 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: A matter of trust
Chester Finn is one of those people whose breadth of accomplishment leaves most of us lesser souls shaking our heads: At one time or another, he’s been a top federal bureaucrat, assistant to the president, professor, educational entrepreneur, author of many books and foundation director.
An all-around smart guy, in other words.
I’ve known Finn for 20 years, but for the first time I must unhappily report that he’s utterly off base. His well-intended defense in these pages last week of Christine Johnson, the ousted president of the Community College of Denver, misses the point.
Finn, who is currently president of the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, suggests that “change-minded leaders” — that would include his friend Johnson, of course — “invariably do things that auditors and investigators can challenge because such executives are more interested in results than in procedural niceties.”
That may be true, although it sounds a bit pat. Even so, Johnson’s downfall resulted not only from her corner-cutting but from the fact that her boss at the community college system, Nancy McCallin, must have concluded that she couldn’t trust Johnson anymore.
A series of e-mails from November between Johnson and CCD Chief Financial Officer Barbara Casey reveals why:
Casey: “The system office is wanting our reserve calc. (calculation) . . . We are showing over a 10% reserve. I am not comfortable submitting that calc. since it implies that we have ‘extra’ funds.”
Johnson: “Send calculation at some lower level — 3 or 4% and send with comment about your reservation to send information without guidance as newcomer to system and please copy me.”
Casey: “Unfortunately, can’t force it to a certain number now since they already have our financials so I can’t move things around without them knowing. I think we’re probably better off not submitting since they already think we’re much lower (at 1.4%). I was thinking I could just send an e-mail saying we’re not sure how to calculate and are hesitant to make up a method.”
Johnson: “Sounds like good idea to send ‘don’t know how to calculate’ . . . .
From McCallin and her board’s perspective, those e-mails amount to a deliberate attempt to keep them in the dark concerning the financial state of the Community College of Denver. Johnson may well be a crackerjack college leader, but her competence was no longer the issue. It became one of trust.
That pesky free speech
State Rep. Morgan Carroll climbed on her high horse recently when the Supreme Court decided that a small group of Wisconsin right-to-life activists could buy an ad criticizing an incumbent U.S. senator within 60 days of an election, no matter what federal law says.
“Granting special free speech rights to corporate interests” — that Wisconsin group was incorporated, you see — “sends the balance of power between corporations and people into a tailspin,” said the Aurora Democrat. “The Supreme Court is giving greater rights to corporations than to individuals. That can’t be what our Founders intended.”
Well, why don’t we just read the First Amendment to see what the Founders intended?
That’s what the late Justice Hugo Black always urged when challenged on a free speech issue.
“The First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight,” Black declared. “That amendment provides, in simple words, that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ I read ‘no law . . . abridging’ to mean no law abridging.”
So what does Carroll think “no law abridging” means?
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at Carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
The founders did not equate corporations as people nor did they equate corporate MONEY as free speech in the Constitution.
That is a modern Rehnquist twist by pro-corporate wealth judges that undermines actual 1st Amendment speech for people.
This case undermines First Amendment free speech in the name of promoting it.
Posted by Morgan Carroll on August 12, 2007 09:34 AMCorporations should not be allowed to participate in any way in the political process. The people need to take the political process back away from the corporations.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 21, 2007 09:39 AM