Sen Coburn's Higher Ed Pork letters - USM Forum -- Message Board

qwerty · Status: Offline

Sen Coburn's Higher Ed Pork letters

Coast Resident · Status: Offline

I find it worth noting that concerning congressional earmarks for higher education, in the 2005 Transportation Bill the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University (Sen. Colburn is an alumni of both) together received over $30,816,000 in earmarks. None of these 3 earmarks were related to any type of road construction but were for research related endeavors. While Oklahoma State University was one of the 111 universities to receive a letter from the good Senator, the University of Oklahoma was not. The University of Oklahoma’s 2005 Transportation Bill earmark was alone $12,000,000 for “Research on global-tracking methods for intermodal containerized freight.”

In the same bill Jackson State University, Mississippi State University and Tougaloo College received for 6 earmarks approximately $30,200,000 of which only $2,400,000 went to research and this was shared by Mississippi State University with the University of Denver. The rest of Mississippi’s earmark monies went to road construction which is the primary purpose of the bill. (The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/2005/08/20050815pork.htm)

The most recent report I could find in a quick search of university earmark funding was a 2001 report which at that time ranked the University of Oklahoma 16th overall in the nation. (See: http://www.vcu.edu/ireweb/peers/earmarkedawards9101.pdf ) Colburn was not a senator at the time but he was a representative in the House. Colburn was elected to the Senate in 2004.

It looks like Colburn is trying to get on the McCain anti-pork wagon. I think if one looks into Colburn’s own refrigerator one will find plenty of bacon. If he really wants to conduct a report on university earmark spending why does he not request/require the various federal agencies, through which the funding of these earmarks flows, to conduct an analysis of the performance/technical reports submitted to them by the universities? Oh, but if he did that it would include the University of Oklahoma; my mistake!

For my part, I hope USM and the rest of Mississippi’s universities ignore his “request.”

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

Coast Resident wrote:

For my part, I hope USM and the rest of Mississippi’s universities ignore his “request.”

Coast Resident,

Could you clairify your logic here? Are you saying that only those who have never themselves been guilty of any sin are qualified to cry foul? Given the normal human propensity to notice above all those sins to which one is most tempted, I imagine that justice will often be served by such an ironic motive.

Jameela

Reporter · Status: Offline

Senator won't get response out of USM
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/OPINION03/609150306/1014/OPINION

"The University of Southern Mississippi does not plan to respond to a U.S. senator's request for information about the university's federal earmarks and lobbying activity, Vice President for Research and Economic Development Cecil Burge said.

"All of that information is publicly available," Burge said. "Anybody can get a copy of a federal budget. Any information (from Southern Miss) would be redundant."

-- Edited by Reporter at 11:23, 2006-09-15

-- Edited by Reporter at 11:29, 2006-09-15[

-- Edited by Reporter at 11:33, 2006-09-15

-- Edited by Reporter at 11:48, 2006-09-15

Greg OBrien · Status: Offline

Well, it is nice to finally hear a more-or-less official response from USM.

The latter part of the article gets interesting:

The university paid the Rhoads Group $80,000 for lobbying services in 2005, according to documents filed with the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records.

Hiring a lobbyist is an important part of navigating the arcane, complicated congressional process, Burge said.

"Congressionally directed funding is very common in all industries, not just higher education," he said. "It's part of the process of advocacy."

Coburn is seeking universities' perspective on earmarks, not just publicly available information, Hart said.

"It's condescending to the taxpayers who are helping finance (Southern Miss) to not respond to a request for information," he said, adding Coburn "does not give up" on seeing such requests fulfilled.

Coburn could block federal funds and place Southern Miss officials on a "short list" of witnesses called to Senate hearings, Hart said.

The senator's main interest is ensuring that the federal budget process is not being abused, Hart said.

"Our overall concern is what this is doing to universities themselves," he said. "The real problem isn't the universities - it's the members of Congress who have used the federal budget process to enhance their own power at the expense of research and other national priorities."

qwerty · Status: Offline

We've heard Burge state USM's position on earmarks. Here's Duke University has to say in their response to Coburn. Note that they don't call themselves an 'industry."

Research finded by earmark threatens to undermine national excellence in reesarch by diverting resources from the peer review process. As a result, the University does not seek or accept earmarks except under extraordinary circumstances and with the express permission of the President of the University.

Coast Resident · Status: Offline

The point of my original post is that Colburn by sending out letters to select universities for information on their earmark projects as opposed to obtaining the information from the federal agencies (which to me would seem a much better unbiased source) has exempted the University of Oklahoma from scrutiny. It was not at all to say, “only those who have never themselves been guilty of any sin are qualified to cry foul.” I only observe that Colburn by his actions appears to want to hide his “sin.”

