Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE: Gun Reforms vs. Gun Servants

by Dick Polman Why do Republicans nauseatingly refuse to address America's gun murder epidemic? Why are they so determined to sustain our well-earned reputation as the most violent nation in the civilized western world? Why are they jerking their knees in reflexive opposition to President Obama's modest attempts to defend our right to remain alive?

Of course we know why. It's Obama hatred and gun lobby love.

You would think, judging by their tiresomely predictable reactions, that Obama is poised to dispatch an army of flying monkeys to swoop into American homes and spirit away the 270,000,000 guns that we apparently hold dear.

But this fever swamp rhetoric is flatly contradicted by reality. Obama is basically tweaking existing gun laws to make them work better. Which is exactly what Republicans have been urging all along.

For instance, the federal background check system is notoriously understaffed and under-financed. Under federal law, if the FBI can't complete a check within three days, the buyer gets his gun without the check having been completed. That's what happened last year in Charleston, South Carolina. Remember the white racist terrorist who killed nine people at the historic black church? He got his gun because the understaffed feds didn't obtain his criminal record within the mandated three days.

So Obama is beefing up the background-check system - directing more money and manpower to weed out the criminals and mentally ill. Plus, he's earmarking an extra $500 million to mental-health services, to better help those who have woes between their ears.

Yet the Republicans don't like any of that.

Obama also took action to close loopholes in existing laws - most notably, the one that allows people to buy guns, without any background screening, from private sellers and online sellers. Isn't it logical to tweak existing laws so that everybody gets screened prior to buying bang-bangs? The American public certainly thinks so; according to the latest Quinnipiac poll, 89 percent support background checks for private and online buyers.

The Republicans don't want any of that, either.

Requiring shippers to report stolen guns - that makes sense, too. Investing in advanced technology so that kids can't accidentally pull gun triggers - that makes sense, too. And yet, not a single Republican has spoken up to say, hey, that's a good idea.

Instead, all we got was the usual pap, plus a lot of whining about Obama's alleged kingly behavior. They're basically complaining that Obama is doing end-runs around the Republican Congress, somehow forgetting that the Republican Congress is invested in doing the gun lobby's business by doing nothing. Just last month, in fact, it squashed a bill designed to beef up background checks.

Kathleen Parker - the center-right political columnist, no friend of Obama's - says it well on Wednesday: "In fairness to the gun lobby, which may not deserve such charity, one can understand reservations about limiting access to guns. What is less easily understood is the refusal of Republicans to take the reins of any given issue and do something constructive rather than invariably waiting to be forced into the ignoble position of 'no.' It is one thing to be in the pocket of the National Rifle Association. It is another to do nothing and then assume a superior posture of purposeful neglect, as though do-nothingness were a policy and smug intransigence a philosophy."

Can Obama's executive actions substantially curb our annual gun murder epidemic? No way. We have too many guns in circulation for that to happen. He freely acknowledged that on Tuesday, saying, "We know we can't stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world.  But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence."

There it is - the desire to save at least a few of the lives that would otherwise be lost. Doing something to dent the death toll sure beats thoughts 'n' prayers.

Or to paraphrase the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the world entire."

__________________________________________

Dick Polman is a former columnist at The Hartford Courant and was founding editor of The Hartford Advocate.  He is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia and a "Writer in Residence" at the University of Pennsylvania. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com. Copyright 2016 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: Consider the Meaning of Language Before You Use It – Or Prepare to Lose

by Paul Steinmetz A university is a wonderful place to work if you like the energy of young people, smart coworkers who are trained to challenge the status quo, and the clanging excitement that the combination creates. You will also notice that the inhabitants of universities and colleges sometimes get themselves knotted up in problems that others don’t face, and they often involve the use of language.

One reason for these issues is that there are a lot of constituencies of higher education, and trying to please them all might be impossible.

Complicating the situation, colleges and universities are often at the forefront of trends in lifestyle and other thinking, which means the words we use to describe these new things are not well defined or accepted. It’s very easy to be well-meaning and yet upset someone.

Finally, you have professors who are very definite in their opinions and students who are enthusiastic in their challenge of such opinions.

