Archive for February, 2009
February 20th, 2009
Thursday night at the Rockford Art Museum, Janet Clark Holmgren became the second Rockford Woman of the Year. The chief judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Holmgren shared honors with Mary Bartel, Judy Schultz, Peg Wilkerson and Monica Williams, the four finalists.
Big deal, you say? Another award thing where the same people honor the same other people? Ah, not so fast. The Rockford Woman of the Year is a very big deal — as big as Excalibur, which tends toward the guy side of things. But, more important, it’s the amazing strength, resilience and diversity of the women honored that makes it such a big deal.
These five women span history from the first Great Depression to today’s Great Depression II. They are living proof that when women set their minds to it, they accomplish great things, not because they bully their ways through, but because they share, support, strengthen and build. I am glad Rockford Woman Magazine gives me a chance to celebrate being a girl.
February 19th, 2009
If actions speak louder than words, then it’s probably OK for me to draw these conclusions about Illinois’ junior U.S. senator, Roland Burris. Unlike many journalists who’ve covered Burris’ political career or questioned him in editorial boards, I haven’t. I know as much about Burris as the average bear, which means just what I read about him and watch as he does things.
Here are my conclusions beginning with “time to resign, Mr. Burris.” So pitiful a thing is he, much more so that his mentor Rod Blagojevich, the disgraced former Illinois governor. Burris just doesn’t seem the brightest bulb in the box. Everybody says he’s a nice guy, but I haven’t heard anyone praise his intellect.
He appears to want to be a titled senator so much that he happily groveled and was willing to pay to play. That’s like the school yard misfit standing against the fence and hoping, pleading, praying that the cool kids would pick him for their Red Rover team.
First he says he’s pure as Ivory soap and never did anything other than say casually, “hey, Rod, I’d sure like to be a senator.” Now Burris is pedaling a whole different story, probably because he’s been told he may be going to get caught with his tales showing. Again, like the outsider kid who whips up whoppers so he can be part of the cool crowd.
This isn’t a school yard at recess. Time, Mr. Burris, to put aside childish ways.
February 18th, 2009
For crying out loud, enough with Rockford School Board hand-wringing over whether releasing the names of the two superintendent finalists would jeopardize the process. We reported today on rrstar.com the two finalists, and immediately the “blame the media” machine kicked in gear. You can read the news post here.
These are the same people who initially did everything they could to deflect and stonewall the Register Star from figuring out Paul Vallas’ role in the candidate search. Not only was there nothing wrong with bringing Vallas into the search process, it was darn smart. I applauded them for doing so, and, frankly, don’t know why they didn’t call a press conference last fall and shout to the world what they were up to.
But, no, things went Rockford-style, all super secret. Right up to the point that we asked “why does Paul Vallas have Rockford top of mind” and then they freaked. We kept asking and kept reporting until we could and did answer the questions last Sunday. For the life of me, I cannot understand the secrecy.
As for our naming the two candidates? No superintendent candidate worth his or her salt should ever, repeat ever, think the candidacy will remain secret. Rarely has; rarely will. Ditto why a board would think it can or should promise secrecy. Just tell the candidates: “We’re out in the sunshine. If you have a problem with that then working in Rockford isn’t for you.”
I’ve been covering superindent searches for 37 years. The names always “leak.” Get over it.
February 13th, 2009
About 1,600 more readers opted in this week for the Sunday TV book delivery, bring the total to about 25 percent of all subscribers. That’s a nice round number; it’s less than half what we expected, 12 percentage points below my personal prediction — and way under the “everyone reads it and wants it” that some of my callers estimated.
That’s good news for everyone: The newspaper saves cash on newsprint; the environment saves a couple tress; the advertisers get a perfectly targeted audience; TV fans get their book; and every one else gets the seven-day grids or downloads online. That’s called delivering targeted content over multiple platforms.
A couple important things to know about the book: (1) You can continue to opt-in (or opt-out); this wasn’t a one-time deal. (2) If you’ve opted in, you may receive your TV book on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday. Carriers have the option of delivering it early to your house, so be sure you’re looking for it. In fact, we know some folks have already received this Sunday’s TV book.
I’ve always known that multiple advertising and marketing approaches worked. What we did with the TV book opt-in was a classic example. We had a product some people really wanted. We needed to reach them directly. So we advertised the opt-in program in the newspaper and online in several different ways — including in the TV book itself. Within 24 hours, thousands of readers had responded, and over the next three weeks, about 12,000 subscribers said “send me the book.”
The advertising worked seamlessly. The subscriber gets her product, and we reached exactly the people we wanted to reach.
