I hope Indiana has been contacting Caterpillar too

Investor's Business Daily is reporting that Caterpillar has approached the Illinois Governor with concerns about the business tax environment in Illinois and the governor has pretty much turned a deaf ear to those concerns.

Caterpillar's Alarm Bell For Illinois

The story states that Caterpillar has been contacted by leaders of Wisconsin, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska, and other states. I certainly hope Indiana is one of those other states and it appears it is.

INSIDE INDIANA BUSINESS: Indiana keeps lines open with CAT

The Matt Painter Saga

By any measure the process employed by Purdue to hire Matt Painter to join Gene Keady's coaching staff several years ago in a plan for Painter to become Keady's successor has been an unqualified success. That factor plus Painter's history as a native of the Muncie area, a graduate of Delta High School, and an alumnus of the Purdue basketball program made it seem like Painter would be a lock to remain as Purdue's Head Basketball Coach for a long, long time, if not for life. That is what made his near departure for the Missouri job quite surprising and so unsettling for Purdue.

The Missouri job is not a bad job but at best it is a lateral move for a coach like Painter. Clearly Painter has been unhappy with some aspects of the level of commitment by the Purdue administration to the Purdue basketball program. Exact details have been the subject of a lot of speculation. But it is clear that this is a happy ending for Matt Painter certainly and also for Purdue. If Purdue had lost Matt Painter to Missouri, it would have been a major setback to the Purdue basketball program. But there doubtless are some hurt feelings and a few negatives that will be overcome, but it might take some time. Bob Kravitz of the Indy Star makes a number of good points in that regard.

Kravitz: Painter staying is great for Purdue, but scare leaves bruises

His point that this episode is sure to be used in recruiting by coaches at other schools competing with Purdue for prize recruits is important. Unquestionably Painter is an outstanding coach but his recruiting prowess has been a surprise to me and it is one factor that he cannot allow to slip. It will be very interesting to see how his next two or three recruiting classes rank. And it will be interesting to see if Painter can continue the magnificent success that he has enjoyed at Purdue to date. I am hoping he does and I think he will.

FWCS contracts with Va-based K12 Insight

Today news broke that the Fort Wayne Community Schools school board approved a three-year contract worth $355,000 with K12 Insight, a firm based in Herndon, Virginia to communicate and engage more effectively with students, teachers, staff, parents, and public through surveys.

Here is a link to the News-Sentinel story.
FWCS hires communications firm

In the wake of the City of Fort Wayne hiring a Chicago firm as a social media consultant, it again raises the obvious question why FWCS sees the need to hire a firm based in Virginia for this contract rather than a local firm or even one in Indiana at least. I think the even more important question is why do they see the need for this contract and how does it address and correct any deficiencies?

Let me assume for a second that the objectives of the contract are legitimate and measurable. How do you really measure the success of the contract? Then how do you justify this expenditure of dollars by a school corporation that is having budget issues. The fact that funding for the first year comes from federal stimulus dollars is yet another indictment of that federal stimulus program that was defended as necessary to create jobs but just added debt we cannot afford. Then the second and third years the funding comes from Title I dollars which I don't know how to defend either.

I would like to make what apparently is a radical suggestion to the FWCS school board even though I don't reside within its boundaries. If you fulfill your mission that is the reason for your existence, namely educate the children, you would not see any need to engage the community beyond what you are already doing in education. And assuming you continue to fail to fulfill your mission to educate the children, then engaging the community through a series of surveys is not going to make anybody feel better about your failure to do so.

More on Jim Tressel

On March 11, 2011 I blogged about Jim Tressel and his statement that I found not credible during his press conference earlier that week that he did nothing with the email in question because he didn't know what to do with it. I did not believe that the head coach of one of the most prestigious football programs in the NCAA would not know what to do with the email claiming some of his star football players were involved in activity not allowed by NCAA regulations.

And now The Columbus Post-Dispatch is reporting that Jim Tressel indeed did do something about the email. The report claims that he forwarded the information not to his boss, the Athletic Director, and not to the Ohio State compliance office but to a family friend and advisor of star quarterback, Terrelle Pryor.

Ohio State football: Tressel's emails were forwarded

If this Post-Dispatch report is true, then that is a very troubling development for Jim Tressel and The Ohio State University since the affair now is taking on the appearance of a cover-up in addition to a failure to notify the NCAA of possible violations.

It has been announced that Jim Tressel will serve a suspension extended from two games to five games to equal the number of games that the players in question have been suspended. But as time goes on it will be interesting to see if more information comes out and how the NCAA will rule in this entire matter and how quickly the NCAA will do so.

