2007
Week 6
February 10, 2007

Hi --

I often share “the view from the inside” of the legislature. It is not about whether we are right or wrong. The differences between inside and outside are sometimes interesting. In that mode, the governor this week came flat out in support of a controversial bill in the Education Committee, where they are weighing four options on what to do in Omaha.

Most persons on the outside would support his choice of the options. So would we, I assume, before we actually know more about them. However, he was coming as close as he could to giving instructions to a separate branch of government where the matter has yet to be considered in the depth it deserves. That is jumping across the Executive/Legislative/Court divisions of government. Four of us were chatting in a circle when we heard the news. Our immediate, unanimous reaction: “He said WHAT?”

I avoid comments about Senator Chamber's attacks on persons, churches, institutions. However, I do want you to know I consider this week's tirade particularly shameful. The man went out of his way to insult, one by one, name by name, key leaders in the Omaha community whose loyalty to and generosity for public endeavors is unquestioned: Walter Scott, Warren Buffett, David Sokol, Richard Holland, Eugene Durham, Susie Buffett. The attack had no merit and no truth, was denigrating and cleverly demeaning. To them. To all of us who are grateful for their leadership. He threw in one of our finest senators, an educator who has given his career, his energy and wisdom, to provide heartfelt caring for every kid in our schools. Are these the finest most generous persons in our community? No. They would say there are many more. These corporate leaders have set an example of community support for which I am profoundly grateful. Omaha has made amazing changes because of their leadership.

Their offense is they oppose his bill. The diatribe had nothing to do with our quest for a workable solution and clearly diminishes his authority in the field. I will not say more, but I have to break our careful silence or risk being misunderstood in our silence.

Joke of the week: Sen Chambers, warming up to the attack on anyone opposing his bill: “I am going to say what I think, even if the governor does not like it.” Really? News flash!

For a change of pace, I hope it will be of interest if I describe one legislative dilemma each week. Will try it and find out. A dilemma is defined as a complex problem which we must sort out but for which there is no clear answer.

Dilemma of the week: who pays for the upkeep of state owned buildings that have been built by funds from private donations?

Example: the Durham family and friends built a research center on the Med campus, paying 100% of the cost: $72 million. In its first year, the facility assisted us in bringing new research grants equal in value to about half of that money. We and the donor families were so pleased with the results that they are now constructing a second research tower for $77 million.

When this tower needs a new roof, do we:
A. Go back to the generous families and ask for the money to repair “their” building?
    (Or, ask them for the extra at the front end, before construction -- a surcharge?)
B. Raise tuition so that those who use it will pay for the upkeep?
C. Cut a class or two out of the curriculum when the roof needs repair?
D. Take it from state budget as an educational expense?
E. Go out fund raising among private donors?

We do not like any of these options, which is what defines a dilemma.

For background, in Nebraska we pay for major repair expenses on our buildings by charging a 2% of value fee to whoever is using it. This goes into a pooled account, so that the $144,000 from the Durham building can go directly to a leaking roof anywhere. We presently have $300 million in requests for repairs with about $30 million annual income. You have to find some buckets while you are waiting for a new roof.

The University pays the 2% fee on all of their (OUR!) buildings. This year the governor's budget removed from the list buildings which we did not pay for, urging the University to find more private funds to pay for upkeep. As you would guess, that creates a howl, as all of us wealthy types would rather pay for a new building than for patches on anything.

When the Med Center, or any of our colleges, finds a likely donor, they say, “If you pay all of the construction costs, we will pay for lights, will lovingly care for the building and keep it in a condition that makes you proud, and we promise you that we will find the students and faculty to make top use of this new facility.” In the past six years of my time there, we have built 100s of millions of dollars of new buildings in Nebraska at no cost for construction -- except the promise to take care of them.

In tough budget times, where do we go for $144,000 of new money?

Searchingly,

Lowen