The occasional result: chaos, misunderstanding and anger.

Here are a few examples:

At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, an administrative office published a guide of pronouns that transgender people might prefer. The list included ze and hir or zir instead of he/she and her or him. Xe and xem would take the place of they and them.

The education trade journal Inside Higher Ed reported that the guide “created a political uproar in the state.” The university president ordered the guide removed from the UT website, saying, “The social issues and practices raised by the Office for Diversity and Inclusion are appropriate ones for discussion on a university campus. However, it was not appropriate to do so in a manner that suggests it is the expectation that all on campus embrace these practices.”

At Washington State University, a professor wrote a syllabus that banned the use of certain words in class and promised punishment to any students who used the words.

From the syllabus:

“Use of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist or generally offensive language in class or submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes ‘The Man,’ ‘Colored People,’ ‘Illegals/Illegal Aliens,’ ‘Tranny’ and so on — or referring to women/men as females or males.)”

The university administration acknowledged that the professor was attempting to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for everyone. But it pointed out that the syllabus probably violates the First Amendment and ordered all professors “to ensure that students’ right to freedom of expression is protected along with a safe and productive learning environment.”

Finally, you might think that the definition of genocide is clear-cut, but it’s not. Sacramento State University in California is the most recent institution to teach us this.

A sophomore there says her professor threatened to kick her out of class after she allegedly challenged his statement that the term “genocide” wasn’t appropriate for U.S. settler and government actions against American Indians.

Again according to a report in Inside Higher Ed, the professor allegedly said that genocide implies intention and, in his opinion, most native people were killed by European diseases.

The student said she was “enraged” by that statement and a couple of days later she debated the professor in class and began reading out loud the United Nations’ 1948 definition of genocide. The professor asked her to stop, inviting her to talk to him after class rather than “hijack” his lesson. Social media and bloggers reported on the confrontation and the university is investigating exactly what happened in the classroom. (The Inside Higher Ed article offers examples of the many variables considered in deciding what is and what isn’t considered genocide.)

Although none of these situations occurred at the university where I work, I pay attention to them because it would be my task, along with many others, to advise on a response to such an uproar should it happen here.

As a professional writer and public relations practitioner, I often say that anticipating problems and addressing possible issues is usually better for an organization, and individuals, than moving ahead without thinking about the consequences of words. Language is sometimes volatile and has the potential to convey things not intended if mishandled. My other advice is that, when about to engage in potentially controversial activity, you should always let the boss know what you are doing. He/she/ze might later backtrack, but at least you have communicated thoughtfully and clearly. And that is what is important.

________________________________________________

Paul Steinmetz is director of Public Affairs & Community Relations at Western Connecticut State University. As the founder of Writing Associates, he consults on writing issues for businesses and individuals. If you want to discuss a writing issue, contact him at paul@paulsteinmetz.com.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: Fiduciary Duty - A Pledge Board Members Need to Uphold

by Lisa Wills The whole of an organization is only as strong as the composition of its board.

Many individuals become nonprofit board members because of their passion for the entity’s mission.  Once the organization determines the member is a fit, it’s assumed that the pledge to honor and uphold the fiduciary duties will naturally follow.

The benefits of sitting on a board are innumerable.  However, board members who use their position for surreptitious gains and lose sight of their responsibility to uphold the organization’s best interests, or are not fully paying attention, may wind up in one of these scenarios.

Recently, a jury verdict against the board of directors of Lemington Home for the Aged, a nonprofit nursing home, was upheld by the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.  The directors were found personally liable for breach of their duty of care for failure to remove the CFO of the nursing home after learning of his mismanagement of the entity.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has called for an investigation of the board members of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art over alleged mismanagement of the higher education institution’s endowment and physical assets.  Their actions caused the school to charge undergraduates tuition for the first time in its history.

The lack of transparency by Sweet Briar College’s board of trustees led to legal action after the board failed to communicate to its constituents the accuracy of their financial situation, yet in turn, voted to abruptly close the institution.  After a long legal battle, a settlement was reached in June 2015 to keep the institution open, with several conditions, one being the resignation of the entire board of trustees.