Two weeks ago I expressed the hope that this would settle down, some NCAA sanctions would be announced, and it would end there. The latest developments make that seem less likely. In fact many sports columnists are now calling for Tressel's removal from his job. I am not sure that will happen or should happen. But I do wonder if the administration at Ohio State is already totaling up the two sides of the ledger. Are they money ahead if they retain Jim Tressel or money ahead if they let him go? It always come down to the money.

Brick Streets? I still can't buy them.

by Rick Longsworth

Last month the story City to preserve some historic brick streets appeared in the News-Sentinel. After reading the story I tweeted a link to the story with my comment that as a city taxpayer and as one who drives on these brick streets I find it hard to buy any argument that this is a good way to spend our local tax dollars. A short time later a follow-up comment appeared on Twitter asking this question.

What other form of street pavement lasts over 100 years, adds as much character, and encourages reinvestment?

I have reflected on this for some weeks and I am still not buying brick streets or the arguments supporting them. Count me among those who still suffer from the sticker shock. The story quotes a study in which it is claimed that brick streets last from 50 to 100 years compared to asphalt streets that last an average of just 18 years. But given that brick streets cost about 10 times as much as asphalt streets, I am still looking for the return on investment that makes that increased cost tolerable.

Claims that brick streets add character are solely in the eye of the beholder and are too subjective for me. I fail to recognize that character while driving down brick streets that challenge my car's shocks every inch of the way. I also question the claim that it encourages reinvestment. How is that quantified? Reinvestment that is proven to occur and not just encouraged would be nice, but I don't know that either is really quantifiable. If brick streets are such a great investment, shouldn't we do all our streets in brick and forget asphalt altogether?

So I remain a city taxpayer who is skeptical of a public policy that requires a higher expenditure of our tax dollars because a group of citizens or business owners has lobbied city officials to use more of our money to make them feel good about having a brick street because that is the way things were done a century ago so it is more esthetically pleasing to them.

This is really a local example of the national debate now in progress that will eventually be resolved either by regaining some fiscal sanity or by bankrupting our governmental entities. We rely on our government for common defense and safety. Beyond that we are continually in debate about using more or less public money for what is described as the common good. But what is the common good is a very subjective matter open to individual interpretation. In this case officials have decided that they should spend some of the money that I earned before I was required to pay it in taxes for brick streets instead of cheaper asphalt.  I remain unconvinced that this is good use of local tax dollars when every governmental entity is struggling to find adequate funding for a lot more important needs and issues.

Charity and Panhandlers

by Rick Longsworth

Today I saw a link from Yahoo! Finance that featured a story from The Atlantic entitled Should You Give Money to Homeless People? I found it a fascinating topic. The writer explores the case for both sides of the issue and states that the short answer is No unless you work for an organization that can insure the money is spent wisely.

In my own life I have adopted a No answer as well. I never gave the issue much thought until I was on a consulting assignment in the early 1990s in Cincinnati that lasted almost a year. Given the length of the assignment I opted to lease an apartment on Queen City Avenue west of the downtown district on a bus line. I commuted home to Fort Wayne each weekend but seldom drove my car around Cincinnati. I rode the bus to and from my place of employment on 3rd Street near the Ohio River because it was convenient and less costly than paying to park my car downtown.

As a consequence I often walked around the main downtown business district especially during lunch time when the weather was favorable. What I did not expect was the number of panhandlers working Cincinnati's downtown business district. At times it was not possible to walk through the downtown blocks without being constantly solicited for money. I was not aware that this had been a continuing issue for downtown Cincinnati businesses, many of whom felt they were losing income because their clients had tired of running the gauntlet of panhandlers and were no longer patronizing downtown businesses.

Businesses complained to politicians but homeless advocates campaigned against any measures being taken by law enforcement against the panhandlers. Numerous news stories were devoted to the issue indicating that Cincinnati was second only to New York in complaints about panhandlers. Some stories featured panhandlers who claimed to be making several hundred dollars each week begging money from strangers.

Whenever I was approached, I always politely declined. When I did so, most were polite but some were belligerent. Initially my decision to say No was based solely on the fact that I could spare a few dollars here and there, but there were so many panhandlers that it was hard to see how I would make any difference and I was worried that my money would be wasted on booze or drugs so I said No. As I read and heard more and more news stories on the issue, I personally became convinced that I was witnessing another example and more evidence of Econ101.