I for one do not consider earmarks in and of them selves a “sin.” There are many legitimate reasons for earmarks and that is why they are included as part of legislative process. I would also note that with regard to USM’s earmarks, for this most part (not all), the ones I have read about or am aware of are primarily for funding brick and mortar type projects and not projects that might otherwise go through some “peer” review process. The Trent Lott Center is one good example.

This was another point of my original post that all 3 of Oklahoma’s Transportation Bill earmarks (100% of $30m) were for research efforts outside of the peer review process while only 1 of Mississippi’s (6% of $30m) was research related.

Colburn in my view is playing the worst kind of politics. He wants to look “anti pork” to the populist while at the same time, he and he alone will issue a report of his “findings” from the responses (or lack of) that he receives. Will what goes into his report be influenced in any way by any back room deals he might try to strike with another senator from some other state? We will likely never know. “Coburn ‘does not give up’ on seeing such requests fulfilled. Coburn could block federal funds and place Southern Miss officials on a "short list" of witnesses called to Senate hearings, Hart said.” Sounds like a senator trying to get leverage/power over his fellow senators to me.

One last comment, QWERTY, I did not see in the Duke statement you cite that they said education is not an industry. Personally I was not aware that the word industry was a dirty word. However, from what I have read on the board from some, the idea of looking at education from a business perspective is in some way dirty. It is this type of thinking that leads many in the general public to view that those in education (in particular universities) hold elitist views.

oldtimer · Status: Offline

Interesting item extracted from the Hattiesburg American article on Congressional 'earmarks':

"According to research from Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Southern Miss received more than $35 million in earmarks during fiscal year 2006, including $20 million for the National Formulation Science Laboratory at Southern Miss and $4.5 million for the Regional Sediment Management Support program on coastal zone mapping and imaging."

NOTE: Bold added by me -- this is SFT's "Coatings Lab" -- wonder if this $20M was for the "additions" to the Thames Polymer Building? If so, it already received the "formal approval of the President of the institution."

Caveat emptor.

Coast Resident · Status: Offline

oldtimer wrote:

NOTE: Bold added by me -- this is SFT's "Coatings Lab" -- wonder if this $20M was for the "additions" to the Thames Polymer Building? If so, it already received the "formal approval of the President of the institution."

Caveat emptor.

Oldtimer, the $20 million in question is for a new building in the technology park on what was the old USM golf course. http://www.usm.edu/pr/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=2

info · Status: Offline

Greg OBrien wrote:

The latter part of the article gets interesting:

The university paid the Rhoads Group $80,000 for lobbying services in 2005, according to documents filed with the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records.

[Curioser and curioser. $80,000 is much less than before. Notice as well the name of the lobbyist used in 2003 in addition to Rhoads.]

http://chronicle.com/stats/lobbying/2004/detail.php?ID=1983&orgType=

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Government & Politics
From the issue dated October 22, 2004

Colleges Lobbying the Federal Govermment, 2003

University of Southern Mississippi

Total lobbying expenditures: $240,000
Rank in expenditures among colleges and universities : 51

Lobbyist Used Amount Spent in 2003

Barbour, Griffith & Rogers Inc. $120,000
The Rhoads Group $120,000

--------------------------

[From a Google cached document retrieved with "university of southern mississippi" and "lobbyist"]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ssB76_iVXxEJ:chronicle.com/free/v51/i09/09a03201.htm+%22university+of+southern+Mississippi%22+%22lobbyist%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Government & Politics
From the issue dated October 22, 2004

Lesser-Known Public Colleges Increase Federal Lobbying
Stepped-up efforts reap big rewards; a relatively small investment brings in $3-million in earmarks

...Some of Western Michigan's peers reaped even larger rewards. The University of Southern Mississippi spent $240,000 on two Washington lobbying firms and got $6.5-million in earmarks. The University of South Alabama spent $259,000 on three outside lobbyists and received $7.4-million in earmarks.

Officials at all three universities said that new presidents at the institutions were behind a recent ramp-up in lobbying.

"We wanted to become a Carnegie doctoral-research-extensive institution," explained Cecil D. Burge, vice president for research and economic development at Southern Mississippi. Earmarks, he said, have allowed the university to build new labs and recruit top-notch faculty, helping it attract more Ph.D.'s.