These are just a few of the national headlines that exhort us to question how serious some nonprofit board members take their fiduciary responsibilities. These responsibilities are known as the duties of care, loyalty and obedience.

Board members are expected to exercise reasonable care when making decisions on behalf of the entity in which they serve.  In instances where they do not exercise such care, board members may be held personally liable.

Increased scrutiny over the activities and decisions of nonprofit boards may result in members and prospective members evaluating if their involvement is worth the risk.  There are some key practices that board members need to uphold as assurance that they are exercising fiduciary responsibilities:

• Know the entity – Read and understand the articles of incorporation and bylaws, and ensure that documents are updated and amended as appropriate. Be aware of pending and threatened legal claims against the entity.
• Be informed of strategic initiatives – Read the organization-wide long-term, strategic plan. Understand the financial and economic challenges facing the entity and the industry, as a whole.
• Stay informed of financial activities – Understand significant components of the annual budget, encourage regular reporting of financial information, review the annual audit report and management recommendations with the external auditors.
• Understand conflict of interest policy – Be aware of potential conflicts of personal and professional conflicts of interest between the board member, a family member or an employee and the nonprofit entity. Disclose conflicts of interest and abstain from board votes where appropriate.
• Understand the nonprofit entity’s indemnification policies – Ensure that the entity’s policies provide for indemnification of its board members, and that there is a directors’ and officers’ liability policy in place to cover claims arising from board service.
• Prepare for and attend board meetings – Review board minutes and financial statements in advance of meetings, which will allow you to be an active participant and ask questions and understand the issues.  Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves.
• Always use good judgement - Remember that the fiduciary responsibility requires board members to make decisions that are both prudent and informed.

Board members receive great satisfaction from their involvement and should feel that, in exercising due care, they have acted in the best interest of the nonprofit in furthering the mission and making a difference.

___________________________

Lisa Wills is an audit director with Whittlesey & Hadley, P.C.  She specializes in audits of nonprofit organizations.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: Here Today and Gone by January, 2030

by Peter Eder In our unending and ever accelerating pace of societal change, it might be productive to reflect on what will not be here in fifteen short years.  Looking into our crystal balls might just help us prepare to cope with changing aspects of our society.  Here are some observations.

“Full time employees” will be as extinct as “telephone switchboard operators”, and the Social Contract, no longer applying to employee / employer relationships, will only be found in the writings of Rousseau.

United States currency will have value only to Numismatists, as a global currency replacing dollars, yuans, reals and rupees will be in increasingly electronic usage.  And that currency will be paperless and coinless.  In a visit to China last year, it was somewhat surprising to discover that in Beijing, coins are no longer used.  All expenses are rounded up or down to the nearest paper yuan.

Un-earmarked charitable donations will have been replaced by the omnipresent cause-related giving permeated as a marketing and public relations strategy, and as the wealthy lay claim to their own branded intent to stamp out specific illnesses or perceived social injustices.

Genders will be non-existent in civil law, in fashion, fragrance ... and everyday life.  Labels like Mr., Mrs., and Ms. are already being replaced by Mx.

Individual privacy will have disappeared caused by individual indifference, data clouds, drones, face recognition and surveillance-everywhere cameras, and corporate and governmental manipulations of regulations.

Public place quiet will have also disappeared, thanks to ubiquitous and intrusive electronic gadgets, visual and audio advertising everywhere, and ego driven social manners.

A balkanized internet will have replaced the World Wide Web, as the war over ownership and manipulation of all forms of communications becomes an attractive replacement, or at least a supplement to, “conventional” warfare.

Brick and mortar general public libraries will have gone the way of most houses of worship, as we move into the Paper-less Books and Godless Society. The Divine Being worship vacuum will be partially filled by zealots preaching over electronic outlets.  A substantial number of church structures will be converted into museums, or studio sets for those wishing “traditional” marriage photos.

What is in your crystal ball?