Econ101 states that you get more of what you subsidize and you get less of what you penalize. It was clear that panhandlers in Cincinnati at that time were being rewarded sufficiently for their activity for it to continue and to grow until it had become a real problem.  Finally my assignment in Cincinnati ended and my interest in the issue ended with it. But results of a web search lead me to believe this is still an issue in Cincinnati despite local laws prohibiting or limiting panhandling and requiring a license to do so.

I never felt guilty about saying No. Giving money to a complete stranger is not my idea of charity. My wife and I are frugal with our money in most respects but I am proud of our record of donating to charities that we support. But I prefer to make our donations by check to legitimate charities and not in cash to complete strangers. I don't think there is anything wrong if someone has a different opinion and wishes to share their money with panhandlers. It's their money to use or give away as they see fit. But I think the article makes a good point that the odds are that such money helps very little and indeed might do more harm than good for society as a whole and possibly for the individuals who are given the money.

Jim Tressel

Let me say this first.  I hope this issue is done now and over with as soon as suspensions are served.  I do not want the Ohio State football program to be sanctioned by the NCAA.  I think the Big Ten needs Ohio State to remain strong and Michigan to regain its prominence with Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, and now Nebraska to benefit all member schools.  But I think concern about the Ohio State program is reasonable right now.

Okay, having said that, I don't think I have ever quite figured out how I feel about Ohio State.  As an Indiana native I always looked at Ohio State as that big college super-power next door.  I usually cheer against Ohio State dating from my time as a child.  Back in the days of Woody Hayes that would usually be when they would go to the Rose Bowl and get hammered yet again by USC or some other fleet-footed West Coast team.  Maybe I didn't like Woody Hayes much.  But occasionally I would root for them and I still do at times.

Since Woody the power of Ohio State football continues on for the most part.  Jim Tressel by any measuring stick has done a remarkable job during his tenure as OSU head football coach.  He seems for the most part to be a pretty unassuming yet sharp, no-nonsense type of guy who has things under control and running smoothly.  But that has been shattered now in my mind and I will never be able to look at him the same again.

I did not see the Ohio State press conference earlier this week discussing the latest allegations that Jim Tressel received an email in April 2010 from an attorney informing him that some of his football stars were being investigated for involvement in activity that violates NCAA guidelines for student-athletes.  Tressel's story and explanation of his actions or really lack thereof are not believable in my opinion.  His statement that he just didn't know whom he should notify of the email is not credible. How about the Athletic Director (his boss), or maybe the university president, or maybe anyone from the OSU compliance office?

It seems that I am supposed to believe that he didn’t know what to do about this email for several months during which time A.J. Green of Georgia was suspended early last season for four games for selling his jersey.  And when the investigation led to his star players being suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season and yet allowed to play in last season’s Sugar Bowl he didn’t think it might be important or relevant to report this email to Ohio State of the NCAA even then?

I am a small booster of athletics at an NCAA mid-major institution and even I know what I may and may not do regarding student-athletes and their families.  I also know that if I am not sure, I should contact their Director for Compliance.  It’s really easy and I have actually had occasion to contact them three times and it was a very painless and even enjoyable process.

So I’m supposed to believe that someone who runs one of the most prestigious football programs in the NCAA didn’t know that!  I can’t buy it.

The NCAA has a gargantuan job of monitoring all of college athletics and they do it with what seems to be a pretty small staff of compliance officers so they have to rely a lot on their member institutions policing themselves and reporting violations when they occur.  Thus it is very understandable why the NCAA does not look kindly on those institutions or their employees who fail to cooperate with the NCAA, who hide information from the NCAA, or who mislead or lie to the NCAA.  For two recent examples of some of this, think of Dez Bryant and Bruce Pearl.

So I don’t think we have heard the last of this issue at Ohio State yet.  I don’t believe Jim Tressel didn't know what to do or whom to contact about the email.  If he had just forwarded it to the Ohio State compliance office, he would be off the hook.  But he didn’t, so he has been punished by Ohio State and the NCAA might consider more punishment for him, the school, or both.

I really have two questions that I would like answered.  Did he really keep that email to himself or did he perhaps share it with anyone else at Ohio State?  If he shared it, then the NCAA would have to take a very hard look not just at Jim Tressel but at Ohio State football and maybe the entire Ohio State athletic program.

And if this investigation is pursued by the NCAA, is Jim Tressel claiming that he didn’t do anything with the email or make anyone else at OSU aware of it so that he can fall on his own sword if necessary to spare Ohio State from any NCAA sanctions?