February 12th, 2009
               You already know this Sunday is our first Sunday for the TV Book “opt-in.” About 20 percent of our subscribers opted in; that’s less than we expected, and I think it signals we are making a decent decision among bad choices: It reduces expenses a lot and saves a forest or two of newsprint.
                There are other changes coming Sunday. While they are unlikely to be anywhere near as controversial as the TV Book changes, it’s important you know about them.
                On Sunday we begin publishing as a six-section Sunday newspaper. This means:
                               * We have combined the two Sunday classified sections into a single section. “Your Home Source” will be on the cover and “Hot Jobs” will be inside.
                               * We are replacing the standalone Opinions section with editorial and oped (opposite editorial) pages inside the A-section. These are currently the second and third pages of the standalone section.
                               * All other sections are the same, and we hope to see additional and more consistent news space in the Local&State section
                               * We have added a Sunday television grid to the Life&Sytle section.
  There are several reasons we are doing this:
                           * A six-section paper reduces newsprint expenses significantly
                               * A six-section paper allows us to book newshole where it is most needed: in the sections that drive local content
                               * A six-section paper responds to the fact that advertising lineage is down and we don’t need as many pages as we used to need to handle it.
               We have used this six-section booking many, many times over the years, either because we didn’t have a standalone Sunday Opinions section or because advertising page count was down. It may not be familiar to folks who only know us as we have been since the new press in May 2006, but this booking has been common.
                No one likes making decisions like these, but I think we did OK on this one because it protects our local news, information and advertising content and does the least harm to our staff, readers and advertisers.
               My personal and professional thanks to the team that worked on the new booking for Sunday, with a special nod to Sharon Hendrickson, Adam McHugh, Chris Soprych, Wally Haas and Jennie Pollock for cutting through a mountain of difficulties and creating a strong Sunday newspaper for our readers.
February 10th, 2009
I was headed to Third Presbyterian Church Sunday morning just before 10 a.m., listening to an interview with former Chicago school superintendent Paul Vallas. The controversial “gold standard” for the CEO approach to leading large, troubled and usually urban school districts was talking about maybe being a candidate for the Cook County Board president’s spot against Todd Stroger.
I was just about to click to something more local when Vallas, who is now CEO-superintendent in New Orleans, turned his remarks to schools. Since I have long been a believer in that CEO approach, I stayed tuned. Vallas talked a lot about Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia (another of his CEO gigs), and then he dropped this: “…. and the approach is one that smaller districts should use, as well. Districts like Rockford and Peoria…..”
Sure, Vallas knows Rockford. He campaigned here as a gubernatorial candidate and our editorial board was among his supporters. It’s not beyond reason to assume Vallas knows a thing or two about the Rockford school district from back in the Dennis Thompson days (also a CEO approach), and because Vallas remains plugged into Illinois education and politics.
But, I’m a journalist and journalists don’t just shrug their shoulders when they hear something like that. I mean why was Rockford top of mind for Vallas Sunday morning? And, what’s up with Saturday’s Register Star story that the Rockford board had opened its superintendent search again. Was there a connection?
I think it’s safe to say Vallas isn’t the next school superintendent. He’s already committed to staying in New Orleans for the 2009-2010 year, and he’s talking about being a Cook County board president. Being Rockford school super doesn’t sound likely.
But the school board opening its search again and Vallas having Rockford top of mind on Sunday morning on WBBM, made me ask this: What WOULD Paul Vallas have to say about how the Rockford school board ought to approach its superintendent search.
Can’t hurt to ask. All it’ll cost is a phone call. We’re making it.
Meanwhile, back at the News Tower, Senior Editor Chuck Sweeny was asking a different set of questions and Manufacturing 2.0 blogger, Bob Trojan, had his own take.
One thing for sure: Something is afoot, and if it means we’ll get a highly qualified, CEO approach to school leadership, that’s a very good thing.
February 6th, 2009
And we wonder why so few people with smarts want to enter public life? Take a look at the “protest” from Rockford resident Luther Landon.
Landon has filed a 46-page objection to the mayor’s candidacy petition filing with the Rockford Board of Elections. He doesn’t want incumbent Larry Morrissey on the ballot for Rockford mayor because, he told the Register Star, “I guess when it comes right down to it, I think that the mayor’s heart and head are in the right place, but he hasn’t gotten anything done.”
Landon’s petition is just the latest in a string of absurd protests filed across Boone and Winnebago counties. Three things are going on:
(1) The election boards have lots and lots of rules for good reason, and lots and lots of absurd rules for no reasons (paper clips, not staples; or is it the other way around?) Simplify the rules. Ditch the dumb ones designed only to frustrate candidates trying to do the right things. And, the arcane rules are fodder for counter-productive protests like Landon’s.
(2)Â The arcane rules have been hijacked by party hacks and disgruntled individuals who claim to be righteously (I say self-righteously) following the rules. Well, maybe the letter of the law; surely not the spirit of the law.