____________________________________

Peter F. Eder is a retired marketing executive, AARP Connecticut community volunteer and a founding board member of At Home In Darien, his community aging-in-place organization.  Throughout his career, he has been involved with local and national organizations within the communications arena and in responding to acute needs of people in our communities.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE l A Lesson in Finding - and Maintaining - Your Passion

by Paul Steinmetz After two years of planning, Cynthia Newlin O’Connor’s career as an activist hit the peak. She stood in Times Square and watched a ton of ivory that had been smuggled into the U.S. go through a crusher.

These ivory crushes, as they’re called, are held to demonstrate to a world audience, including poachers and smugglers, that there will be no profit in killing elephants for their tusks.

O’Connor is the executive director of Elephants Matter, a nonprofit concerned with stopping the slaughter of elephants for the ivory trade.

A week after her daughter graduated from college, O’Connor suggested, “Let’s go to California and clean up those sea birds that were caught in the oil spill at Santa Barbara.”

Her daughter replied, “You had me until you mentioned cleaning the sea birds, mom.”

O’Connor is quick-talking and petite but not demure – “I try to use Cynthia, not Cindy, but I can’t pull it off.” She gave herself about two weeks to recoup from the crush before starting her current venture. She’s gathering signatures on a petition to Pope Francis that asks him to join the elephant crusade and to sponsor his own crush of Vatican ivory.

I’m writing about O’Connor because she demonstrates the passion that all single-minded people have in some supply. Sure, she has more than the rest of us, but writers and entrepreneurs get excited about things, too. That’s why they take off on quests to start their own businesses or are certain in their belief that they can persuade others with a unique collection of words and sentences. It seems a little nutty to everyone else, but most of us with the calling feel we have little choice: We must pursue our belief in ourselves and our abilities.

Sometimes it works out. O’Connor became an elephant crusader as a youngster. She was a child model doing a photo shoot at a zoo near Chicago. The young elephant was aggressive and sent her flying with a swat of its trunk. O’Connor asked her mother why the elephant would do that and mom replied, “He’s surely not a happy baby. He should be with his mother back in Africa where he belongs!”

As O’Connor says, “I was imprinted.”

She traveled to Africa in 1988 and visited the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust orphanage in Nairobi. “On that day I promised myself and the elephants that I would do whatever it took to save them.”

O’Connor has worked as a photographer and in sales for radio. She created Elephants Matter and in 2013 became a full-time crusader, testifying in January 2014 before the New York State Assembly in support of a bill condemning the illegal trade in ivory. The bill was signed into law on Aug. 12, which is World Elephant Day. At the hearing, O’Connor committed to the creation of an ivory crush in Manhattan. She campaigned, researched, and enlisted the support of state Sen. Brad Hoylman, whose district includes Times Square, and the crush happened on June 19.

Now she is circulating her petition.

“I strongly believe that when the Pope speaks out about this issue it will be the final word needed,” O’Connor says. “The world embraces him, and he embraces the world. Above any political agenda, financial gain or personal aggrandizement, when the pope speaks, the world listens.”

Whether the pope and the world do listen, you can count on one thing. O’Connor is not going to stop.

Paul Steinmetz, a former editor of the Danbury News-Times, is the director of Community Relations and Public Affairs for Western Connecticut State University and the principal of Writing Associates, providing publicity and writing services for businesses, institutions and individuals.

_________________________________________________________

CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less.  Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info.  Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers. 

PERSPECTIVE l Major Accounting Changes Proposed by FASB for Nonprofits

by Katrina Olson The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) announced in April 2015 proposed changes to reporting for nonprofit organizations nationwide and will impact the approximately 13,340 nonprofits currently registered with the State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection.  The proposal represents the first major overhaul of nonprofit reporting requirements in more than two decades.

FASB, formed in 1973, serves as the standard-setting body that establishes accounting rules governing the preparation of financial reports by nongovernmental entities, including nonprofit organizations.

Changes are expected to be widespread, affecting all areas of the financial statements.  Here are a few of the significant changes:

Net assets

With multiple proposed changes on the table, the greatest impact calls for elimination of the three classes of net assets, the reserves of a nonprofit organization—unrestricted, temporarily restricted, and permanently restricted.  If passed, nonprofits would have to report two classes of net assets, “net assets with donor restrictions” and “net assets without donor restrictions”.

