Ladner, Part II

There are a couple of additional developments on the Ladner front. Most interestingly, there’s a Washington Post article today that reveals a specific instance in 2004 where Ladner was once again asking for more money. This memo directly contradicts his assertion that he has never asked for more compensation. According to the article, as recently as last Friday, Ladner informed the Washington Post editors that “he had never asked for additional compensation and that he was always ‘surprised’ at how much he was paid.” Wow, that’s a textbook Kozlowski defense (I wonder if Ladner realizes that it didn’t work). The best part is that in light of the memo asking for $5 million in additional compensation, Ladner still maintains that he has never asked for more money. Again, according to today’s Post: “[Ladner] said he was not asking for extra compensation in the memo but was responding to a request from the chairman of the board of trustees, then George J. Collins, for ideas about his compensation.” Uh huh.

There was also a student rally on the main campus, where about 500 students showed up to gently advise the Board of Trustees as to exactly what they should do with Ladner. In additional, the Student Bar Association at American also passed a “no-confidence” vote in Ladner on Tuesday night by a margin of 17-0. The SBA President, David Jaffe, also released this statement:

Yesterday I and other University student leaders met for nearly three hours with 15 members of American University’s Board of Trustees. I openly questioned various facets of their investigation, as well as expressed the Student Bar Association’s deep concern over the future of Dr. Ladner’s affiliation with this institution. The Board was incredibly generous with their time. To their credit, all of the Trustees present were candid and forthright about the status of the investigation, their positions on the matter, and even how the University arrived at this unfortunate position as they each accepted full responsibility for failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility of oversight. In presenting the Washington College of Law’s resolution, I insisted that the Student Bar Association expressed its unanimous vote of “no confidence” not based on the legal ramifications of Dr. Ladner’s actions, but instead on the manner in which his actions undermine the core values and mission of an educational institution that prides itself on public service.

If these aren’t enough nails in the coffin, I don’t know what would qualify. Hopefully, the Board realizes just how untenable the situation is for students.

Ladner the Jerk

I was relieved to read on the front page of the Washington Post this morning that the faculty at five of the six colleges of American University passed votes of no confidence in suspended president Benjamin Ladner. For the record, the other college, the School of Public Affairs, did not have a quorum and was not able to vote. My quasi-secret faculty source tells me that the Washington College of Law vote was unanimous.

If you haven’t heard about this yet, let me point you to the rich and ironic stories that have emerged lately about President Ladner. Ladner has been President of AU since 1997, and since then his salary has risen from a “modest” $260,000 to about $800,000 last year in take-home pay. This unexplained rise to become the nation’s second highest paid university president is even more mystifying in light of his lavish, unaccountable spending habits. While Ladner was leading a private institution that charges the maximum tuition the market will bear (while offering a paltry number of scholarships and grants), and yet urges its students to make sacrifices by entering public service, President Lader felt no such need to sacrifice. A recent report details more than $500,000 in sketchy spending for such items as trips to Paris for his personal chef, and more than $1,000 in limousine trips for Ladner’s wife. As columnist Marc Fisher notes, that's pretty much the definition of irony. Why take low-paying public interest positions upon graduation when you have the feeling that the onerous debt of your education went towards financing the dinner parties of the least deserving?

Just in case he wasn’t acting smarmy enough, Ladner also took the initiative to renegotiate a secret contract with some of the members of the AU Board of Trustees that gave him a higher salary and additional perks. Forget about transparency, not even members of AU’s own Board of Trustees knew the extent of Ladner’s lavishness. Now, as Ladner has the nerve to defend his spending (not, of course, directly in front of the students whom he supposedly serves, who spend their days living in cramped dorms eating Raumen Noodles), Ladner has the nerve to whine that "I'm sorry [the faculty vote calling me a jackass] was done without having access to complete information.”

My only comfort is that according to my semi-secret faculty source, WCL was incorporated into AU in the 1930’s, and maintains a great amount of independence from the main campus, both academically and financially. Still, these assurances don’t give me much comfort when I wonder if my massive tuition bill was going to something worthy like the domestic violence clinic, or to Ben Ladner’s private top-shelf bar. This scandal affects everybody who is working towards or already has an AU degree. WCL is a good school, but the last thing it needs is an albatross like Ladner to pull it back down from an elite institution to just another tuition mill of mediocrity. The Board of Trustees would be wise to listen to the faculty on this one. If the student body here had any kind of voice in the matter, I’m sure that it would agree.

America, the World’s Nicest Chimichanga

Much of the fan mail that Grover gets these days reveals the public’s real lack of understanding of American politics. While the two most popular types of emails that Grover gets through his telegrammaphonic message center are along the lines of “didn’t you die in 1908?” and “would you please stop calling me and then hanging up?” there are also inquiries into why this blog is so ridiculous. Angry emails pour in almost daily, berating poor Grover for his absurd takes on serious subjects like the occupation of Iraq, the viability of the Bush Doctrine, and the recent disaster in the Gulf Coast. Sure, a lot of this angry email is probably coming from our rival site, “Rutherford B. Hayes and Coworkers,” but some of it seems genuine. It's either that, or the blog-reading public has once again confused Grover Cleveland with Roger Ebert. It happens.