(3) And, finally, the crazy rules coupled with the crazy people abusing them will result in crazy(ier) candidates, because no one in his or her right mind would willingly put up with numbers one and two.
February 5th, 2009
I paid a lot of my college tuition and living expenses by lifeguarding, teaching swimming lessons and coaching a swim team. It was great for suntans and exercise, lousy for its requirement that I clean public bathrooms three times a day, and a superb testbed for learning economic lessons.
Biggest ah-ah moment: If swim lessons are free, no one shows up. If we charge a quarter a lesson, everyone comes every time on time — and pays.
Weird, huh? Not so much, as I learned by asking the kids and their parents: Why pay if you can get it for free? Because, they said, when the lessons are free, they aren’t worth much. When I pay, well, it’s a commitment and it matters.
People do counter-intuitive things, and despite our arguments to the contrary, when it’s free, we figure there’s not much value, even if there is. So, what happens when all news is free? When you don’t pay for news online? When your newspaper (assuming there still is one) is free? When your magazine (ditto) is free?
Will there still be value? I’m predicting not. Gathering, sorting, ranking and delivering news, information and advertising is jaw-droppingly expensive. No one will do those things for free (a la bloggers or social networking) for very long. The work is just too hard. So, as the demand for “free” news increases, the quality of news will decrease proportionately.
A reader, unhappy because she wasn’t getting as much local news as she wanted, once asked me why she should have to pay for her subscription when she could just go online and read it for “free.” My answer was blunt: Because if you don’t pay for news in some fashion, then someday there will be no news.
Here’s a fascinating (albeit long) column from Time Magazine on the same topic, but with lots of solutions. Enjoy.
February 4th, 2009
What do Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Timothy Geithner have in common? Three things: (1) They are smart public servants with decades of important experience; (2) they had a real opportunity to shape a new and better United States; and, (3) they are dumber than dirt when it comes to figuring out their taxes. (For more, click here.)
If you live in the real world, you get a paycheck from which 15-40 percent is gnawed away by tax collectors and assorted other deductions, like medical insurance, Social Security and 401ks. Then, somewhere before April 15, you struggle through the tax forms or call an accountant and write a check to the feds and staties for whatever the balance is. If you’re sorta lucky, you might get a refund, which you really don’t want to get because getting a refund means the government has been using YOUR money for free for a long time. The goal is to come out even on April 15.
If you don’t do those things, you get really nasty letters from the Internal Revenue Service and the revenoohers harass you and make you pay up really, really fast. Most of us never, ever run afoul of the tax code. So either we are smarter than three high-profile Washingtonians, the tax code is too hard, or they are just plain cheats. Frankly, it’s likely a bit of all three.
Killefer, just up and decided one day not to pay unemployment taxes for a couple of privately hired nannies. Crikey, even I knew enough to do that back in the 1970s. Daschel and Geithner seem to have hired the wrong tax accountants, ignored the fine print or the bill or something because they’re not exactly sure what was what, but they both ended up writing some pretty whopping checks for totals that exceed the annual salaries of most of the people I know.
The whole thing just plain makes me mad and sad. What is wrong with people like these three? Did they think they wouldn’t get caught? That it was OK for them not to ‘fess up to such things during the vetting process? That they don’t have to pay taxes like the rest of us? That doing shady things to get around the complicated tax code is cool?
Sad times, folks, when the people who run our governments and our corporations are so good at taking care of number one.
For the record: I pay my taxes. And, 28 years ago, when my husband wanted to claim a wood-burning stove as some sort of “energy-saving device,” I wouldn’t do it.
February 4th, 2009
When (not if) the Obama economic recovery and reinvestment package get the final nod from Congress, there’s going to be plenty of fodder to grumble about. Anyone with half a brain knows that it’s going to be larded up with expensive trinkets, if for no other reason than in legislation this expansive something is bound to sneak by.
Right now, I am hoping that President Obama and his former fellows in the Senate have the smarts and the clout to send the goofy House Democrats back to their sandbox with a couple of boards upside their heads. What started out as a reasonable plan during Obama’s pre-election campaigning, ended up with goofy Democrats trying to make up for lost time. Stories this week look like Obama and senators like Illinois’ DickDurbin are getting out the smacking boards.
I’m glad there is cash in the package to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits and food stamps. Those two things are going to be what separates this depression from the Great One, and what minimizes the “hobos on the rail cars” stories. But, this ain’t the time to fund Planned Parenthood, though I’d likely support that battle at another time.
Some puffed-up pork is going to be in the final version. I am, for now, keeping my fingers crossed that the president and his senators can be more responsible than the embarrassingly grabby House Democrats. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