The current distinction between permanent restrictions and temporary restrictions has become blurred in recent years due to changes in state laws.  Many states allow nonprofits to spend from permanently restricted endowment funds under certain circumstances.

FASB hopes simplifying the number of classes of net assets will improve understandability and reduce complexity.

Income statement

Another significant change would impact the statement of activities, which presents a nonprofit’s income and expenses.  The proposed rule would require all nonprofits to report net income or loss from operating activities separate from non-operating activities.  This would more clearly show the income and costs directly related to accomplishing the mission of the organization.

Non-operating activities, such as investment earnings or losses, can distort the operating bottom line. This makes it difficult for an interested party to distinguish the financial performance directly related to the nonprofit’s mission.

Cash flows

A change likely to stir the most controversy amongst nonprofit accountants is the proposed overhaul of the statement of cash flows, which identifies the organization’s sources and uses of cash. The cash flow statement is often cited as the most misunderstood statement.

Key stakeholders frequently gloss over the statement of cash flows, considering it unreadable.   The FASB proposed change would present the statement using the direct method, requiring the reporting of cash receipts from key revenue sources as well as disbursements to suppliers versus to employees for wages.  It’s anticipated that this change would provide a clearer presentation of cash in and out related to operations.

Proponents argue the change to the cash flow statement would provide more useful information to key stakeholders, although some nonprofit advocates take issue with any change that would cause even greater disparity between reporting requirements of nonprofit organizations versus for-profit businesses.

What’s the bottom line? Truth be told, these reporting changes will require an investment of time for nonprofits and their accountants to implement.  Whenever there is any change to accounting rules, there are both benefits and costs.

FASB’s proposal comes at a time when stakeholders have increasingly complained that improvements are needed to the financial statement presentation for nonprofits to provide better information for decision-makers regarding a nonprofit’s financial performance, service efforts, need for external financing, and stewardship of donor funds.

The proposal has been years in the making, dating back to late 2009 with the formation of the Not-for-Profit Advisory Committee (NAC) – a group formed to work with FASB to focus on financial reporting issues affecting the nonprofit sector.

A handful of nonprofit accounting rule changes have passed in the years since the formation of the NAC – the current proposal represents the most sweeping modification to nonprofit reporting requirements, thus far.

Nonprofits and accountants may view these changes as extra work in the short-term, however we can only hope nonprofits will reap the anticipated benefits of providing better information to decision-makers.

The FASB proposed changes are expected to be effective for 2017.  In the meantime, FASB invites individuals and organizations to weigh in on the proposed changes before August 20, 2015.  To comment, visit the FASB website at www.fasb.org and click on Exposure Documents Open for Comment, or email director@fasb.org.

You might notice a comment from me as well!

Katrina Olson is an audit manager with Whittlesey & Hadley, P.C.  She specializes in audits of nonprofit organizations. This article first appeared in Hartford Business Journal.   

_________________________________________________________

CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less.  Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info.  Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers. 

PERSPECTIVE l Developing the Next Generation of Social Change Leaders

by Nicole Lindsay and Meghan Lowney We have the great privilege of supporting the development of rising social change leaders in Connecticut.  Through our leadership programs and in conversations with individual leaders over the years, we've listened and learned.  It's clear that rising leaders are passionate about social change and want to have greater impact. This desire is similar to what we hear from executive directors and other senior nonprofit leaders who grapple with serving constituents and building sustainable organizations despite the challenges of limited resources and the ever-growing complexity of social issues.  We know that the people on our teams are mission-critical. And we know that they need professional development and support to get the job done well.

But knowing and doing are two different things.  Even though talent is an organization’s most important asset, nonprofits routinely fail to invest in human capital development. The communities we care about so much depend on our effectiveness, yet we don’t implement and fund strategies that enable staff retention, growth and achievement.