But this blog isn’t any different than politics in general – it’s just a little more upfront about the fact that all politics are pretty absurd. People who spend too much time discussing policy and politics need to step back every once in a while and realize how dumb most of it is. As far as I can tell, it’s a collection of buzzwords propping up two opposing arguments, neither of which is tenured to any principle other than opposing its rival. So I say embrace the idiocy, and cast your memory back to some of the recent dumb and absurd moments of the American presidency.

“I am not a crook” – Richard Nixon, Nov. 17, 1973 (Yes you are, you jackass.)

“We can find meaning and reward by serving some purpose higher than ourselves—a shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light.” –George Bush, January 29, 1991

"[W]hen I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale." –Bill Clinton, March 30, 1992

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky” –Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." -George W. Bush, February 22, 2005

"Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action." –George W, Bush., April 28, 2005

So just remember that you can respond with equal force to any political campaign by launching into a soliloquy of the virtues of early nineteenth century utilitarianism and its lasting effects on American federalism, or by opening a can of Goya beans and throwing the contents at passing motorists while demanding an up-or-down vote. Either way, your response will be just as valid as that of our ruling class. So you may as well do it Grover's way.

The Other Front Page

The amazing (but repetitive) footage that ran all day on cable news stations hypnotized me last week. But once I stepped back a minute from the pictures, I realized that the cable guys were all flash, and no substance. So if you’re like me (“Hey what’s on CNN? Ohhhh . . . Fuzzy . . .”), you may have missed some important stories that are playing out behind the images. Katrina is a disaster in so many ways. In the background, though, other stories - the kind that would be front page material at any other time - are floating out there too. Check ‘em out – no pontification needed:

Katrina
1) FEMA is asking reporters not to show images of the dead
2) Utah Firefighters brought to Louisiana are frustrated that they’re used as props
3) Scott McClellan gets grilled

Iraq
1) Paul Volcker reports on corruption in the U.N.’s Oil For Food Program
2) Iraq's President says that Saddam has confessed to war crimes
3) Saddam's lawyer denies the confession exists
4) A Car bomb kills 16 is Basra
5) U.S. forces liberate an American hostage held for 10 months
6) Zarqawi's forces seize a small town and declare an Islamic republic
7) Guantanamo detainees may have some legal rights

Supreme Court
1) Rehnquist is laid to rest
2) Roberts papers are still in dispute
3) There's another nominee out there somewhere

Right Said Fred

I’m still playing catch-up with the politics of the last two weeks. Of the many neglected commentaries of the last two weeks, Fred Kaplan’s criticism of Bush’s VJ day speech stands out as especially cutting.

If this war's stakes are comparable to World War II's, the entire nation should be enlisted in its cause—not necessarily to fight in it, but at least to pay for it. And if President Bush is not willing to call for some sort of national sacrifice, he cannot expect anyone to believe the stakes are really high.

I’ve been riding the “sacrifice” hobby horse for months, but I’ve yet to see anyone frame the argument as well as Kaplan. For better or for worse, I doubt that Bush has thought much about the Global War on Terror/GWOT/Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism/GSAVE this week. Nonetheless, the criticism still holds. Our government can’t seem to perform its essential functions: national defense or promoting the general welfare. It’s enough to get any red-blooded Republican to stop howling for a repeal of the “death tax.” True conservatives have never wanted to starve the Federal Government of its essential powers. So you have to wonder what happened to our might Fed. Is it starved for funds? Are they being spent incorrectly? Or does incompetence abound in the new Federal world of executive nepotism? Take your pick.

Hail to the Chief's Chief?

I have to say that I was surprised by this morning’s announcement that Bush is nominating John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

Why not nominate Antonin Scalia to the post? Let’s look at this from a practical perspective for a moment. Nominating Scalia would set a lower bar (sorry, no pun intended) for Roberts to be confirmed. All of the news prior to Rehnquist's death indicated that the hearings were probably not going to be all that contentious. Also, Scalia’s credentials are bulletproof, so that even the most liberal of opponents wouldn’t have grounds for opposition (yeah, sorry, that duck hunting story doesn’t have legs). Plus, Scalia is a known quantity, and that quantity is conservative.

While it’s morbid to think about, you can be sure that the Bush administration had already thought through the possibilities for a new Chief Justice. So why choose Roberts? Do Bush and Cheney know something that Joe Public doesn’t (umm, let’s restrict our comments here to the Supreme Court, not WMD assertions)? While you’re pondering that, you may also well ponder when you’ll hear that other shoe drop – the next nomination. My guess is that it will be less than two weeks from yesterday, and that guess is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. That's why this is a blog.

Grover Goes to Michigan

Did you know?

Former president Grover Cleveland came to Ann Arbor when he was considering a new bid for the country's highest office. He was met with such enthusiasm that he decided to try for a second term.

As any good Michaganian would say......


GO BLUE!!!.....and Grover!!!