooper responded, “Yes, that’s one of his goals. And I’m sure that, given the right circumstance, [Falwell, Robertson and Swaggart] would do the same in the opposite direction.”[11]
CAIR is an apologist for convicted Islamic terrorists:
CAIR’s founder, Nihad Awad, wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 World Trade Center trial, which ended in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, was “a travesty of justice.” According to Awad — and despite the confessions of the terrorists from the 1993 attack — “there is ample evidence indicating that both the Mossad and the Egyptian Intelligence played a role in the explosion.”[12]
On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him “one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America” and includes him on its advisory board.[13]
CAIR is reluctant to condemn terrorists and terrorism:
In October 1998, the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as “the sworn enemy,” finding this depiction “offensive to Muslims.”[14]
In 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden’s responsibility for the two Al Queda African embassy bombings. According to CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, the bombings resulted from a “misunderstandings of both sides.” [15]
CAIR supports organizations that fund terrorism:
When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December 2001 for collecting money that intelligence found was “used to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.[16] [/quote]
[quote]…the US Department of Labor confirms that public sector employees work fewer hours and are paid more than the private sector.[/quote]
@Frankly, your pseudo-intellectuality is shining through. This factoid (if it’s true) means nothing by itself. One would think that working fewer hours and getting paid more shows the advantage and *desirability* of working the public sector.
What I think you’re trying to say is that public sector employees are less productive and are engaging in exploitative behavior. This is exactly what you have *not* proven. Facts, out of context, mean nothing, my friend.
[i]@Frankly, your pseudo-intellectuality is shining through.[/i]
@Brian Riley, apparently you just pretend you are smart without looking up any facts.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/gubmentless1.jpg[/img]
But here is the real kicker…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/gubmentless2.jpg[/img]
Are we still on topic here? I was going to discuss Napolitano’s qualifications and her divisiveness, but now we’re arguing about how many hours a week she’ll work?
If she comes in with some ideas from Oregon, she’ll do fine: [quote]”…the Oregon legislature unanimously approved a bill that would allow students to attend the state’s public universities without paying tuition. They would instead pay for the cost of their education with 3 percent of their annual salary for 25 years after they graduate.”[/quote] What a great concept.
JustSaying wrote:
“…the Oregon legislature unanimously approved a bill that would allow students to attend the state’s public universities without paying tuition. They would instead pay for the cost of their education with 3 percent of their annual salary for 25 years after they graduate.”
If you graduate from college and start working making ~$50K and get ~3% raises every year over 25 years paying 3% of your annual salary every year will total ~$60K (just about the current cost of 4 years of undergrad UC tuition). The present value of the payments are far less than $60K, so yes that would be popular with most students…
Frankly
[quote]That is just the reality for most jobs in the private sector. The fact that you don’t experience this in the medical profession is one of the prime reasons why healthcare costs have exploded and continue to rise far faster than the rate of inflation. Too bad you don’t have more competition in that industry. [/quote]
You are kidding, right ? You think that there is not competition in the medical profession. Unfortunately, and not in keeping with my philosophy, the medical profession is built on competition. Starting with competition for grades as an undergraduate, competition to get into medical school, competition for the most desirable residency position, competition amongst residents for what are perceived as the best jobs, and finally competition between groups ( in our area Sutter, Methodist, Kaiser and UCD) for patients. What I see is that we would be far better off, as would our patients and our communities, if instead of competing with one another, we were to cooperate. One system with sharing resources, information, collaborative rather than competitive referrals so that each patient received the best available care in the region for their condition. Think what we could achieve in the field of medicine if we were to work together to promote health, prevent and minimize disease in the most efficient manner possible. But instead we remain wedded to an outmoded, profit based melange which we call a “system” that does not provide the best care possible unless of course you are either very wealthy, or very blessed by having had good insurance. And even then, until extremely recently, under the act that you hate so much ( the ACA) your insurance carrier was as likely to try to find a way to terminate your policy when you truly became ill. Right down to the insurers, medicine has been based on competition frequently to the detriment of the patient. Which makes your assertion quite surprising.
I definitely know competition. And you are right in asserting that I believe that there is a better way.
Medicine, and in my opinion much of the private sector is not, or should not be analogous to football teams pitted against one another. We would be stronger rather than weaker with cooperation rather than competition as the basis for our individual endeavors as well as for our society.
Frankly
[quote]I have to question why you defend the practice of over-paying for public-sector labor. Even when you know that the money being spent there endangers social programs, schools, etc. It sure looks ideological to me.[/quote]
I don’t defend the practice of over paying for public sector labor. I also do not defend the practice of under paying public sector workers. As often stated, I think all should be payed the same for their time spent working and would earn more if they wanted by putting in more time. However, my question to you is, how do you decide that the amount being paid the public sector employee is the “right amount” ? You repeatedly state that the public sector is over payed using the private sector as your bench mark. For me, the optimal pay, is probably somewhere in the middle. Do you truly believe that the “work” of a Paris Hilton or a Kardashian is worth more than the work of say a senator or a general ? Does not this represent overcompensation of the private sector and under payment of the public sector ? I have told you what my basis for compensation would be, namely that which is of equal value to all, our time. What exactly is your basis for what is the “right” amount of compensation.
Frankly
[quote]he US Department of Labor confirms that public sector employees work fewer hours and are paid more than the private sector. So, from a general perspective, you egalitarianism and demand for equal treatment should have shifted to be less critical of the private sector and more critical of the public sector. [/quote]
Not if I believe, as I do, that working fewer hours and having more time for family and non work related activities provides a healthier and more desirable life style.
JustSaying
[quote]”…the Oregon legislature unanimously approved a bill that would allow students to attend the state’s public universities without paying tuition. They would instead pay for the cost of their education with 3 percent of their annual salary for 25 years after they graduate.”[/quote]
Now there is a concept worth emulating. Thanks for sharing.
Frankly,
The UC system employs 10s of thousands (circa 100,000?) employees.
Executives of companies with this many employees typically receive annual compensation well in excess of a million dollars. We do want to attract a person of quality, do we not? Isn’t this the reason given for the multimillion pay packages of executives of large companies? (Unfortunately we got Napoli; I say offer $2 million and find someone better!)
No question that at the lower end of the pay scale; government workers generally earn much more than private sector. Seems to me we should raise the retirement age on all government workers, more modest pension formulas; this would take care of most of the excess taxpayer expense of government employees. For monthly pay; just forego raises for a number of years for gov workers; and raise the minimum wage close to a more dignified $10/hr; this will help close the gap between public & private near low end of pay scale.
jimt
[quote]this will help close the gap between public & private near low end of pay scale.[/quote]
I would support this approach. But I think it would have far more positive impact on our economy overall to close the gap between the highest and lowest compensated in both the private and the public sectors.
Those at the top would hardly notice the difference, those at the bottom would have significantly more discretionary spending money. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
[quote]In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or [b]off-topic messages in an online community [/b](such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion[/quote]