All too often, our day-to-day organizational realities trump our desire for long-term organizational and social impact.  A tension between the immediate and important exists because, despite our efforts, most of our constituents are underserved.   As responsible stewards of funding and support, we respond by investing as much as possible to immediately and directly meet the needs of our constituents.   Consequently, we make too little room in our budgets for leadership development.  Organizational cultures neglect leadership practice.   This shortsighted—albeit honorable— approach limits leadership development and diminishes the social sector’s impact.  Connecticut’s social impact potential necessitates more investment now in the people who will lead the sector in the future. We will go farther, faster, if we refocus our attention to building leaders.

So, how might individual organizations expand investment in rising leaders and get better results? We have a few low-cost, as well as more resource-intensive, strategies to suggest. But first, it’s important to share a key assumption, grounded both in research and our own experiences:  leaders are made, not born.  They are "made" through deliberate practice including their own efforts to reflect, proactively seek and use feedback and take on stretch opportunities. They need support for this work including the guidance, feedback and investment of more seasoned leaders.  Everyone can learn to lead.

Suggested next steps for advancing your leadership development efforts:

• Envision Your Next Generation Leadership Team—Clarify your vision of the team that your organization will need for future success. A longer-term view will help cultivate a leadership development mindset. Identify what your rising leaders will need to know and do in the future and determine what strategies would best support their development.

• Be Deliberate about Diversity— As we look to the future, we know that nonprofit organizations must achieve more ethnic, racial, socio-economic and experiential diversity. Constituents and other stakeholders, including rising leaders, expect their organizations to be actively working to increase diversity and very much want to be a part of helping achieve that outcome. Proactively work to discover untapped talent and potential both internally and externally.
  • Set Goals and Create a Plan That Works—Whether an organization’s budget is big or small, leadership development must be prioritized to get results. Determine your organizational goals and measurable outcomes that you anticipate. Engage leaders at every level for input. Ensure that all stakeholders understand the plan and your commitment to leadership development. Craft a plan and a process to check in on progress and evaluate your growing bench of talent.
  • Establish a Realistic Budget for Leadership Development—Over time, increase investment in growth and learning. While there are lower-cost ways to support leader development (leveraging existing resources and processes) you will likely find that you should fund external programs and coaching for specific support and outcomes.
• Invest in Targeted Individual Leadership Development—Every team member, and certainly your high-potential rising leaders, ought to have an individual leadership development plan that focuses on stretch assignments and areas for growth. Younger leaders want and need feedback. They also want to know how their efforts are helping the organization meet its goals. Encourage your rising leaders to grow their support networks in order to build sustainable relationships inside and outside of the organization. Create a culture in which leaders are expected to ask for feedback, practice and reflect on their leadership efforts, and yes, sometimes fail and try again.
• Leverage Your Nonprofit’s Most Important Leadership Development Asset—The senior nonprofit team is your most important leadership development asset: not just because they are driving the organization’s critical work, but because rising leaders crave their guidance, insight and direction. Invest time, even if it’s over lunch periodically, to meet with, mentor and coach rising social sector leaders.

If developing the next generation of social change leaders was easy, every nonprofit would already be doing it. It’s tough to change our organizational cultures in order to prioritize leadership development.  But, as they say, the change starts with us.

Nicole Lindsay, JD, MBA is the Director of Leadership Development at The ZOOM Foundation and author of “The MBA Slingshot for Women:  Using Business School to Catapult Your Career” (Praeger 2014).    Meghan Lowney, MSW is the Executive Director at The ZOOM Foundation.  Find out more about their leadership development programs at www.ldrct.org and www.zoomfoundation.org.  This article first appeared in Nonprofit Advantage, a publication of the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits. 

_________________________________________________________

CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less.  Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info.  Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers. 

R's & D's See Completely Different Worlds, Quinnipiac Poll Reveals

There could not be a more stark difference of opinion on three key issues facing the nation than the diametrically opposed views of Democrats and Republicans in Iowa, one of the critical states on the road to the White House and next year’s presidential election.  While Connecticut’s primary may again be little more than a footnote in the selection process of presidential nominees, Iowa is the lead-off state, with its traditional and closely watched caucuses only a half-year away. The pivotal issues with partisan attitudes as different as night and day:  income inequality, immigration and the battle against ISIS, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.  And the differences do not stop there.