For universities that want to move up in the rankings, however, success is determined in part by the clout of their Congressional delegations. Both Southern Mississippi and South Alabama have a home-state senator on the Senate Appropriations Committee, as does the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, one of the biggest winners among state institutions. Last year Las Vegas spent $260,000 on two Washington lobbying firms, and went home with $19-million in earmarks, proof of the power of well-connected representatives....

...

RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Several public colleges that have increased their lobbying efforts in recent years have done very well in snagging Congressional earmarks....

What it spent on lobbying in 2003 What it got in earmarks in fiscal 2004 Biggest project

University of Southern Mississippi $240,000 $6.5-million $4-million for its National Center for Excellence in Economic Development and Entrepreneurship

info · Status: Offline

[Universities using Barbour's firm in 2003]

http://chronicle.com/stats/lobbying/2004/detail.php?ID=42&orgType=firms

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Government & Politics
From the issue dated October 22, 2004

Colleges Lobbying the Federal Govermment, 2003

Organization type: Lobbying Firms

Keyword search (optional):

Barbour, Griffith & Rogers Inc.

Total lobbying fees: $280,000
Rank in expenditures among lobbying firms : 39

Client Amount Spent in 2003

University of Southern Mississippi $120,000
University of Mississippi $80,000
University of Mississippi Medical Center $80,000

stephen judd · Status: Offline

If the implication of "industry" is "for profit" then I think that is one reason why those in higher education are concerned not to confuse the two ideas. The "profit" in higher education is in the production of creative intellectual power within individuals and, by implications, the culture those individuals participate in. Education is an investment by individuals and by a society. The "profit" provided by education should not be confined to the bottom line if the bottom line is only monetary.

There are lots of examples of this in our culture. We don't expect the military for instance, to make a profit -- it has a social mission that transcends the idea of economic profit. While we expect the military to be accountable for its budgets, etc., we know that its presence is basic to preserving the security of the state. In the same way, a well educated citzenry is not only a productive one, but a well informed one -- hopefully well-informed enough to be able to maintain a democratic government -- a fairly sophisticated political construct whch requires its participants to be willing and able to inform themselves of the issues and ideas under which government operates. Public and private schools at all levels are part of this larger mission of education in which the idea of profit/loss is carefully balanced with a more transcendent role.

I don't think it is elitist to point this out -- to note distinctions is not necessarily to imply inferiority or superiority -- but merely to note that differences exist. In the case of maintaining a distinction between the work of the university and the work of industry the point would be to ensure that the standards of industry are not misapplied to the work of the university.

oldtimer · Status: Offline

Coast Resident wrote:

oldtimer wrote:

NOTE: Bold added by me -- this is SFT's "Coatings Lab" -- wonder if this $20M was for the "additions" to the Thames Polymer Building? If so, it already received the "formal approval of the President of the institution."

Caveat emptor.

Oldtimer, the $20 million in question is for a new building in the technology park on what was the old USM golf course. http://www.usm.edu/pr/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=2

Thanks for the correction, Coast Resident. This latest 'earmark' must be different than the original earmark that helped build the Polymer Building -- $10M from the Department of Agriculture. Of course, this was the original building, before the 'updates and additions' that took the place of the parking lot (atop the former Southern Arena Theatre). There's so much pork in the Plastics Palace, that it's hard to keep track of 'which earmark'?

Emma · Status: Offline

Implying that Sen. Coburn deliberately left the University of Oklahoma off the list is a bit of a stretch. I happen to personally know Sen. Coburn, and he doesn't play that way.

This man is for real.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/coburn.htm

Coast Resident · Status: Offline

Emma wrote:

Implying that Sen. Coburn deliberately left the University of Oklahoma off the list is a bit of a stretch. I happen to personally know Sen. Coburn, and he doesn't play that way.

This man is for real.

So Emma, are you suggesting it was just an accidental over site? I would have thought and hoped if for no other reason than appearance, Coburn would have sent letters to every university in his home state as he sent them out to universities in other states.

The letter does request information on earmarks starting from 2000. As I pointed out above, the University of Oklahoma was ranked 16th in the nation in 2001 for earmarks received. I do not know how the University of Oklahoma ranked in 2000 or 2002 through 2006 but my guess is if they ranked 16th for 2001 that for the overall period of 2000 through 2006 that they likely ranked in the top 113, which is how many letters Coburn sent out.

Since you know Coburn personally perhaps you could ask him to send one of his letters to the University of Oklahoma and its associated medical school (he managed to do that for Ole Miss) or at the very least explain why they were exempt. Since he did not send the letters out based on the amount /number of earmarks received then what were the criteria for sending a letter to a university? Could part of it be whose district they are in?