Income Inequality:  Likely Republican caucus-goers say 70 - 25 percent that the federal government should not pursue policies to reduce the income gap between wealthy and less wealthy Americans. Likely Democratic caucus-goers say 91 - 6 percent that the federal government should try to reduce income inequality.

Immigration:  Among Republicans, 46 percent say illegal immigrants should be required to leave, with 34 percent saying illegal immigrants should stay and be offered a path to citizenship and 17 percent say that they should stay, but with no path to citizenship. Among Democrats, 83 percent say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, while 9 percent say they should stay, but with no path to citizenship, and 8 percent say they should be required to leave.

Fighting ISIS:  Republicans support 72 - 23 percent sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Democrats oppose sending troops 63 - 29 percent.

"Democrats and Republicans see completely different worlds," is how Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, described the findings. "Ideas that are part of Democratic orthodoxy are an anathema to Republicans, and vice versa. Democrats think illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the United States and eventually become citizens. Republicans don't. Democrats want government to pursue policies that are aimed at reducing the income gap between the wealthy and those lower on the income scale, Republicans say no."

By a resounding margin of 83 - 9 percent likely Republican caucus goers say that political experience outside Washington is better than inside experience; a majority of  likely Democratic caucus attendees have the opposite view, but much more narrowly - 50 believe that political experience inside Washington is better than outside experience, 31 percent do not.

Another divergent view is evident when political party affiliates are asked whether business experience or government experience is preferable in the next president.  Among Republicans, the split is  68 - 28 percent with most of the view that working in business is better preparation for a president than working in government.  Democrats take the opposite view - by 76 - 14 percent they believe that government experience is better preparation for a president than business.

The only similarity of opinion comes when individuals are asked if the "right experience is better than fresh ideas" and "a candidate who comes closet to their views on issues is better than a candidate with the best chance" to defeat the opponent of the other party.   The majority of would-be Iowa caucus goes in both parties agree with both statements, although Republicans do so more strongly.

The Connecticut presidential primary is scheduled for April 26, 2016.  The Iowa caucuses are currently scheduled for Monday, Feb. 1, 2016, quickly followed by the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9.  The Nevada caucuses  and the South Carolina primary will also be held by both parties in February.  By April 26, more than half of the states will have held their caucuses or primaries, as the selection process for Republicans and Democrats  continues on toward the respective party nominating conventions in Cleveland and  Philadelphia, next July.

From June 20 - 29, Quinnipiac University of Hamden, Connecticut  surveyed 666 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points and 761 likely Iowa Democratic Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. 

PERSPECTIVE l The Problem of Rising Rents and Falling Incomes Seen Through the Regenerative Lens

by Sally Goerner “We are the poorest urban county not because we can’t produce wealth, but because we haven’t built what we need to capture it. You spend your life enriching someone else, somewhere else.” –Yorman Nunez, The Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative, 2013

Affordable housing is very much in the news these days, especially in urban areas like New York and San Francisco where unaffordability is reaching crisis proportions. Minimum wage is clearly not keeping up with rising housing costs in these areas, but at some level most people intuit that endlessly increasing the minimum wage is a losing battle that won’t allow workers to keep up with skyrocketing rents. The unstated obstacle to finding a better way is that we lack a compelling explanation for why a growing gap between rents and income is a problem not just an inevitability.

To be sure, Keynesians point out that city health in general is harmed when local monetary circulation goes down because a larger slice of income going to rent means more money flowing upward and less circulating horizontally. But, the neoclassical and neoliberal economists who dominate policy discussions tend to see this issue as simply a matter of the detritus of unerring market forces. Regenerative economics creates a very different way of looking at this conundrum – one which suggests more lasting solutions.

Regenerative economics places the problem of rising rents and falling incomes squarely within today’s context of massive and unrelenting concentrations of wealth at the very top; erosion of the middle class; and money flowing into speculative investments, not the real economy. Since robust cross-scale circulation is a critical factor in systemic health, the regenerative lens sees all of these events as signs of growing economic necrosis – the slow starvation of economic tissue due to too much money flowing to the top, and too little circulating throughout the rest of the real economy.

Economic necrosis sets in when: 1) rents go up because a few people have lots of money, and higher rents extract more from lower levels; while, 2) jobs and wages are going down because the small and medium-sized, real-economy organizations that produce most jobs are experiencing monetary starvation. Increasing the minimum wage helps somewhat, but it is a temporary, Band-Aid solution to the deeper problem of a frail real-economy with feeble job-creation due at least in part to too much money flowing away from the local real-economy organizations instead of circulating throughout middle and lower scales within. In other words, there are systemic limits to the extraction of wealth by “rentiers,” not just ethical considerations.

Instead of viewing today’s situation as the inevitable outcome of free-market forces, regenerative thinking follows Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson’s work in Why Nations Fail (2012), seeing all of these events as indications of an extractive economy, one designed politically to support the process of wealth moving upwards. Using concrete examples such as Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Texas, which are culturally and geographically identical, but politically and economically distinct, Acemoglu and Robinson demonstrate that the underlying problem of poverty lies in how much the political system supports economic policies designed to move wealth upward (extractive) versus those designed to empower, develop, and circulate. These latter characteristics are all features of a Regenerative economy.

Extractive economies create an illusion of vitality by building a shimmering bubble of phantom wealth that masks an ever more fragile real economy. In contrast, Regenerative economies seek to build long-term, cross-scale, economic vitality precisely by re-invigorating the small and medium-sized, real-economy organizations that are currently so malnourished. Taken together, the key principles of Regenerative economics show how to develop exactly those structures and processes that allow local communities to both produce wealth and circulate it back into the self-feeding economic arrangements that maintain vitality for long periods of time. This is what Regenerative means.

As it turns out, the real-economy revitalization process we need is already underway as witnessed by New Economy efforts ranging from the organic farm movement to the Evergreen Cooperatives of Cleveland. As the Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative (BCDI) shows, interest in building regenerative systems is already apparent:

BCDI is guided by a deep intention to harness the essence of the people, resources, and place of the Bronx, and to enable the members of the community to co-create the borough’s regeneration… BCDI has been undertaking considerable work in laying the ground for this more holistic approach, building out a collaborative of organizations focusing on a regional development strategy to support economic democracy in the borough, with shared ownership at the core of that vision. The collaborative includes local business leaders, organized labor, anchor institutions, including hospitals and universities, and the local zoo, as well as a diverse array of local nonprofits.

Regenerative financing is also beginning to emerge. Our Field Guide to Investing in a Regenerative Economy, for example, tells the story of Bendigo Community Banks (BCB). Begun in the 1990s, BCB reflects a “self-organizing” response to the closing of over 2,000 bank branches in rural Australia. Suddenly cut off from access to financial capital, residents and businesses of these communities appealed to Bendigo Bank to reestablish a banking presence in these areas. Now 300 strong, the resulting bank model – part franchise and part cooperative – has helped revive these communities, and given local leaders the business acumen and tools they need to sustain their own regenerative process.

A hemisphere away, in Sierra Gorda, Mexico, the not-for-profit Grupo Ecologico is developing innovative funding mechanisms for empowering a network of resourceful, but impoverished, small farmers and ranchers seeking to become regenerators of their own land and communities in one of the most biodiverse regions of the world.

Still, to truly revitalize the entire economy, these important efforts will require upper-level support in the form of improved financial flows, policy reforms, political reforms, and more apropos economic theory and measures. In contrast to “top-down” approaches such as conventional monetary and fiscal policy, or “bottom-up” approaches such as the local economy movement or even Occupy Wall Street, Regenerative economics sees connecting high-level reforms in a way that reinforces grassroots efforts as critical because regenerative health is a systemic affair which requires cross scale integration. We believe the Regenerative lens can clarify how to make such integrated reforms produce the sustainable vitality we all desire.

Dr. Sally Goerner is Science Advisor for Greenwich-based Capital Institute.  The organization’s mission is to explore and effect the economic transition to a more just, regenerative, and thus sustainable way of living on this earth through the transformation of finance.

_________________________________________________________

CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less.  Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info.  Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers.