(Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)

Tom Walsh said he used to live on an Iowa acreage with 20 acres of hardwood timber. In the spring, when conditions were right, those woods yielded morel mushrooms.

Now, the former Johnson County bureau chief for the Gazette lives in Maine, where he writes for the Bangor Daily News. Beautiful place, Maine, but something is missing.

“Where I live now is heaven,” Walsh said. “But we don’t have morels.”

Recently, he saw a friend’s photo of an enormous tray of our curiously elusive and delicious mushrooms. That was it. He can’t take it anymore.

So he’s open to negotiating a simple trade. For a pound of morel mushrooms, he’ll trade you two pounds of Maine lobster. He called me, hoping I’d put the word out. Apparently, I’m a sucker for displaced Iowans with mushroom cravings.

Iowa mushroom hunters are having mixed success, or so I’ve heard. And lobster prices remain low. Let the hard bargaining begin.

If you’re interested, you can contact Walsh by email at iowadruid@aol.com

(Reuters photo)

The smashed houses now on an endless cable TV loop are a lot like the ones that line my neighborhood streets in north Marion. The flattened schools look a lot like the one my kids attend. It would be just as heartbreaking and awful anywhere, but the familiarity of both the setting and the risk give it an added sharpness.

What if, on some mean spring day, all hell busts loose over our corner of the world? Heavens forbid.

We know full well it is an exceedingly remote possibility, although it’s tough to tell that to residents of shattered Moore, Okla., where and even stronger killer storm tore through in 1999. But of all the cities, towns, additions, subdivisions, glens, ridges, townes, prairies and villas in the wide expanses of middle America, the chances of mine or yours getting hit is downright microscopic. Oklahoma and Iowa are not the same, tornado-wise. At least that’s what I’ve been telling my kids, repeatedly, since Monday afternoon.

(Although our violent tornado tally is closer to Oklahoma than I thought. A striking map tracking U.S. tornadoes over time can be found here.)

I’ve also been telling them that when the sky darkens, the sirens blow and your teachers tell you to take shelter, you do so quickly and without a word. No questions. No complaining. No hesitation. You just fall in line and do what you’re told as fast as you can.

Monday’s disaster puts a fresh coat of relevance on Erin Jordan’s Sunday “Shelter from the Storm” project:

Federal, state and local governments are spending $855,000 this year to add to Iowa’s network of outdoor warning sirens.

But as fewer Iowans work outside and nearly 90 percent of homes have central air, sealing up windows in the summer, some emergency managers wonder whether outdoor sirens are a relic of Iowa’s rural past.

“Our homes and our lifestyles have changed,” said Mike Ryan, emergency management agency coordinator for Delaware County. “The sirens are costly to install and maintain. It’s kind of a feel-good measure.”

Emergency managers have long preached that sirens are not intended for indoor warning. Weather radios, television and the Internet provide better protection inside. More people are signing up for text or email weather alerts, but the future may be cellphone broadcasts using GPS to locate people in the path of the storm.

The Oklahoma City metro, including Moore, have an extensive system of outdoor sirens:

The Oklahoma City siren system, a network of 181 emergency warning sirens, was state-of-the-art when it went online in April, 2002. It cost $4.5 million to install the new system, which replaced the cold war-era sirens that covered only the most densely populated parts of the city.

The sirens sound once the National Weather Service issues a tornado warning, and they serve as a signal to turn on a television or radio to get more detailed information about the storm and instructions on how to seek shelter.

The sirens are spread across three counties around Oklahoma City, including the county Moore is located in, according to the city’s website. Moore itself has 36 sirens in its Outdoor Warning System, many of them near schools:

Moore residents got about 16 minutes’ warning before the tornado hit, which undoubtedly saved lives. I think sirens are still an important piece of a good, broader warning system, alongside media alerts, weather radios, text messaging, phone calls and whatever else you can come up with.

Multiple warning methods increase the chances that people get warned. Then they have to know what those warnings actually mean.

That’s one of the issues Jordan highlights in her report, inconsistent policies on when to blow sirens:

Among the 29 counties surveyed by The Gazette, 25 explained what criteria they use for sounding the alarm. Ten counties sound sirens for spotted tornadoes or NWS tornado warnings. Nine other counties – including Linn, Blackhawk, Scott and Johnson – also trigger sirens for winds over 70 mph.

A subset of the second group also sounds sirens for golf ball-sized hail.

Winneshiek County sounds sirens for 50 mph or stronger winds. Fayette, Mahaska, Henry, Jackson and Wapello counties don’t have countywide policies.

Grundy County, which has a mix of city and county control of sirens, sounds an “all clear” when the tornado event is passed, officials said. Bremer County officials issue an “all clear” recorded message in Waverly, but do not sound the sirens at that time.

Inconsistent policies statewide can be risky, weather experts said.

It seems like it would be a good idea to bring some consistency to these decisions, maybe at the state level, maybe regionally, and then get the message out loud and clear on what it means, exactly, when you hear a storm siren. A low-threat threshold, like a 50 mph wind, sounds like a bad idea. So do confusing “all clear” blasts. When sirens blow, they should blow because a very serious threat exists. Find shelter and more information.

Personally, I think it should be a real tornado warning or no siren, but I also understand the threat posed by high winds to people caught outside.

Tragedies like the one Monday remind me to be less complacent about this stuff. Like any typical heartlander, I tend to take weather warnings with a grain of salt. Many of us roll our eyes at the dire hyperbole that sometimes gets slung around severe weather coverage. Ooh, the sky is dark, it’s windy, how unusual. My inclination is to go outside and watch instead of going inside to hide.

I caught plenty of heck from readers a few years back when I chided folks for getting so upset about having TV shows interrupted by weather warnings.

My dad talks about a guy he knew who used to dismiss warnings by saying, “If God wants to get me, he’ll know where to find me.” One night, as a roaring tornado passed close to his house, he nearly knocked his wife down as he shoved past her scrambling down the basement stairs.

Sure, it’s unlikely. But, someday, it could get real in a hurry. Do you know exactly what you’ll do when it happens? Exactly what you’ll grab and where you’ll go?

I’ve given it some thought. I have some ideas. But I have to admit, upon further review, that I do not know, exactly, what we’ll do when all we have are a few minutes to do it. So that’s got to change.

Here are some links to preparedness ideas for homes and schools.

So the final campaign spending numbers are in on the March 5 Linn County gambling referendum. Thanks to our quirky campaign finance system, we don’t get a complete picture of who was spending how much on what until more than two months after the vote. Helpful.

Turns out it was a $3.4 million battle to win the hearts and minds of we the voters. And that battle was fought by outside casino interests and local investors interested in becoming casino interests. As casino opponent David Osterberg described it, it was indeed their rich guys versus our rich guys.

First, the out-of-towners. Riverside Resort and Casino pumped another $757,000 into the the Just Say No Casino campaign in late February, on top of the $600,000 it had already contributed in January. After the vote, Riverside got $106,000 refunded.

Isle of Capri stayed on its original $150,000 ante. The Sac and Fox Tribe, operators of Meskwaki Casino in Tama, chipped in $104,000 on Feb. 27.

So, subtracting the Riverside refund, casino interests sank $1.5 million into Just Say No, with hopes of fighting off more competition.

Local investors under the title Cedar Rapids Development Group, sank a total of $1.92 million into Vote Yes Linn County. 

Just Say No may have ended up with just 39 percent of the vote, but it certainly wasn’t for a lack of strategy.

During the final days of the campaign, Just Say No cut checks to Link Strategies, a Des Moines-based political consulting firm, adding up to roughly $90,000, Landmark Strategies, specializing in telephone voter contact, for $31,000 and The Strategy Group, which handles direct mail, for $300,000 and change. A Polling firm, David Binder Research in San Francisco, made $51,000. And Internet advertising firm, Precision Network, took in $107,000 in early March.

The disclosure report does not say which strategists came up with the idea of promising Cedar Rapids a water park in exchange for a no vote. Too bad.

Vote Yes Linn County spent $182,000 in the final days on TV ads through Alfano Communications, a Virginia-based political media company that counts Gov. Terry Branstad among its previous clients.

Big money and big time strategery. I doubt we’ll see a local ballot issue quite like this one again anytime soon.

The Floridian who won that $590 million Powerball prize is going to get a lot of attention.

But I find myself wondering about folks who were one number away.

Three such tickets were sold in Iowa:

A total of 77,640 tickets purchased by Iowa Lottery players won prizes ranging from $4 up to $40,000. Two tickets purchased at Iowa locations in Fort Dodge and Aurelia matched four of the first five numbers and the Powerball to win prizes of $10,000 each. One more also matched those same numbers, but had the Power Play option added to it, so that ticket purchased in Dubuque won a prize of $40,000.

Real money, to be sure. Congrats.

But what sort of Monday morning did those folks have? They’re probably going through their typical routine. Maybe they’re heading off to the work site or the plant or the cubicle. Except that, on this Monday, they’re grooving through the usual grind with the unusual knowledge that they were one good old Arabic numeral away from sharing a fortune.

I hope they’re saying, “Hey! Ten grand (or 40 grand)! Not too shabby,” with a song in their optimistic heart and spring in their step. The sun is shining. The glass is half full. Better than a swift kick in the pants, eh? That’s the spirit.

Man, I wish I were one of those people.

I have a feeling my own internal dialogue would be less uplifting. A speculative sampling:

“Oh, it’s fine. It’s fine. Typical, but fine. Just how things always seem to work out for me, but, still, fine.

“What would I do with some gargantuan pile of money anyway? I’d probably just blow it on making beer runs to Belgium, developing a powerful atomic laser inside a dormant volcano on an isolated island or forming a Super PAC to fight for universal lawn care. I’m better off without it, right? Clearly. Dodged a golden bullet.

“I picked my numbers. No regrets. So what if this means that the date of my birth has now been transformed into a poignant reminder of the fateful fortune that eluded my grasp by mere inches? Adding that plot twist to the normal birthday realization of precious sand slipping swiftly through the hourglass of life isn’t going to bother me one bit. No sir.

“Sure, I might think about it from time to time. Maybe when the credit card bills come, or when the van makes a horrible noise or when my employer wises up and realizes that hackneyed opinions are everywhere and free, I’ll recall this close shave with infinite financial security. And I’ll chuckle, knowingly.

“But, really, this as a chance to count my blessings. Family and health and happiness are what matter. When you have it all, who needs a Powerball? Not this guy. It’s only money. Granted, potentially more than the GDP of Palau, but still just money. Just a number. One number. One stinking number…”

I’m honored and humbled to have been invited to speak to you, the graduating class of 2013 here at the Iowa Institute for Reverse Psychology. I think reverse psychology is a very important but little understood and appreciated discipline. And it’s so thoughtful that you’ve bestowed on me this honorary doctorate in reverse psychology. I will treasure it.

And I hope to put it to good use today as I give you a little advice on navigating the real world.

APATHY IS OK

First, don’t get involved in your community. You’re going to be very busy and really tired, so the last thing you need to do is pitch in on some worthwhile effort or important cause. Somebody else is probably going to do it. Problems will probably get solved, and if they don’t, it most likely won’t affect you anyway. As far as you know.

Skip running for office. You don’t have the connections or bucks to do it anyway. And chances are nobody’s going to listen to your good ideas. You’re just one person against the massive, glacial gears of government. What can you do? Nothing, that’s what. It’s really best to leave this stuff to the strategists, consultants and lobbyists, the big donors and professional politicos. They’re already doing a bang-up job. Stay out of the way.

Voting is also overrated. After all, we have lots of pollsters and pundits to tell us who is going to win. That saves us loads of time that we might otherwise waste digging into candidates’ positions on issues. The political media has painstakingly built its campaign narratives to make things simple and entertaining. Admire them, and their snarky tweets.

Don’t let anyone tell you that apathy is not OK. You tell them that the government doesn’t have any real power anyway. Unless you’re in a Tea Party group, or work for the Associated Press or happen to be one of the very few people in this country who use phones and computers, you’ve got absolutely nothing to fear. The Justice Department has got this.

Give up on your local newspaper. If it goes away, no biggie. Rest assured that, any day now, a legion of unpaid bloggers will march into town to begin closely watching your city council, courts, county government and other important institutions.

COMPLAIN A LOT

So don’t get involved. But do complain.

Complain incessantly. Always, always use ALL CAPS and lots of !!!! to give your well-crafted arguments more gravity and intellectual oomph. Lambaste, dismiss, repeat.

Make snap judgments before you get weighed down by all the facts.

Never challenge your own assumptions. They’re yours, and nobody is going to take them away. Steer clear of anyone who might. And if you accidentally come across an argument that threatens to transform your worldview, quickly find someone or something that will confirm it again. That’s why we have Google and cable news.

Ideals are for the uninformed. Ditto with optimism. Things have never been worse than they are right now, thanks entirely to the people with whom you disagree. We’re totally screwed. So self-interest is entirely appropriate.

Don’t root for underdogs. They usually lose.

Dance like everyone is watching and thinks you look stupid. Drive like you’re the only vehicle in North America. Eat like you’re a Saharan marathoner. And please post pictures of all your meals on Facebook.

Live like you’re afraid the pharmaceutical industry might go out of business without you. And if this speech lasts longer than four hours, please call a doctor.

And do me a favor, check your email and text while I’m speaking to you. Thanks.

So bad luck, Class of 2013. May all your epic fails go viral.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement says vote it down:

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund (CCI Action Fund) members blasted a tentative legislative deal to cut corporate property taxes after a confidential memo was leaked Thursday, saying the deal will severely limit the ability of state and local governments to provide basic public services without raising taxes on everyday Iowans.

The confidential conference committee report on Senate File 295 shows state government stands to lose $383.6 million in annual revenue by 2024, while local governments would lose $115.7 million by 2024.

CCI Action Fund members also say the bad deal allows current and future budget surpluses – created by spending cuts years ago – to be squandered in the form of a small income tax credit rather than being reinvested in state programs that have faced cuts.

“Iowa CCI Action Fund members support expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families, but not as a horse-trade for a bad deal on income and corporate property taxes,” said CCI Action Fund member Larry Ginter, an independent family farmer from Rhodes.

“If this bad deal goes through, we will either see cuts to vital public services or more taxes on family farmers and everyday people, or both. Shame on any legislator that votes for this thing. Bipartisanship should not come at the expense of good policy that puts people first.”

The Iowa Policy Project wants to deck its halls:

It’s Christmas for Walmart and McDonald’s, which will happily receive property-tax breaks that they don’t need, while their low-wage employees receive a better Earned Income Tax Credit.

This Christmas tree will grow bigger with each passing year, leaving less room in local budgets to respond to needs. The EITC expansion is important to working families — including 37 percent of all Iowa kids — but in the balance of who benefits from this package, it is a very small ornament.

If there is any question as to who benefits, Iowans should note that the EITC boost will be $35 million when fully phased in, compared to about 10 times that for property owners.

As we noted last month, the only justification for dealing with commercial property taxes was a political one. It has never been based on either an economic or competitive need to cut commercial property taxes in Iowa. So we have a politically derived package that will meet the demonstrated need to improve the EITC but leaves open new challenges to the support of critical public services in our state.

Over at Bleeding Heartland, desmoinesdem, points out multiple flaws in the “raw deal,” including the fact that business owners who rent space likely won’t benefit from property tax relief.

I understand all these concerns, and agree with some of them. And if you had your bleeding heart set on nothing big happening on taxes this year, I can see how this deal would be disappointing.

But we have a governor and a lot of legislators who got elected promising to do something on taxes, commercial property taxes in particular. That’s not meaningless. So there was always at least a small chance a deal would happen. Turns out it was a better chance than many of us thought.

And in a world where a tax deal actually exists, I think Democrats drove a decent bargain.

Think about where Gov. Terry Branstad started this tax conversation. He wanted to roll the taxable value of commercial property back from 100 percent to 60 percent, while pushing the laughable notion that the state would be able to backfill lost local revenues. He also wanted to cut corporate income taxes in half.

Earlier this year, majority House Republicans signed off on a $570 million income tax credit,  giving back a big chunk of the state surplus in $369-per-taxpayer bites.

Instead, on Thursday, we got a deal that rolls commercial valuation back to 90 percent over two years. That’s a long way from 60. A  lot of the property tax relief in the bill comes through state-funded tax credits very similar to the ones originally championed by Democrats.

That huge surplus-draining income tax credit is now bite-sized in comparison. All talk of corporate income tax cuts has vanished.

And Democrats get $35 million in tax relief for low-income families through an doubling of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A significant victory.

Local governments will take a revenue hit, which is a serious problem. It would be nice if this deal also gave local governments more options for raising revenue with voter approval. Unfortunately, the parental Statehouse doesn’t trust the kids in the courthouses and city halls to handle new taxes. It’s a conversation that should happen. Maybe the prospects for lost local revenues will spark that debate.

But the revenue hit is more manageable than it might have been. Republicans once talked about a huge commercial cut coupled with 2 percent limits on taxes and spending growth. This week’s deal has only a 3 percent cap on local tax increases.

It’s not perfect. Divided government is messy. It’s not Democrats’ dream tax deal, but neither is it the GOP’s. It’s a compromise. Half-loaves, disappointment, bright sides. You know, governing.

Lawmakers come now to grace us with details of the big ‘ol tax deal:

In the property tax area, the compromise calls for commercial and Industrial properties to be assessed at 95 percent of valuation retroactive to Jan., then at 90 percent starting on Jan. 1, 2014, and then at 90 percent thereafter. Currently, those properties are taxed at 100 percent of valuation. The phase-down falls short of the 20 percent cut Branstad-led GOP forces wanted.

To accomplishment that reduction, negotiators agreed that the state would appropriate money for replacement of the lost revenue to local governments. The payments would total $78.8 million in fiscal 2015, $162.8 million in fiscal 2016 and $154.1 million for fiscal 2017 and each fiscal year thereafter.

Also included is a Business Property Tax Credit for property taxes due and payable in fiscal year 2015 that Senate Democrats championed. Under that portion of the agreement, the state would appropriate $50 million in fiscal 2015 to cover the new tax credit, with the amount growing to $100 million in fiscal 2016, $125 million in fiscal 2017 and $125 million each year thereafter.

Sounds like the business tax credit would basically mean that the first $145,000 in property value is taxed at the residential rate, and that means that two-thirds of all businesses would be taxed entirely at the residential rate.

On the income tax side, the legislative compromise stipulates that beginning July 1, 2014, a tax credit will be issued to Iowans with tax liabilities when the balance of the Taxpayers Trust Fund exceeds $30 million. The new tax credit pushed by legislative Republicans is not refundable and cannot be carried forward or carried back.

 Individual credits will range from $30 to $60 and will be claimed on the state income tax form.

 The overall tax relief plan also proposes to double the earned income tax credit for lower-income working families – a priority of legislative Democrats — from the current 7 percent to 14 percent in tax year 2013 and then to 15 percent in tax year 2014. The state’s fiscal impact for the refundable credit will be $30.8 million in fiscal 2014 and $34.5 million in fiscal 2015.

At first glance, this seems like a decent compromise. Everybody gives and gets something. The governor and Republicans don’t get the full scope of permanent commercial property tax relief they sought, but they do get some, while accepting the credit model pushed by Dems. One big question going forward, will the state live up to its promise to fund that credit over time? The track record is mixed.

Republicans get a cap on property tax growth, at 3 percent, but not as tight as the 2 percent limit they hoped to get.

Republicans do get to send some of the big surplus back to taxpayers, although the credits look pretty modest. Democrats get a bigger Earned Income Tax Credit, although not as big as the increase approved by the Senate.

I’ll be interested to see how local governments react. They could have been hit with a much bigger revenue cut. Most of this tax relief is state-funded.

If this deal holds up, it’s a significant accomplishment, especially considering how remarkably far apart the parties are on tax policy. The property tax issue didn’t move an inch for months, and I figured they’d throw it overboard and adjourn. But they stuck with it and reached a deal.

It’s possible this could get voted on later today. As I said in an earlier post, I’m not keen on ramming stuff like this through before Iowans get a closer look. But there’s no stopping a Legislature roaring toward adjournment. They say it sounds like a freight train.

More coverage can be found here and here.

The Gazette’s Rod Boshart provides a detailed breakout summary of the deal:

Conference Committee Report for Senate File 295 (Property Tax Reform)

Division I—Business Property Tax Credit (Based on Senate Democrats plan)

• Focuses the benefit on smaller main street businesses

• Creates a Business Property Tax Credit for property taxes due and payable in fiscal year 2015.

• $50 million is appropriated in fiscal year 2015 to the Business Property Tax Credit Fund

• $100 million is appropriated in fiscal year 2016

• $125 million is appropriated in fiscal year 2017

• $125 million every year thereafter

• Each person who wishes to file a claim will obtain a form from the County Assessor. The form does not have to be filed again until the property is sold or transferred.

• Counties will submit lists of properties that are eligible for the credit and the Department of Revenue will determine the amount of value of the property that is subject to the credit. That amount is called the “credit base.”

• The credit base amount of the value of the property will be subject to a rollback that is equal to the Residential Rollback in that year.

• The state will use the money appropriated into the Business Property Tax Credit Fund to reimburse local governments the amount of credits issued.

• When fully phased in at least $145,000 of property value on every business will be taxed at the Residential rate; Almost two-thirds will have their entire property value taxed at the Residential rate.

Division II —Property Tax Assessment Limitation and Replacement (Based on Republican plans)

• Changes the property tax assessment growth limitation for residential and agricultural property to 3 percent instead of 4 percent for assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2013.

• Commercial and Industrial will assessed at 95% of valuation starting January 1, 2013; at 90% starting January 1, 2014; and at 90% thereafter.

• The State will appropriate money for replacement of the lost revenue. Payments will be made by IDR to county treasurers:

o FY 15 $78.8 million

o FY 16 $162.8 million

o FY 17 $154.1 million

o $154.1 million — Same amount as fiscal year 17 thereafter

Division III—Multiresidential Property Classification

• Creates a new property classification: Multiresidential

• Multiresidential will include apartments, nursing homes, assisted living facilities , and certain other rental property

• The existing classifications are Residential, Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial

• Multiresidential properties will eventually be taxed at the Residential rate. This will be phased in over 10 years. Total fiscal impact to local governments is $85.3 million when fully phased in.

o Assessment Year 2013 95%

o Assessment Year 2014 90%

o Assessment Year 2015 86%

o Assessment Year 2016 82%

o Assessment Year 2017 78%

o Assessment Year 2018 75%

o Assessment Year 2019 71%

o Assessment year 2020 67%

o Assessment year 2021 63%

o Assessment year 2022 and thereafter: Residential rate

Division IV —Telecommunications Property

• Each telephone company will receive a partial exemption from taxation on the value of the company’s property. This is phased in, with half in assessment year 2013 (FY 15), and the remainder being added in assessment year 2014 (FY 16)

• When fully phased in:

o 40% on the first $20 million

o 35% on $20 to $55 million

o 25% on $55 to $500 million

o 20% over $500 million

• Fully phased in fiscal impact to local governments: $16 million

• Department of Revenue is directed to complete a comprehensive study of the telecommunications industry and report recommendations for change to the General Assembly

Division V – Iowa Taxpayers Trust Fund Tax Credit

• Each year, beginning July 1, 2014, the balance of the Taxpayers Trust Fund exceeds $30 million a tax credit will be issued to Iowa taxpayers

• The tax credit will be issued to Iowans with a tax liability

• It is not refundable and cannot be carried forward or carried back

• The amount in the Taxpayers Trust Fund will be divided by taxpayers and the credit will be claimed on the tax form

• Individual credits will range from $30 to $60

Division XX — Property Assessment Appeal Board

• Five year sunset – July 1, 2018

• Lower salaries

• Adding another appraiser to the board (replacing the finance profession with state and local tax policy experience)

• Allowing for a speedier hearing process.

Division XX—Earned Income Tax Credit

• Increases the Earned Income Tax Credit from 7% to 14% in tax year 2013; 15% in tax year 2014

• The credit remains refundable.

• The increase is effective retroactively to January 1, 2013.

• Fiscal impact: $30.8 million in FY 14 , increasing to $34.5 in FY 15

The governor’s state salary bill is out, including some proposed raises for elected officials.

The Gazette’s Rod Boshart sent us the numbers:

These don’t seem like freak-out level raises, in my view. Although it sounds like legislative leaders in both parties are cool to the idea of passing them. Iowa Democrats are making some hay out of the governor’s raise. But Branstad’s office deftly volleys that shot by pointing out that these raises wouldn’t take affect until after the 2014 election. Are Democrats suggesting that Terry’s sixth term is a given? Surely not.

Some background from The Gazette’s Statehouse bureau (Sorry, don’t have a link yet):

Salaries for Iowa legislators and top statewide elected officials were last raised in 2005. At that time, the 17.3 percent increased vaulted Iowa’s gubernatorial salary to 16th highest nationwide, but the $130,000 yearly pay has since slipped into a tie for 26th place nationally with Louisiana.

Annual salaries paid to U.S. governors range from $179,000 in New York to $70,000 in Maine, according to the latest data compiled by the Council on State Governments. Some governors’ salaries include travel allowances, official residences, chauffeured automobiles and access to airplanes, helicopters or other perks.

Iowa’s part-time legislators currently are paid $25,000 a year, with top leaders getting $37,000 in the House and Senate, and pro temp leaders in each chamber paid $27,000. Lawmakers also receive $135 a day ($101.25 in Polk County) in expense money when the General Assembly is in regular session (110 days first year, 100 days second year) along with mileage, IPERS retirement, other benefits, and access to state health insurance at no premium cost if they so choose.

Of course, you say the words “pay raise” to my ears, and thoughts drift immediately to Linn County. where, earlier this year, the supervisors voted to boost their pay by more than 25 percent. And unlike the state’s salary boost, supervisor raises take effect July 1. No pesky election required.

For fun, and for comparison, here are those FY 2014 county salaries, once again, with feeling.

Linn County Elected Officials Salaries for FY14

Board of Supervisors $95,760

Auditor $95,760

Recorder $95,760

Treasurer $95,760

Sheriff $125,478

Attorney $152,298

So as of July 1, being an elected official here is a pretty good gig, even compared to statewide electeds. Interesting.

But if they really want big bucks, they need to figure out how to get a team to a good bowl game. 

According to various reports, the property tax plan, which may be as large as $400 million, if approved by the split-control Legislature, will provide tax relief to commercial property owners and offer some protection – but not necessarily lower taxes — to residential property owners.

“Property tax is the biggest and most significant part of it, but there are priorities for both the House Republicans and Senate Democrats,” Gov. Terry Branstad said Wednesday at a bill signing.

However, Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, wouldn’t confirm that – or much of anything else.

“I’m not sure what’s in it,” Bolkcom said when asked about the income tax part and an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit that he has insisted on. People are working on property tax relief, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, agreed the parties are close, but declined to talk about what was in the bill.

“We need to finish our discussion in caucus,” Gronstal said, referring to his 26 Senate Democrats. “Until we do that we’re not going to talk about it.”

Lawmakers “have the right to hear this from us before it gets rolled out,” added Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines.

Indeed, the right of legislators to hear legislative details in a closed party caucus is sacred.  I think it’s on the Iowa flag or in the Constitution or something like that. It would be a real shame if taxpayers knew something about the big tax deal before lawmakers. 

I know this is how things work in the final days/hours of a legislative session. Deals get done and they move quickly, for fear that they may spoil quickly in the sunshine. Shoot first and deal with the unintended consequences later.

And I agree that, by now, everyone has had plenty of time to weigh in on tax issues.

It’s tradition. But that’s weak justification for playing coy on major legislation affecting hundreds of thousands of Iowans. We may know what the big pieces will be, property taxes, income taxes, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. But the details matter. I hope we get them sooner than later.

On the plus side of transparency, lawmakers provided $275,000 for the Iowa Public Information Board. Not the $400,000 that the governor wanted, but better than the paltry $100,000 offered by House Republicans.

Monica Vernon (Liz Martin/The Gazette)

The mayor poured cold water on congressional rumors. But the mayor pro tem  just might be in.

Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon says she’s getting a lot of encouragement to run for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District. U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley is leaving the seat to run for the U.S. Senate.

Vernon said she’s still thinking it over. She’ll make her final call soon. But her family has been supportive. Her friends are egging her on.

I say if your friends urge you to run for Congress, you need new friends. But that’s just me.

“This is a challenge. You don’t take it lightly,” Vernon said. “I think I’m up to it.”

Vernon built a successful business, Vernon Research, and has been active in local government, serving on several boards and commissions before running for City Council in 2007. She was easily re-elected to her District 2 seat in 2011, representing a wide swath of the biggest city in the 1st District. She can try this congressional thing without giving up her council seat.

Vernon’s experience with the flood of 2008 and the recovery that followed gives her more experience dealing with the federal government and federal issues than your garden variety city council member in Iowa.

“I’m looking at Congress as quite a dysfunctional creature right now,” Vernon said. So her vision is OK.

But running for Congress is a far cry from winning a council district. She’s an unknown to most Democratic primary voters in a congressional district that stretches from the Mississippi northwestward to the Minnesota border. That’s 20 counties, and includes Dubuque, Marshalltown and the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metro.

Vernon switched her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat four years ago, with the fight over same-sex marriage serving as her tipping point. Although they welcome converts with open arms, partisans always seem a little wary of side-switchers.

“I grew up as a Republican, but I feel like the party left me,” said Vernon, whose husband, Bill, is a former state GOP central committee member and national convention delegate.

She’s running as a “moderate,” fiscally cautious and committed to “human and civil rights.” She’s concerned about jobs, health care, education and ag issues, but insists it’s too soon for any specifics. Vernon said she doesn’t appreciate the “polar” ideological reaches of either party. Although, usually, a candidate does need some of those polar votes to win a primary. And in a midterm election, when fewer independents show up, turning out the party’s base will be critical in the general election.

Former House Speaker Pat Murphy of Dubuque is in the primary race, and former state Sen. Swati Dandekar of Marion, another pro-business moderate, is exploring a bid. It’s no secret that a lot of Democrats who are less-than-excited with their early choices are still waiting for a “wow” contender to emerge.

Vernon isn’t that candidate. But that doesn’t mean she can’t win. It just means it’s going to take a lot of hard work. And some help from those so-called friends.

We still don’t know all there is to know about the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to secretly grab piles of phone records from the Associated Press.

We know it was done as part of an investigation into leaks regarding a foiled terror plot, but we don’t know exactly how it was done, when, or why. I’ll leave reporting on the intricacies to folks who know what they’re talking about. (I’m also trying to get up to speed on the evolving, troubling IRS saga. )

What we do know, or should know, regardless of the legalities and spin, is that this is not how our government should operate.

The justice department, operating in a nation where a free press is guaranteed in our very First Amendment, decided to dig through a news organization’s phone records on a remarkably broad scale. The AP called it a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” I think they got it right. The phone lines targeted were used by more than 100 journalists over a two-month period.

Attorney General Eric Holder likely will insist that national security is at stake. Which is what they always say, right after they’ve gone fishing through your phone calls and personal data. The White House is claiming ignorance. Which is unbelievable. When AG’s do massive, unprecedented things, I’d like to think they at least send a note up the chain.

What we really need to ask ourselves is if we’re truly being made safer by a government, more precisely, by an administration, that’s willing to go to these extreme lengths to intimidate government officials into not telling journalists what’s really going on. Not to mention sending a chilling message to the journalists.

I concede, sometimes, there are leaks that need plugging. And then there is unnecessary, excessive secrecy, intended not to protect the public, but to shield bureaucrats and politicians from being held accountable.

And when news organizations have shown ample willingness to consider the national security implications of their work, even holding stories to avoid compromising security, as AP did, why would this administration compromise their freedom and independence even more with this overreach? At a time when Americans are already troubled by the power of technology to diminish privacy, their government fans the flames.

A president who got elected talking a good game about transparency has shown it was pretty much all talk. As evidence by the fact that the AP disclosure wasn’t a huge surprise.

I don’t know what Holder’s folks found in those records, but I hope it was worth the further erosion of trust and credibility in a justice department already bruised and dented. There were already plenty of reasons to wonder whether President Obama should fold on Holder. Could this, finally, be it?

And, yes, maybe news organizations should have cared a whole lot more before about all the secret data mining, warrantless wiretapping, surveillance and other dark arts being done in the name of our security. I hope this gets our attention.

E. Wayne Cooley (Buzz Orr photo)

My dad was teaching my daughter to pitch Saturday as news of E. Wayne Cooley’s death made its way around Iowa.

I guess that’s a fitting tribute to the man who led the Iowa Girls High School Athletic Union from 1954 to 2002.

In fact, every time an Iowa girl fires a fastball, sinks a shot, spikes a volleyball or competes in any of nine high school girls sports programs, they’re paying a tribute to Cooley. Correction, Mr. Cooley.

I didn’t know him personally. But I felt as though I did. My dad began coaching girls’ softball and basketball at Woden-Crystal Lake in 1958. He coached softball until 2007.

So Mr. Cooley was a presence, someone my father deeply admires and talks of often. He was both a commanding figure and a man possessing great warmth and generosity. One of my favorite stories is about the time Mr. Cooley showed up at one of my dad’s softball tournaments. After the game, he told dad it was the first time in a long time that he had to pay admission to get in.

The girl working the gate told Mr. Cooley, “I don’t care who you are, Mr. Dorman says everybody pays.”

“Do you want your money back?” my dad asked, astounded.

“No,” Mr. Cooley said. “I want to know when she’s graduating so I can hire her.”

It wasn’t just that Mr. Cooley expanded opportunities for girls to play sports, which he did. It wasn’t just about equal access to athletic competition, as important as that is. What’s remarkable is how he built girls’ sports into a premium brand in Iowa, a product that became culturally important, magnetic and wildly popular. So much so that everybody wanted to be a part of it. The thousands of girls who played. Longtime coaches such as my dad and so many others who proudly stuck by it for decades. The thousands and thousands of Iowans from all corners of the state who flocked to the state basketball tournament to watch that curious six-player game.

My dad took teams to that tournament four times in the 1970s. Sure, the patriotic parade of states pageant on Saturday night and the guys in tuxedos sweeping the basketball floor to the strains of “Satin Doll” may seem a little corny in our jaded times, but it was special and unforgettable. Especially for girls who got a chance to play on the grandest stage in Iowa high school sports.

Mr. Cooley built that stage. The games and times have changed. But little girls in backyards still dream of getting there.

My 33-minute podcast interview with Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett can be found here.

Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett is now officially running for a second term. So far, he’s the only one interested in the job. Four years ago, there was plenty of buzz around mayoral possibilities. This time, zilch.

“I’m sure that before the filing deadline comes that there will be other individuals who step forward,” Corbett said while being interviewed for an “Insights on Iowa” podcast. (The full podcast will be posted at TheGazette.com and here on Monday.) “I sometimes run into people in the community who say you couldn’t pay me enough to do your job.”

History suggests he’ll have an opponent. “I haven’t done the research, but I think it’s probably been maybe 30 years since someone ran unopposed for a mayoral race,” Corbett said.

NONPARTISAN PREFERENCE

So that takes care of 2013. What about 2014?

Corbett’s name has popped up in the blogosphere as a possible Republican candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 1st District. He spent 13 years in the Legislature, including time as speaker of the House. He’s the mayor of Iowa’s second-largest city. More than enough to buy you a spot on the speculation train.

But Corbett seems reluctant to ride.

“I really do enjoy serving as mayor,” Corbett said. “You know, one thing that is different is the nonpartisan nature that local city politics has. I’ve really grown to appreciate that type of environment. So at this time, I have no interest in jumping back into the partisan environment.

“Actually, if you do have a heart for public service, which I do, you can probably have more of an impact locally in changing your community than you can heading off to Washington D.C. and try to make changes inside the beltway. So I’m very comfortable in my position of being mayor and hope that the voters give me four more years,” Corbett said.

So Hizzhonor is much more comfortable talking about flood recovery projects on the verge of completion, the metro’s low 5.1 percent unemployment rate and its economy-defying increase in manufacturing jobs. And how the local media don’t do enough to toot the city’s booster horn.

Corbett is willing to lobby Washington on our need for flood protection. Floods are notoriously nonpartisan.

RIGHTS ISSUES

Toward the end of our conversation, I got a keen sense of Corbett’s discomfort with thorny partisan issues.

A few weeks back, I was doing some research for a piece when I stumbled upon a 1989 Associated Press story on a debate in the Iowa House over legislation extending state civil rights protections to homosexuals. Corbett was in his second term in the House at the time, and he rose to oppose the bill.

“A person can’t choose their sex. A person can’t choose their national origin. A person can’t choose the color of their skin,” Corbett was quoted in the article. “Yes, people do have a choice in whether they want to be a homosexual or not.”

Sure, it’s been 24 years. But while Corbett spoke that day, I was an 18-year-old page in the same House, listening to a debate that profoundly changed the way I’ve thought about civil rights and gay rights, to this day.

So I asked him about it. Corbett was clearly displeased. More displeased than I anticipated.

“And what would you like me to say? Would you like me to say do I still stand by those views?” Corbett said.

I said a lot of politicians have evolved on the issue.

“I think certainly people evolve on a lot of different issues,” Corbett said. “Here in Cedar Rapids we’ve extended those rights to not just to gay people, but we’ve added transgender, also. That wasn’t debated at that point in time.

“I appoint people to the civil rights commission that take a balanced approach. I think social tolerance is important for a community,” he said.

We talked about how equality has come a long way in 25 years, even in the last five years. Opposition has waned. Young people are more supportive. His kids have good friends who are gay. The mayor said he has friends and supporters who are gay.

Has he ever been asked to take a public position on marriage equality? Corbett said he has not.

He has been asked, as mayor, to take stands on a number of big issues, such as gun control and immigration reform. He’d rather not get involved.

“I really kind of refrain from getting into some of that national debate and discussion, only because we’ve had so much on our plate,” Corbett said. “Unless it really has a link to Cedar Rapids in a strong way, I’ve stepped back from some of these highly partisan issues. Tried to really manage the city in a nonpartisan way and not to get into some of those issues.

“But, maybe, say, on immigration, if Rockwell, for one, was extremely concerned about the immigration law going in one direction too far, and not having enough H-1B visas in a pipeline for their hard-to-find talent, and they were looking for support from the mayor, that might maybe influence me a little bit more to be involved in that issue.

“But other than that, I’ve just tried to stay focused on the local issues and move our economy forward,” Corbett said.

Maybe if a company that makes same-sex wedding cake toppers ever moves to town, Corbett will join the fight. But then the paper will probably bury the good news.

So I heard this guy was coming to town who says he can bridge the stubborn divides in Iowa’s Republican ranks, making peace between the culture warring evangelicals and leave-me-alone libertarians and let’s-talk-about-the-economy country-clubby establishment folks.

He’s going to grow the party nationally. Make it more diverse. Bring in Latino and African-American voters. Check for any possible Republicans hanging out in California and New England. Make it OK to disagree on social issues without the RINO hunts.

And he may try doing all this while running for president in 2016.

It’s easily 1,000 days until the Iowa caucuses in 2016. Too (beeping) early. And I’m not much of a fan of science fiction. But I figured this was something I had to see.

And there he was, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky. The bridge to the big tent, with lots of room. Even Democrats.

“How you will have a bigger voice nationally, to be part of the national scene, is to come to Iowa,” Paul told reporters gathered in a conference room at The Hotel at Kirkwood in Cedar Rapids Friday. “That’s where political leaders come to talk about issues that they want to resonate nationally. And one of the things I want to talk about whether I run or not is how to make the Republican Party bigger.

“We need to have a Republican Party that looks like the rest of the country,” Paul said.

But is Iowa the best place to start that transformation?

Paul has opportunities and potential problems here.

Enthusiastic backers of his father Ron control top posts in the Republican Party of Iowa. An opportunity.

But many Iowa activists in other factions of the party have rejected their leadership. A problem.

GOP electoral losses have a lot of Iowa Republicans talking about the party’s message. An opportunity.

But a fair number think the best course of action is to double-down hard on the red meat social issues that motivate the base. A problem.

Iowa Republicans, particularly evangelicals, hear “big tent” and think “surrender” on the issues they care about, marriage, abortion, etc. Establishmentarians hear “Paul” and get nervous.

Can you keep your father’s politically diverse, motivated backers, appeal to the religious right, comfort the establishment and not appear like a shape-shifter in the process?

If Paul is worried, it doesn’t show. He’s relaxed, speaks easily, cracks jokes, some of which are actually funny. He delivered his largely low-key Lincoln Day keynote leaning casually on the lectern. It’s like he’s the anti-Romney.

“One of the ways I mean inclusive is African-Americans and Hispanics. I don’t think anyone is going to argue on that,” Paul said during the afternoon press conference. “Inclusiveness means going and trying to get people who haven’t been with us in the party. And that could be a variety of reasons why.

“The way I look at it, it’s sort of like your family, your dad, your sister, your brother, who you don’t agree with them on every issue. But you still break bread with them. It’s the same with the Republican Party,” Paul said.

“The party shouldn’t have an inclusion exclusion rule. And I think if we do we’ll be a party of the red states and not a national party,” he said.

He said he believes in “traditional” marriage but says it should be a state issue.

He wants immigration reform to fix a broken system. If you want to come here and work hard, you should have that chance. He’s uncertain how the bipartisan bill will evolve, but he hopes the need for more border security and a system change can be balanced.

“This bill destroys the rule of law,” said Rep. Steve King earlier in the evening, offering a less nuanced view of immigration reform.

Paul favors decriminalizing marijuana, but not legalization. “I think it’s an issue where the youth might listen to us a little more if we didn’t want to lock them all up,” he said.

Paul drew his biggest applause Friday night hammering former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton on the failure to provide adequate security for diplomats and others killed in Benghazi. “It was inexcusable. It was a dereliction of duty. And it should preclude her from holding higher office,” he said to a standing O.

But he’s not keen on listing differences with his dad. “As far as itemizing differences, it doesn’t make for a good Thanksgiving Dinner.”

If Paul were a beer brand, he might be “Dad’s Light.” Tastes great. Less fringy.

But after 13 hours of filibustering against the excesses of the president’s dubious drone warfare campaign, Paul has a lot of political capital right now, as evidenced by the sold out Lincoln Day dinner crowd who gathered to see him speak at Kirkwood.

“I think there’s objective evidence out there that people are looking for a new type of Republican, looking for a way to grow the Republican Party,” Paul said.

With Gov. Terry Branstad’s school reform agenda hanging in the balance in the Legislature, its architect and salesman-in-chief is trolling for another job.

Jason Glass, our Department of Education Director, is one of three finalists for the top job at Eagle County Schools in Colorado, which, according to its website, ”Was one of the first school districts in the nation to successfully implement a pay-for-performance system and abolish the lock-step salary schedule over a decade ago? ECS has been recognized as a national leader in using teacher evaluations to enhance professional development and teaching practices.” 

Glass was human resources director in Eagle County when that pay system was put in place. So he’s a pay pioneer with an inside track.

Can you blame a guy for wanting to trade Statehouse slogging for a Rocky Mountain High? Eagle County is a “National Blue Ribbon School.” It’s been praised by Bill Gates. It’s nestled in the breathtaking Rockies, not far from Vail. Top that, Iowa.

Would he be a poorer man if he never saw Eagle County test scores fly? OK, I’ll stop.

I know a lot of folks at that slogging Statehouse are saying that this makes no difference. But Branstad’s education reform package includes multiple provisions that are basically TBA, stuff that, if approved by lawmakers, still would need to be planned and implemented over the next few years. Topping that list are new teacher evaluations, which could be tied to some sort of student performance measures. The measuring measures, too, have yet to be fully developed.

Glass is supposed to be at the center of all that planning and implementing and follow-through. He shaped the governor’s vision, and is the guy charged with turning that vision into policy. So if he hits the trail, you can’t help but wonder who will be doing all the lifting.

I’m sure some legislators are wondering that, even if they’re not saying it, as they remain stuck in negotiations over the guv’s reform package.  Teacher evaluations are a big sticking point. The timing of this announcement is not great for Glass’ current boss.

And maybe he doesn’t get the job. These things happen. Who needs Vail, anyway? Iowa is beautiful in the spring.

On Tuesday, Warren County voters flatly rejected a gambling referendum, with 60 percent voting no. That smashed plans for a $145 million casino/hotel complex near Norwalk just south of Des Moines. And no bowling alley for you.

The Register of Des Moines has the goods. I think this graph tells you all you need to know about the drubbing:

The gambling measure failed everywhere but in White Breast, a precinct in the southeast corner of the county that on Tuesday was responsible for 147 votes.

But how did it do in Drumstick Junction? Gizzard Gulch?

I’m no expert on Warren County politics, but I was surprised by the margin. I figured it would pass. It’s almost as if last night’s result was the exact opposite of Linn County’s March referendum, where gambling was victorious 61-39.

In Warren County, a pile of outside casino money, in this case from from Wild Rose Entertainment, was bet on a yes vote, unlike the $750,000 spent here by existing casinos hoping to defeat gaming.  Warren County opponents were led and funded locally, for the most part.

In Linn County, local opponents couldn’t distance themselves from a pricey campaign funded almost entirely by those outside casinos. The yes campaign here also was pricey,at $1.5 million, but the bills were paid by local investors.

Link Strategies, the consulting firm that helped vote no in Linn and vote yes in Warren, is now 0-2 in 2013. The need to update that web site.

This probably has little or no effect on Cedar Rapids’ bid for a license, which should start revving up this summer. But having the Racing and Gaming Commission’s licensing process to themselves may be of some help.

It also might  mean that opponents of expanded gambling in Iowa, including the unholy alliance of existing casinos and anti-gambling activists, now will have one target.

UPDATE — Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett was in our shop to record a podcast (which will be posted later, probably Monday). During some informal chatting before the podcast started, he made a couple of points on the Warren County result that I hadn’t considered.

For one, the very lopsided no vote in Warren County makes the lopsided yes vote in Linn County look even more impressive. The commission may take note.

Second, the commission now will need only a regional market study to judge the potential for a Cedar Rapids casino to take business from nearby existing facilities, not a statewide study. Corbett says that may speed up the licensing process.

Over at Bleeding Heartland, desmoinesdem thinks Warren County’s conservative bent made its outcome so different than Linn County’s:

Warren County has seen rapid exurban growth during the past decade, and socially conservative Republicans have done increasingly well there. In fact, Warren was one of the best counties for Bob Vander Plaats in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, where Terry Branstad carried most of the state. Even though the Iowa House Republicans conceded House district 26 (covering most of Warren County) last fall, Democrat Scott Ourth defeated way-out-there Republican Steve McCoy by only about 52 percent to 48 percent.

The latest county-level voter registration figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office show that Linn County has 49,666 active registered Democrats, 37,948 Republicans, and 52,303 no-party voters.

Warren County has 9,802 active registered Democrats, 10,524 Republicans, and 10,628 no-party voters.

It turns out all the drama hasn’t spawned a dramatically altered Iowa Supreme Court.

On Friday, the state’s highest court ruled 6-0 in favor of a married lesbian couple seeking to have each of their names listed on their daughter’s birth certificate. The Iowa Department of Public Health refused, naming only the birth mother but not her spouse. But the Supreme Court ruled that the department’s application of existing law violated the Iowa Constitution’s clause entitling citizens to equal treatment under the law.

It’s a big ruling for a number of reasons. For one, as Jennifer Hemmingsen notes, it’s a win for kids.

It’s also the first time that the court has picked up its 2009 Varnum ruling striking down Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages and used it as a tool to further expand civil rights protections.

“The court says in this decision, ‘We meant what we said,’” said Camilla Taylor, marriage project director in Lambda Legal’s Chicago office. “Turns out equal is equal. There’s no marriage lite for same-sex couples or their children.”

Between 2009 and now, you might recall, crusading critics of the ruling and the court succeeded in ousting three justices who joined the Varnum ruling. A fourth, Justice David Wiggins, survived a 2012 retention campaign and wrote Friday’s ruling. There have been calls for all of the remaining Varnum justices to resign. A few state lawmakers floated the possibility of impeachment. This year, some House Republicans called for docking the justices’ pay.

But if judge hunters were hoping to intimidate the court into drastically shifting its approach, for fear of invoking more loud rebukes from the outraged right and suffering dire political consequences, Friday’s ruling shows all the bluster brought very little change. Clearly, the four remaining Varnum justices haven’t changed their minds or backed away from the landmark ruling.

Still the court has been changed some. It was unavoidable.

Two of three new justices appointed by Gov. Terry Branstad, Justice Edward Mansfield and Justice Thomas Waterman, concurred with Friday’s result while also sending a cryptic message on their feelings about Varnum. Here’s their special concurrence, penned by Mansfield:

The Iowa Department of Public Health accepts the decision in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), for purposes of this appeal. I agree that if Varnum is the law, then Iowa Code section 144.13(2) cannot be constitutionally applied to deny Melissa Gartner’s request to be listed as parent on the birth certificate of the child delivered by her same-sex spouse. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment in this case.

That’s a very intriguing “if.”

“What it means is that they don’t necessarily agree with all the reasoning in the main decision but they absolutely agree in the result,’ Taylor said, while conceding that the justices’ thinking is unclear.

A third new member, Justice Bruce Zager, took no part. The court doesn’t say why.

(Update — Bleeding Heartland notes that attorney Sharon K. Malheiro, who was among the lawyers representing the couple, is with the same law firm where Zager’s daughter is a partner.)

None of the parties in this case challenged the validity of Varnum. But I think if these new justices had been itching to take a slap at the 2009 ruling, this was a chance to do it. The fact that they didn’t suggests that they’re willing to let it stand. So judge-defenders who worried that the retention ruckus would damage the court’s independence or imperil Varnum can breathe a sigh of relief.

Sure, this court is still going to make lousy rulings and draw fire, sometimes justifiably. But on civil rights, it hasn’t gone skittish. It’s not retreating.

Varnum remains the law of the land, no “if” about it.

But, as an alert reader points out, that’s not the only flipping and flopping going on.  No Casino Warren County‘s state incorporation document was registered by the same attorney who filed the one for Vote Yes Linn County, Mark E. Roth.

Roth is with Des Moines law firm Brown-Winick, which is also home to Doug Gross, the former Branstad chief of staff and gubernatorial candidate who advised Cedar Rapids casino investors. (See update below)

So the Linn County combatants appear to have traded places in Warren County.

And like here, the politics is kinda weird. A yes vote Tuesday would benefit Gary Kirke, whose Wild Rose Entertainment wants to build the casino near Norwalk. Kirke is a big Republican donor whose name recently showed up on a list of Rep. Steve King’s top individual givers this year.

Link Strategies namesake, Jeff Link, is campaign manager for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Braley. King says he’s still kicking around the notion of running for the Senate also, although all signs point to him skipping it. Might be too much of a gamble.

Kirke was among the hosts for a fundraiser on behalf of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The event last fall was at the home of lead Cedar Rapids’ casino investor Steve Gray.  And we’ve come full circle.

UPDATE — I spoke with Gross this morning, and he says although a member pf his firm set up the vote no entity, he’s had no involvement in the campaign. “I certainly have not been involved in any way,” Gross said.

Jonathan P. Dolliver. A fine Senator who first served in the House.

Earlier this week, Gov. Terry Branstad gave his frank assessment of who should not be running for U.S. Senate:

“I really believe that Iowans want somebody that will serve in the Senate that will be an Iowa problem solver, not another congressman,” Branstad said this morning during his weekly news conference.

“You know congress is a mess. We’ve seen them spend a trillion dollars more than they take in every year and so the Democrats have decided, ‘Well, we’re going to send up another congressman.’ That’s the last thing we need is another congressman in the United States Senate.”

…

“That last thing we need is another congressman in the United States Senate,” Branstad said. “The congress is so messed up. They are so unable to make tough decisions. They are so far out of touch with the public in terms of their spending policies that we just need somebody that’s going to come there with fresh ideas and we’ve got some of those in Iowa.”

The governor seemed to be talking mostly about U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Tom Harkin. But everyone was all like, whoa, hey, wait a second, Rep. Steve King  also is  a congressman!

A busy one, too. So busy, he hasn’t had time to make a final decision on running for the Senate. But I think we all kinda know that he’s made up his mind. Yup. Not a chance.

Branstad’s diatribe reminded me immediately of a story Lamar Alexander used to tell when he was running for president. He walked up to a woman outside her job, having a smoke. He told her he wants to be president. “Great, that’s all we need. Another president,” she says.

Great, that’s all Iowa needs, another congressman. A congresswoman would be great, for a change. But not another congressman.

Branstad has a point. Congress is a dystopian disaster area. Voters are going to smell the dysfunction. It smells of cherry blossoms and flop sweat.

On the other hand, the Senate is one of the two major chambers within that dystopia. So it is possible that having some knowledge and experience with the lay of the wasteland could be beneficial.  Republicans, pundits and such often knock President Obama for not understanding how to navigate Congress, how to build relationships, pull the levers, stroke the egos, fight off the flying monkeys, etc. And they have a point. 

History also suggests that experience in the House isn’t all bad for a senator. Both Harkin and Sen. Chuck Grassley served in the House first. They seemed to do all right.

So did one of the most famous senators in Iowa history, Johnathan P Dolliver. Dolliver served in the House from 1889 to 1901, when he was appointed to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat. He was then elected to keep the seat, by the Iowa Legislature in those days, and served until 1910, when he died.

Dolliver, according to the interwebs, was very nearly President William McKinley’s running mate in 1900, but lost out to Theodore Roosevelt. So Dolliver could have been president. The son of a Methodist minister is also credited with a snappy soundbite. “Iowa will go Democratic when Hell goes Methodist.”

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Dolliver Memorial State Park south of Fort Dodge. Beautiful place. No flying monkeys.

Some of America’s most famous senators served first as bleepity bleeping congressmen. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Robert LaFollette each served time in the House.

But there was some guy from Illinois who served in the House and then lost his Senate bid in 1858. What was his name again?

So House membership may be a disadvantage in our turbulent times, but it shouldn’t mean automatic Senate disqualification. It will mean some very nasty TV attack ads, maybe showing you in a grainy black and white photo with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hugo Chavez, but not outright disqualification.

And remember, just because your opponent says you’re wrong for America, that does not mean you’re necessarily wrong for the United States Senate.

Also, governors who seek to live in Terrace Hill for nearly a quarter-century should not throw stones while demanding “fresh ideas!”

(Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)

Now for the ceremonial changing of the grill.

Each year, about this time, I roll my charcoal grill from its wind-sheltered winter quarters in front of my garage to its summer position on the back patio. A whiff of fresh cut grass. The first neighborhood kid in a swimsuit. I know it’s time.

It’s a ritual that has endured. But not all is unchanged in grilltopia.

Last month, the National Pork Board announced that several cuts of pig are getting new names. Apparently, according to exhaustive consumer research, shoppers get confused by names such as “pork rib chop” or “pork loin chop” or “top loin chop.” Shoulders shrug at the “Boston butt.”

So pork, which once claimed to be the “other white meat,” will now borrow its cut names from beef. The loin chop becomes a “porterhouse chop.” Rib chops are “ribeye chops” and top loin becomes a “New York chop.” New York pork?

That big ‘ol punch line of a pork cut, Boston butt, becomes a more refined “Boston roast.”

Cook chops like steak, pork producers insist.

Agreed. But what will become of our famously thick “Iowa chop?” Symbol of our pork supremacy.

Could presidential candidates visiting the Iowa State Fair really prove their Midwest bone-a-fides by flipping something called a porterhouse? Would Iowa face the same fate as Kansas City, which watched its famous strip steak go all New York? Will RAGBRAI’s “Mr. Pork Chop” have to alter his smoky siren’s song?

“We’re still calling it the Iowa chop,” said Ronald Birkenholz, spokesman for the Iowa Pork Producers. In Iowa, at least, the one-and-a-half-inch thick center cut loin chop will continue to go by Iowa chop, as it has since the 1970s.

Still, it seems like an odd time to make pork sound more like beef.

We’re in the midst of a pork renaissance. A number of producers are returning to Iowa’s farming roots by raising Berkshire hogs and other traditional breeds on smaller farms. Great restaurants are gobbling up their delicious cuts, by any name.

Chefs across the country are going full nose to tail, preparing dishes from parts I didn’t even know were edible. If pig tails, for instance, catch on, what do we call them? Flank twists? America, at last report, remains wrapped in bacon.

And with our right wing and left wing girding their loins for endless battle, isn’t a center cut chop exactly what America needs?

Remember, marinate liberally. Grill conservatively.

Also, here’s a recipe for Bourbon-brined pork chops. Good stuff.

We had our casino referendum fun in March. But Warren County voters will go to the polls a week from today to decide on allowing gambling in their county just south of Des Moines. And things are getting interesting.

Sure, no one’s promised a water park for a no vote. But still, interesting.

Wild Rose Entertainment, which also owns a casinos in Emmetsburg and Clinton, wants to build a $145 million facility northwest of Norwalk on Highway 28. It would include gambling an events center, a 150-room hotel and a bowling alley. Planners had to lower the height of the planned hotel due to a nearby airport. Backers are promising that the facility will create 600 jobs, 250 construction jobs…you know the drill.

Like Cedar Rapids’ proposal, a Warren County casino likely would take business from nearby operations, in this case casinos in Osceola and Altoona. Unlike Cedar Rapids, the proposed casino would provide 4.5 percent of its revenues to local non-profits. Cedar Rapids’ contribution would be 3 percent.

In Linn County, Link Strategies was the strategic brains behind Just Say No Casino. In Warren County, Link’s outfit is reportedly working for Vote Yes, aka Warren County Citizens for Good Jobs.

Ah, politics.

And on Monday, we got came news that another well-known political outfit is getting involved:

The Family Leader, a socially conservative activist group, is raising money to oppose a May 7 ballot measure that if approved would clear the way for gaming in Warren County.

Greg Baker, the Family Leader’s political director, said the group had received multiple requests from county residents asking for help in defeating the measure.

…

The Family Leader has been active in opposing gambling measures since the ’90s as the Iowa Family Policy Center, Baker said.

The group, founded by Bob Vander Plaats, is holding a meeting this week and is raising money for the vote no’ers. Thankfully, family leaders were not active here.

Last night, the Norwalk School Board voted to take no position on the casino vote.

It will be interesting to see what happens Tuesday. If the referendum passes, there’s a good chance that the Racing and Gaming Commission will be looking at Linn and Warren counties’ casino proposals at roughly the same time. In the past, the commission has preferred to combine multiple license applications into a single process, with market studies etc. I don’t think the Norwalk plan will have much direct impact on Linn County’s chances, although I also can’t say that the proposals won’t affect one another at all.

I do know residents from both counties may be seeing a lot or each other at commission meetings in the coming months. Be nice.

Past market studies have suggested that the Des Moines-area market can sustain more gambling, and the Warren County casino would be run by a veteran Iowa firm.

I’ve heard from some local readers here that Linn County is a lead pipe lock for a license. The fix is in, they say. And they may be right about the outcome. Linn County’s chances are good, perhaps very good.

But I think anyone who believes that the commission will somehow ignore or skew market studies to the advantage of Linn County, and to the possible detriment to multiple existing casinos, doesn’t fully understand the clout of the existing casino cartel.

I’ve watched this process unfold during the last two big expansion cycles. Generally, if any “fix” is in, it’s to protect existing cash cows first. Maybe that’s changed, but with hundreds of millions of dollars in investments and tax revenues in play, I doubt it.

Linn County supervisors were warned about side effects. They put their salary on steroids anyway.

Now, a couple of local guys unhappy with that decision, Richard Bice and Mike Engelken, are starting a drive to collect 10,000 signatures needed to call for the appointment of a county charter commission. That commission could recommend changes in the county’s governmental structure. Bice and Engelken would like to see a county manager form of government, where a professional manager runs day-to-day operations with a part-time Board of Supervisors.

They’re like a lot of folks who got fired up when the board voted 4-1 earlier this year to raise its annual pay by more than 25 percent. Engelken would slice that paycheck by 50 percent. I’m betting they’ll find folks willing to sign on.

But they also know that creating a commission doesn’t mean they’ve created change. County elected officials will appoint most of the commission members, along with local state lawmakers. Many, if not most, of those folks are happy with the way things are, and their appointees likely will reflect those sentiments. The gravitational pull of the status quo is very strong in Linn County government, where most elected officials were previously deputies, and who now are served by deputies with dreams of running for the top job.

At least, with a charter commission, they’ll have to defend the merits of how things have always been done, and in public. And they’ll need to explain how we can afford it. As of July 1, there will be 18 county employees who make salaries of more than $100,000, and a total of 91 staffers who earn six-figures when you add in the cost of benefits. Within the next decade, with just modest raises, all county elected officials will be earning six-figure base salaries.

(A spreadsheet with total compensation totals for Fiscal Year 2014, prepared by the county auditor, is posted below)

And if the Legislature approves property tax reforms that include tax or spending caps, the status quo may become much less affordable in a hurry. Regardless of what you think of the supervisors, it seems like a good time to pop the hood and have the conversation.

And once that hood’s popped, a charter commission has broad latitude to tinker. It can suggest revamping the structure of county departments and consolidating functions. It can even call for combining the duties of elected officials and eliminate offices. Its recommendations must go to voters for approval.

For the supervisors, the bad news is that this process keeps the salary issue alive indefinitely.

Yeah, I know it’s very early.

But it seems like four years ago, the mayoral race in Cedar Rapids was already generating some buzz. Ron Corbett had announced. Others were floating trial balloons. Healthy speculation was underway.

This year, nothing. Zilch. I get asked every once in a while if I’ve heard of anyone interested in challenging Mayor Ron Corbett ( if he runs for re-election, as I expect.). I haven’t heard a single name. City Council candidates are starting to line up, but no mayoral possibilities.

Corbett has caught hell during his term over assorted decisions, but that doesn’t mean he’ll face credible opposition. It’s one thing to criticize, it’s another to actually put your name on a ballot. And much of his support comes from those segments of the city — business, economic development, non-profits, movers, shakers, etc. — where successful mayoral candidates  come from, generally.

I know we’ve got four months left before the filing deadline, so no rush. Just wondering if anyone out there has heard anything.

When I look at the announced candidates thus far it reminds me of how Beverly Hills Cop III must have been happened. You know a couple of low rent financiers, a well known franchise and no real plan or script for success and a rush to judgment. That pretty much sums up failed candidates Rod Blum x1, Steve Rathje x3 and Pat Murphy who lost the Iowa House majority to the GOP. These candidates have left their respective parties (whatever Blum is) wanting a candidate who is viable and can win.

Incidentally, did you know they’re actually going to make a Police Academy 8?

Anyhoo… The gilded Gnome says Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiwawatha, former Iowa secretary of state and Cedar Rapids mayor Paul Pate and current Mayor Ron Corbett are potentials “waiting the pull the trigger.”

First time I’ve heard Corbett’s name mentioned for the seat. I think it’s more likely he’ll run for re-election as mayor, but I haven’t asked him in a while.

A couple of paycheck issues came up at the Statehouse this past week.

One got quite a bit of attention, but didn’t deserve it. The other got little ink, but deserves more.

Some Republican state representatives made the front page by insisting that a 4-year-old ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage in Iowa should now result in a pay cut for the Iowa Supreme Court justices who issued it.

Most Iowans have moved on from the marriage crusade. Last fall, we wised up and stopped kicking justices off the bench. The drive for a constitutional amendment requiring Iowa to set its civil rights clocks back to inequality is all but kaput.

Ever hear those stories about soldiers out on islands who keep on fighting because they don’t know the war is over?

No reason. Just asking.

Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, says a pay cut down to $25,000, which is what most lawmakers make, would maintain the “balance of power” between coequal branches of government. Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, says the court “trashed the separation of powers.” But they swear it’s not punishment. It’s just that the court keeps insisting on doing its job, finding constitutional problems with laws the Legislature passes.

Maybe, if justices get paid like lawmakers, they’ll appreciate how hard it is to pass constitutional laws. It’s nearly as hard as it is for these guys to discuss the role of the courts without spinning nonsense into soundbites.

The good news is, despite the controversy it generated, the pay cut isn’t going anywhere.

The bad news is neither is paycheck issue No. 2.

Senate Democrats would like to add $106,560 to a big budget bill that funds a slug of agencies, including the Department of Workforce Development and its Labor Services Division. The added money would pay for two “wage enforcement investigators,” whose job it would be to investigate claims by Iowa workers who say they’ve been stiffed out of pay they earned.

Backers say Iowa now has just one investigator. And there are 400 wage-theft claims in need of investigating. More staff would help.

Last year, Republicans who run the House refused to add the money. This year, it’s the same song. The big bill is in a conference committee, so there’s hope, but not much.

The Iowa Policy Project estimated last summer that wage theft in Iowa adds up to $600 million annually. Some people get cheated out of overtime, other don’t get to keep their tips. Employees are pushed to work hours off book, or don’t get a final paycheck after leaving a job. Folks who work in restaurants, at construction jobs, in meatpacking and food processing are the most vulnerable to paycheck problems.

But many of us have had stuff like this happen during our work lives, and wished we could do something about it.

I know that the policy project leans left politically, as do the lawmakers seeking this funding. I know Republicans don’t like to grow government. And I know that they don’t like rules and regulations slapped on businesses.

But wage and hour regulations are already on the books. for good reasons. And making sure that Iowans get the pay they’re owed does not seem like excessive meddling in the free market. Actually, investigating these claims is exactly the refereeing role government should play. We’re not talking about entitlements. We’re talking about earnings.

But, remarkably, not many lawmakers are talking about it at all. Sometimes, the $25,000 paycheck they get seems high.

Cedar Rapids did it, so why can’t Linn County?

That’s the thought of two retirees, Richard Bice and Mike Engelken, who say they will launch a petition drive to create a charter commission and examine Linn County’s form of government.

State law requires a minimum of 10,000 signatures in Linn County.

“I think it will take a little bit of work,” Engelken said, “but I also know there’s a lot of frustration out there, and once they see what we’re trying to do, I think we’ll get the petition easily enough.”

Bice and Engelken want Linn County to replace its full-time supervisors with a county-manager form of government that features part-time supervisors and a full-time, professional manager.

Fueling Bice, 80, a retired businessman, and Engelken, 59, a retired financial controller for Rockwell Collins, is the Linn County Board of Supervisors’ decision in March to move to full-time status and raise their pay by 25 percent.

I’m not sure what will come of this effort, especially considering that a charter commission would be packed with appointees picked by the supervisors and other local elected officials who probably like the way things are.  But once these things get rolling, you never can tell where they’ll lead.

Regardless, the supervisors sure have purchased a lot of ill will with that fat raise. Seems like they were warned that might happen.

But should their bad form lead to a new form of government? It’s early, but here’s your chance to weigh in on that and on the supervisors’ job performance.

(Editor’s note: The skull-and-bones poll motif was, evidently, the default setting. But, you have to admit, it makes ‘em look mean.)

I mean, you run for office so you can vote on stuff. And yet, you know you shouldn’t vote on stuff that might benefit you or your family or your business. In those cases, you must recuse, or be accused of malfeasance.

The Cedar Rapids City Council appears to get the concept. At Tuesday’s meeting alone, Mayor Ron Corbett and Council members Kris Gulick, Chuck Swore and Scott Olson  recused themselves from multiple agenda items. It was a Recusapalooza.

And yet, the city’s recusal, conflict-of-interest and financial-disclosure rules need tightening and toughening, says the city’s Board of Ethics. Cedar Rapids is the only Iowa city that has one, by the way. Chairwoman Judi Whetstine brought two ethics code amendments to the council Tuesday. (Whetstine also does work for The Gazette as a community advocate, in the interest of full disclosure.)

One amendment sets out a stringent recusal definition, including the cold, bracing slap of a phrase: “absolute lack of involvement.” If something is being discussed in public or private that might directly, or indirectly, benefit a public official, said official must bow out, remain silent, leave the room, even.

Here’s the full definition:

Recusal means an absolute lack of involvement with a matter from which a City Official has recused. All recusals must be in writing and filed with the record keeper of the entity to which the City Official belongs, or otherwise made part of the official minutes of the entity. Once a City Official has recused from a matter, the City Official may not vote, deliberate, discuss, or in any way participate in regard to the matter recused from. To the extent feasible, a City Official must leave the room at any non-public portion of any meeting at which the matter in question is under discussion or being acted upon. NOTE: a City Official who recuses from a matter is still a City Official and may be subject to other Conflict of Interest Actions.

Another change requires officials to file and update financial disclosures tracking all direct or indirect dealings with anyone who does business with the city.

Olson, a commercial realtor with links to every mover and shaker in town, took issue with disclosing every possibility of an “indirect economic benefit.” This guy’s indirect ties have indirect ties.

Here’s the definition at issue:

Private financial interest/private gain is any direct or indirect economic benefit or other consideration 1)received by the City Official or the City Official’s Immediate Family, 2) received by any business entity or organization by which the City Official or a member of their Immediate Family is employed, or 3) received by any business entity or organization in which the City Official or their Immediate Family has an ownership interest representing 5% or more of the voting power or capital interests and which does not otherwise benefit the general public.

“This is a daunting task and a daunting responsibility,” Olson said, arguing that it may chase successful people away from public service. “I feel this may be a little over the top.”

Others seemed more comfortable with the process. Council member Pat Shey says he’s repeatedly asked for guidance from the Board of Ethics on how to balance his business arrangements and his city duties.  “You don’t get elected to public office unless you know a lot of people,” Shey said.

Whetstine said officials simply need to be reasonably diligent. She noted that playing by the rules offers them a legal defense against charges of impropriety. So it’s in their best interest to embrace the policy. Most Council members agreed, voting 7-2 to move the changes forward.

I understand Olson’s misgivings, but we need to remember it’s not about him. It’s not about any individual. These rules are about the health of important institutions in the future, and at a time when public trust in so many institutions has eroded. It’s about their ability to function and make decisions that can be respected by the governed.

It’s tough to live by conflict-of-interest rules and openness laws. It’s daunting, and it should be. It has to be. And if you can’t handle it, recuse yourself.

Blogging Iowa City Democrat John Deeth wrote about the former state senator from Marion’s prospects beneath a photo of the flaming Hindenburg:

The flames in the photo above are just a Zippo lighter compared to the bridges Dandekar burned when she put Democratic Senate control at risk to take a sweet paying gig for herself. Democrats held the seat, thanks to recruiting an unbeatable candidate (who unfortunately passed on the congressional race).

But it’s waaaay to soon for Dandekar to be thinking bygones are bygones. Combine her graceless exit with her too-conservative record, and I might be forced to say nice things about Pat Murphy. I hate the Iowa-Mississippi club, but I hate Blue Dogs worse. Please, REAL Democratic women of CD 1, don’t let me sink to that.

Of course, that assumes she’d be running AS a Democrat. Site doesn’t say which party…

On Twitter, Johnson County Supervisor Janelle Rettig points out that in 2005, Dandekar, then a House member, voted for a state constitutional amendment that would have banned both same-sex marriages and civil unions. One of her tweets:

Over at Bleeding Heartland, desmoinesdem questions my skepticism that Dandekar would be willing leave her powerful post on the Iowa Utilities Board to run, but is very skeptical that she could win a Democratic primary:

Todd Dorman is skeptical that she would give up a seat on the Iowa Utilities Board to run for Congress, but I don’t think she would need to give up that position during the campaign–only if elected.

I am highly skeptical that Dandekar could win a Democratic primary in IA-01. Linn County has the largest population of the 20 counties, but it doesn’t dominate the Congressional district by any means. Many Democrats won’t forgive Dandekar for taking a job offer from Branstad when Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal was our main firewall against Branstad’s policy agenda.

Environmentally-minded primary voters won’t appreciate Dandekar’s work to promote Mid-American Energy’s nuclear power bill during the 2011 legislative session. The AARP in Iowa also lobbied strongly against the nuclear bill.

Pro-equality Democratic voters won’t appreciate Dandekar’s 2005 Iowa House vote for a state constitutional amendment that would have banned not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions (read the full text here). The amendment passed the Iowa House by 54 votes to 44, with support from almost all of the Republicans and seven Democrats (Dandekar, Dolores Mertz, Mike Reasoner, Brian Quirk, Wayne Ford, Paul Shomshor, Kurt Swaim).

From the other side of the aisle, Linn County Supervisor Brent Oleson, a Republican from Marion, wonders on Facebook how unions will react to Dandekar’s record:

I’ll be interested to see what the labor unions think of this? She’s went out of her way on every occasion to work against them that I’m sure they would work overtime to see her defeated in a Democratic primary. Plus, I’m not sure putting her Senate Democratic caucus in jeopardy of losing their majority to be appointed by Governor Branstad to Utilities Board will earn her any support from primary Democrats. Not gonna happen!

It’s worth noting that a lot of this criticism, at this point, is coming from outside the 1st District.

But I agree that Dandekar would face some very tough questions in a Democratic primary. Marriage equality, energy policy, labor policy, etc., are enormous issues, any one of which could derail her in a primary. The combination could be too much.

On the other hand, if it’s a two-way primary with Rep. Pat Murphy, I think her chances are somewhat better.

She would be a historic candidate in more ways than one, and would probably do better in a general election, especially if it’s a year that leans Republican, as midterm history would suggest. Those would be her core arguments. It’s also possible that, like a lot of Democrats, she’s moved on the marriage issue.

There’s a website up seeking to draft former state Sen. Swati Dandekar, D-Marion, as a candidate for Congress in the 1st District. She’s currently a member of the Iowa Utilities Board, a good-paying gig that I’m skeptical she’d drop to run.

Dandekar left the state Senate to take that post, opening the door for Sen. Liz Mathis, D-Robins, to win the seat representing much of Marion. Mathis announced a few weeks ago that she’s not running for Congress. Quite a few Democrats are looking for a woman to run for the 1st District seat, opened up by Rep. Bruce Braley’s decision to run for the U.S. Senate. Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress.

Not sure yet who is behind the site. I’ll update when I know more.

We’re in the tea leaves-reading phase of Linn County’s casino odyssey.

The referendum passed. Planning is under way. The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission is preparing to pass judgment after it receives a license application from local investors this summer. On Friday, commission chairman Jeff Lamberti dropped a few more leaves during an appearance on Iowa Public Radio’s “River to River” program. (I also was on the show, briefly, where I said nothing interesting whatsoever. It’s a gift.)

Lamberti, an attorney from Ankeny, former Iowa Senate president and one-time candidate for Congress, left no doubt that the commission’s decision will be all about the specter of cannibalization, or how much revenue a downtown Cedar Rapids casino would grab from existing nearby casinos.

Lamberti said he doesn’t think the commission will have any problem with local investors’ facility plans, their restaurants, sports bar, slots, table games and other amenities. It will all come down to the results of one or more market studies measuring a Cedar Rapids casino’s effect on state-licensed casinos in Riverside, Waterloo and Dubuque.

“It’s far and away the most important issue we have to address,” Lamberti said.

Some, including me, have questioned why the state is so intent on protecting casinos from more competition. Lamberti explained how he sees the state’s philosophy.

He contends that Iowa’s casino “system” encourages investors to pump $80 million to $100 million or more into large, destination-style facilities that wrap lots of amenities around a core of gambling. The facilities also share their licenses and revenues with local non-profits. In exchange for investments of that size, state regulators offer some protection from unbridled competition. He says that’s how the Legislature wants it.

Lawmakers could have opened the floodgates to all proposals, but Lamberti says the state would then be home to many, much smaller, cheaper gambling halls. State leaders have made it clear they don’t want that.

Lamberti insists that philosophy doesn’t mean the commission will reject Cedar Rapids’ bid if it pulls any money away from its gambling neighbors. “There’s no magic number, if it’s 10 percent 20 percent 30 percent, that’s left to the discretion of the Racing and Gaming Commission. Which, quite frankly, puts us in a difficult position,” he said.

“Actually, (a Cedar Rapids Casino) will eat into Riverside, also Isle in Waterloo and to a lesser extent Dubuque. So what we’ll do as part of process is the Racing and Gaming Commission will commission a study or studies of the market to try to determine what the impact on those other facilities will be. It’s not a situation where if it has an impact we’ll reject it, it’s just a a matter that we have to get a handle on how large that impact it is so we can make an informed decision,” Lamberti said.

Lamberti expects the studying and licensing decision to take eight to 12 months. Plenty of time for us to keep reading and guessing.

It seems like the idea of raising Iowa’s fuel tax for the first time in nearly a quarter century has run out of gas.

The debate has gone quiet. Other issues are jamming the road to legislative adjournment. The fuel tax is just sitting there, unwanted, spinning in place like the last hot dog at the gas station.

But its backers insist that they’re not licked, yet.

“In my opinion, it is not dead. It is still a live round,” said Rep. Joshua Byrnes, R-Osage, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. “I would say those of us who support it have been good soldiers, stayed pretty quiet. We’ve been waiting our turn.”

“I think it’s in the same place it’s been,” said Sen. Tod Bowman, D-Maquoketa, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. “If this is going to happen, it’s going to happen with commercial property tax relief.”

So a phased-in, 10-cent fuel tax increase providing

$215 million annually for state, county and city road projects has been shackled to the glacial struggle to reach a deal on property tax reforms. Gov. Terry Branstad and others say they can’t accept any gas tax increase unless it’s offset with property tax relief. Some Democrats also want an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income Iowans before they’ll accept other tax measures.

The dominoes watch doesn’t stop at the Statehouse steps. The word on the broken, potholed streets of Cedar Rapids is that if a fuel tax increase doesn’t happen, local leaders might seek a local-option sales tax extension for streets later this year. “That has been discussed, but not solid as an option,” said City Council member Don Karr in an email.

And really, who could blame city leaders stepping up to address a major local issue? If the state goes a 24th year without increasing the 22-cent per-gallon tax, the message to local governments on streets is, basically, you’re on your own. Davenport, Dubuque and Waterloo already use varying portions of their locally collected sales tax pennies to fix streets. It makes sense for Cedar Rapids to do the same. Presented with a good plan, I think voters here would agree.

I understand why the governor and lawmakers want property tax relief. So do I. But it’s worth noting that raising the gas tax is a form of local property tax relief in the 24 counties and many cities, including Cedar Rapids, that issue bonded debt to pay for street projects. Property taxes pay that debt, with interest.

The pressure on cities to hold the line on property taxes and also fix streets is immense. Something’s gotta give.

Outside of Des Moines, fixing roads and bridges makes sense to a lot of people, even if we don’t like to pay higher taxes. Byrnes says quite a few lawmakers who opposed the increase have changed their minds after going home to legislative forums and finding heavy support for an increase, even among staunch Republicans who abhor higher taxes. Bowman says his inbox is still filling with arguments of support, including messages from county engineers who are now putting embargoes on crumbling rural bridges.

As I’ve said previously, I’d like to see any gas tax increase coupled with low-income tax relief and a mechanism that would temporarily suspend the increase if fuel prices spike amid a crisis. I’d also like to see a revised fuel tax spending formula sending more money to urban roadways, though I concede that’s not going to happen.

But at this point, I’m with Byrnes. I’d just like to see this issue actually get debated and voted on.

“I don’t think anything’s completely dead until the gavel slams down for the last time of the session,” Byrnes said.“I wish we could take the politics out of it and do what we need to do. It’s the right thing to do.”

State Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme, got a lot of attention Wednesday. And it wasn’t for his skills as a comedian.

The senator, who represents my hometown and ancestral homeland, did open a speech on the Senate floor with a joke. Some said it wasn’t funny. But I didn’t think it was that bad.

To paraphrase, a cop stops a juggler on his way to a gig. The cop sees a bunch of knives in the back seat and asks the juggler what’s up. The juggler says he juggles knives. The cop says get out and prove it.

While the juggler juggles, a guy drives by and says, “Sure glad I quit drinking and driving. Just look at the sobriety tests they make you take now.”

See, not so bad. Mildly amusing, even.  And then, of course, the senator went on to talk about the trouble with gays.

You can listen to his speech on the Senate floor here. Bleeding Heartland was kind enough to transcribe portions:

“Tomorrow is the day of dialogue: a day when students in high school and college are encouraged to have open dialogue about the questions of life and relationships. I care about children, and I would be remiss not to give a questioning youth who is searching to know about relationships a full and balanced perspective.

I hope that you will hear what I have to say today in the spirit of dialogue. Milton Friedman once said, “A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” The cultural debate on same-sex relationships has not been one of fair discussion, one where the pros and cons are calmly considered. In the name of equality, such a discussion has been stifled, sidelined and just plain blocked in what appears to be an effort to sway public opinion.

The media, for the most part, has [sic] bamboozled us into thinking that having a relationship outside of the boundaries of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is positive, happy and fulfilling. Movies, television shows, articles and magazines abound with this theme, giving partial information to a vulnerable and impressionable audience: our children.

The question is asked: how does a same-sex relationship hurt you? The implication within this question is that one worries he will be hurt physically or emotionally. Of course that won’t happen literally, so one is left to feel foolish and shameful. This is not honest communication. Rather, it is a way of jamming the mental circuits so that we do not think of the consequences of a lifestyle that is outside the committed bonds of a one-man, one-woman marriage.”

Guth went on to compare the societal damage done by homosexuality to the damage done by second-hand smoke, citing higher rates of STDs, health risks, psychological problems, suicide, etc. He spoke his mind, which is, of course, his right. Then a lot of others spoke theirs.

To be fair, Guth spoke some truth. The dialogue over marriage equality has not been fair. And one major reason is that his side brings arguments like this.

For one thing, it’s difficult to regard a guy who has lived on the same farm north of Klemme nearly all of his life as a credible expert on the complexities of human sexuality.  I grew up just 17 miles away, and I’m still not an expert.

And even if you try, it’s tough to reconcile Guth’s worries about STDs and emotional health with his crusade to outlaw the sort of committed, stable marital relationships for same-sex couples that would conceivably address both issues. Guth claims to lament the tolls taken by society’s historic inability to accept gays and lesbians, while also demanding that it continue.

Guth is trying oh-so-politely to reduce their human identity to a sex act. That used to an effective tactic. But now, outside of Klemme, and quite possibly inside, more and more people have come to see gays and lesbians as family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, elected leaders, etc. And seeing them as individuals makes it a lot tougher to treat them as second-class citizens, as Guth prescribes.

To Guth, this is all media spin. To many of the rest of us, it’s reality. Guth is desperate for the old stereotypes and fears to take hold again, but it’s too late. Support for marriage equality has quickly become a new sobriety test in politics, especially for young voters.  No joke, senator.

As a somewhat older voter and, like Guth, a rural North Iowa native, his speech also made me wonder how it was I came to such a different view.

There was no lightning strike. But I do remember watching the Iowa House debate and pass a measure barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under the state civil rights code. It was 1989, and I was an 18-year-old House page.

It’s been 24 years, so my memory is hardly photographic. Thanks to online archives, I now know, again, that it was House File 351, which passed 57-41 on March 29, 1989.

As a small town kid, this was not an issue on my radar. But I remember finding the arguments for equality very persuasive. I remember finding the folks marching, chanting and holding signs in the rotunda that said “God Created Adam and Eve Not Adam and Steve” to be angry and much less persuasive. And I recall that when the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Tom Jochum, D-Dubuque, stood up to give closing remarks before the final vote, the usually raucous House chamber went dead silent. This, I gathered, was important.

But not important enough, apparently, for the Senate to take up. It eventually did become law. In 2007. And Justice Alito is worried about a rush to equality.

I actually tracked down an old Associated Press account of the 1989 debate:

“Critics told stories of being accosted by homosexuals as youngsters, raised the specter of homosexuals preying on school children and quoted the Bible during an emotional debate,” the AP wrote.

“We recognize that everybody in this state has some basic rights,” Jochum said.

Sounds familiar. I think it’s pretty clear, over time, which argument has carried the day. We’ve been bamboozled for the better, I say.

And because he’s in that race, his family is there. And while they’re waiting for him to finish, his 8-year-old son gets killed by a bomb. And his wife and daughter are severely injured. It’s not his fault at all, of course. A monster, or monsters, planted those bombs. I doubt he’s taking any solace in that.

But, honestly, I have no idea what he’s going through. I can’t even begin to imagine what that’s that’s like, to be crushed under an avalanche of tragedy like that. I hope I never, ever know. And chances are, I won’t. Terrorism is jarring but rare. The fear still feels real.

So what do we do now? I’m trying, probably like a lot of people, to balance that hope for my family’s safety with a hope that we don’t turn understandable grief into unwarranted new security measures. I think the New York Times’ Ross Douthat summed it up well:

Today’s attack, on the kind of event that countless cities hold and that even the most omnicompetent police force couldn’t make entirely secure, could easily lead to a further ratchet, a further expansion of preventive (or preventive-seeming) measures, a further intrusion of bureaucratic and paramilitary rituals into the rhythms of everyday life. Or it could be an opportunity to recognize the limits of such measures, the impossibility of achieving perfect security, and the costs of pretending that an extra ring of barriers and inconveniences will suffice to stop a determined evil from finding its way through.

The whole “Keep Calm and Carry On” thing has been reduced to a T-shirt cliche, unfortunately. But I think the original sentiment fits. We can take reasonable precautions, remain vigilant for things that don’t look right and plan for how to respond, but ultimately, we can’t stop all determined evil. And trying to stop it all would diminish our lives and reward the monsters. And that’s absolutely the last thing I want to do, at this point.

Enough from me. Maybe you have thoughts.

(Cliff Jette/The Gazette)

Another Cedar Rapids School District facilities process has ended, not with a bang, but with a binder.

“That’s scary to us Steve. That’s a big binder,” said School Board President Mary Meisterling, as the “Facilities Master Plan” was presented to the board by Steve Graham, executive director of business services for the district.

But, really, this wasn’t so scary.

Last year, a facilities plan yielded “supposals” that later became the school closures that scared and angered parents, while dividing the community. This year, something called “group ideation,” visioning and steering have yielded a big binder filled with potential facilities projects and price tags.

Nothing scary, in the present. The future? Stay tuned.

“We’re not here to create fear and concerns,” said Chad Simmons, executive director of Diversity Focus and a member of the Steering Committee that delivered the final report to the school board last week.

3-COMMITTEE PROCESS

Three committees contributed to the bulging binder.

There was an Instructional Visioning Committee, which was assigned to think hard about how the teaching and learning needs of a 21st century school should be reflected through facilities. After hearing from all sorts of experts, the visioners came up with a set of criteria to judge whether facilities projects would meet learning and teaching needs through technology and more flexible, usable spaces.

It also envisioned making schools into community hubs and assets, adaptable for community uses.

Then, you had a Steering Committee, made up of community members and school district representatives. Its job was to use that visioning committee criteria to score projects submitted by Campus-Based Leadership Committees. The campus committees in each school building were instructed to submit up to three wish-list projects beyond their current, general facilities needs.

Steering scored 65 projects. Some, such as the “Learning Center and Office Project” at Harrison Elementary and an “Outdoor Classroom” at Roosevelt Middle School, received high scores. Some received low scores, such as plan to remake the parking lot at Erskine Elementary.

At its final meeting, Steering was presented with a picture of limited district dollars and asked to set priorities. They steered 47 percent of resources toward operation and maintenance of existing facilities, 28 percent toward wish-list projects and 25 percent to new facilities.

But they also made a list of “forced choice options” with “close existing schools as needed and consolidate into one new school/schools” ranked No. 2. The top pick called for considering the “Facilities Condition Index” in making future facilities decisions. More on that later.

So the binder doesn’t exactly contain a consensus. “It’s obvious that there are real needs. But to draw any clear conclusion from what we did, at this point, would be a bit murky,” said local developer Dale Todd, a Steering member.

But this process did change the optics of the district’s facilities picture.

Before the master planning process, architectural engineers with Shive Hattery pegged the district’s unmet facilities at $111.3 million. Add in the wish list, and the potential for new construction both in the core and on the growing outskirts, and the price tag balloons to $425 million. The first number significantly exceeded resources. The second is on another planet.

Adding the wish list also impacts the Facilities Condition Index, which measures the cost of each school’s building needs versus its cost of replacement. For example, before this process, Harrison Elementary’s index was a middling 51 percent. But with its wish list project added in, its now at 61 percent, 10 points further into replacement territory.

CLOSING VS. REVAMPING

So it’s now somewhat easier to make the case for closing a cluster of older elementaries and replacing them with a new consolidated school or schools. That option was mentioned more than once at the school board meeting.

“This would be a neighborhood elementary,” Meisterling was quick to clarify. “We wouldn’t be busing students from the core to the outskirts.”

I’m not saying new, consolidated schools are a bad idea. I’m not saying that it’s going to happen any time soon. Could be years.

But this is a school administration that typically knows where it wants to go, and likes to keep that knowledge close to its vest. It also has a knack for creating public input processes that lead to that destination, at varying speeds.

I think consolidation and new construction are the direction leaders want to go. One man’s opinion, I know.

But everyone should agree that this is a really important community conversation that should happen sooner than later. We have school board elections this fall, and this should be discussed. Any future public input process should start with cards on the table.

New schools would have clear advantages, but are bigger schools better? Is fixing existing schools more financially feasible even if it’s less desirable? These and many other questions will need to be answered.

BETTER THIS TIME

I have hopes that it will be much different from last time. I think this district and board have learned important lessons. This process included some great community outreach. Christine Butterfield, the city of Cedar Rapids’ community development director, was on the Steering Committee. She says the city and district officials now have regular meetings on the city’s core neighborhood development efforts. And the board went out of its way this past week to pledge its allegiance to core neighborhoods.

“I definitely think there’s been more dialogue,” Butterfield said.

The visioning process produced facilities criteria that put teaching and learning first, where they should be. Encouraging campus communities to create some innovative projects was an excellent exercise.

Was it perfect? Nah. I still don’t get how you have a facilities planning process that leaves the issue of scarce resources to the very last meeting. I understand wanting to dream, but, like it or not, dollars will drive these decisions. They should have played a bigger role in this process.

And I hope the public and the elected school board drive this process going forward. Could lead to some serious ideation.

A fine question. But, no:

Lawmakers will leave for the weekend without agreement on an education reform package, forcing school districts across the state to certify budgets without knowing how much state aid is coming for next school year.

Statute requires districts to certify their budgets by Monday, but lawmakers tied an increase in education funding to the education reform package which is currently held up in a conference committee.

On Wednesday, Republicans said they would agree to a 4 percent increase in allowable growth if the Democrats agreed to all the language in the Republican-backed version of the bill.

On Thursday, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, panned the idea on the Senate floor.

Like so many dumb things at the Statehouse, this was unnecessary and avoidable. They could have settled funding for the next school year many moons ago, and spent the balance of the session haggling over reform measures and future funding. None of the reforms floated by Gov. Terry Branstad take effect this fall, so there really was no good reason to leave school districts sitting in limbo. Branstad said reforms and money must be locked into a death-grip, and that it would be no problemo. Oops. Wrong. Sorry schools.

Now, our legislating heroes can’t agree whether a surprising compromise offered by House Republicans is really a compromise.

So what’s the deal?

In their Wednesday proposal, Republicans offered 2 percent allowable growth to go into the base and an additional one-time 2 percent extra in allowable growth for the 2014 fiscal year. Additionally, they offered 4 percent allowable growth in the base for fiscal year 2015.

It’s a key figure because it meets the allowable growth percentage called for in the Senate bill, which is 2 percent higher than the amount put in the House bill. It’s those two bills that the 10-member conference committee is charged with coming together on.

Quirmbach has repeatedly said “the price of education reform is 4 percent” as the Senate bill moved through conference. On Thursday, he called the Republican proposal a “bait-and-swtich.”

Sounds like a path to agreement. But Democrats say 4 percent is really 1 percent:

Quirmbach contended that by offering only a permanent 2 percent increase in school aid the first year, plus the one-time 2 percent bonus, House Republicans were asking school districts to pay for ongoing expenditures with one-time money.

He claimed that would be a violation of Republicans’ financial principles.

In addition, he said the GOP plan would allow the sunset of early intervention class-size-reduction money, taking back the equivalent of 1 percent.

“So the bottom line of the Republicans’ 4 percent proposal is really only 1 percent in increased ongoing resources for our K-12 schools,” Quirmbach said.

Actually, from my perch 127 miles away, I think the bottom line is that the House now looks like it’s seeking a deal and Quirmbach’s side looks like it doesn’t want one. Maybe the true scope of that GOP overture is disappointing, as Quirmbach contends, but it’s a step in the right direction. Why wad it up and toss it in the trash bin so quickly? Especially when there’s a pretty decent chance, based on past performance, that the deal you ultimately get will look a lot like that.

Yeah, that thing we said was utterly unacceptable last month? We took it. Don’t ask.

The Iowa Association of School Boards says it supports the House’s offer.

Bleeding Heartland points to another interesting question. If Democrats do reach a deal with the House, can they trust the governor to refrain from using his line-item veto power to strike the parts they like? Branstad twice vetoed Earned Income Tax Credit increases that were part of bipartisan tax deals.

And speaking of ultimately, I’m afraid I have to be the one to remind everyone that, ultimately, we’ll be disappointed with whatever reforms we get. The Gazette’s editorial board reminded us of that about a week ago:

Legislators should waste no time finding common ground in the bills before them, if only to allow school districts some certainty about what’s coming down the pike.

But there is a much bigger picture here that is being left out of the discussion: How much educational “business as usual” has become obsolete in this modern learning environment? How do we truly transform our public K-12 schools to prepare our students for 21st Century life and work?

Missing from both chambers’ education reform proposals are the types of bold ideas that could transform our old, Industrial Age school system into vibrant, efficient centers of learning. Schools where involved teachers lead engaged students to develop contemporary skills and solve problems in meaningful ways.

Iowans for a Future that Doesn’t Suck, where you will find a very good summary of the proposals at play, is on a similar page:

At the end of the day though, whatever education “reform” passes this year will be pretty half-assed. Here’s a look at what high school students themselves are asking for: better teachers, better tests, better technology, better career-training, and service learning. This year’s education reform focuses mostly on the better teachers part and maybe the career-training, so hey 1.5 out of 5 isn’t bad right? That’s an All-Star batting average!

A lot of legislative time and energy has been put into education reform, and at the end of the day it would probably be more effective to pass a law that says: “Tell high school kids that most of them could replace their college prep with a few welding classes and be better off.”

Jennifer Hemingsen says we’d be better off if lawmakers would get out of the way and let schools try new ideas and approaches. So true.

By the way, if you’d like to weigh in, here are links to contact information for House Education Committee Chairman Ron Jorgensen and Senate Education Chairman Herman Quirmbach

I’ve heard this move panned as some sort of bow to political correctness. But I think the actual planned AP Stylebook entry, which Jamie links to, undermines that notion:

illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.

Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.

So actually try to find out the individual circumstances of someone’s entry into the country, instead of slapping a lazy label on them. Be more precise and accurate in describing a person’s actual situation. That sounds a lot like good journalism.

It’s also a reminder that although this issue is generally fought over big numbers and broad labels, it’s also about individuals. What I saw in Postville after the 2008 packing plant raid, frightened people, adults and children, who, yes, came from Guatemala and entered the country illegally, has stuck with me. It was harder to simply dismiss them as “illegals” when you looked them in the eye and saw them as people. That’s not excusing illegal behavior. It’s seeing the problem as it really is. And I think the AP change encourages more of that closer examination.

But that locker room has been back in the news lately. We’ve run a pair of guest columns on the subject. You can find them here and here.

I also thought about writing something. But then I looked back at my December 2007 column. I think it still stands. It also makes me wonder whether we only have this fight in years when Iowa fails to make a bowl game.

So join me in the wayback machine. Dec. 13, 2007:

The Hawkeye football team may be home for the holidays, but the pink locker room fight is headed to the Judicial Bowl. This one makes even the frozen blue field at Boise look appealing.

In case you missed it, the former University of Iowa law professor who assailed the Hayden Fry-inspired pink visitor’s locker room as insensitive to the oversensitive has filed a civil rights action in federal court. Jill Gaulding now practices law in Minnesota, but Kinnick pink still makes her see red. So much for Hayden’s theory that the paint scheme would have a calming influence.

Of course, for the commentators and outrageaholics of the land, this is great news. It’s one of those fish-in-a-barrel targets. The Bill O’Reillys of the world will see the soft, politically correct underbelly of goofy liberalism exposed. And it’s feeding time.

The pink lawsuit can effortlessly be lumped in with the war on Christmas trees and other yuletide displays, the headline-grabbing efforts to take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, the skirmishes to delete devotionals from graduations and football games and all those speech-police actions making news on college campuses nationwide.

They’ll say it just shows how out of touch progressives have become. They’ll insist these eye-rolling disputes are a signal that the civil rights movement has nothing better to do. And that will sound real good to folks who like things just the way they are, or how they once were.

And that’s why sideshow squabbles like the battle of the pink locker room are a sad distraction.

Because for every one of these courtroom melodramas with very little impact on our everyday lives, there are scores of real civil rights battles being fought that might have a lasting impact. Most of them aren’t sexy enough to grab headlines.

And they’re being waged because things aren’t OK the way they are. Our racially skewed system of criminal justice is badly in need of reforms. Our schools aren’t making nearly enough progress in closing the wide achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their white classmates. Discrimination of all stripes still runs rampant on the job and in the housing market. Women still earn less than men.

One of our two proud political parties seems intent on nominating a presidential standard-bearer who vows to continue marginalizing millions of Americans because of their sexual orientation. An immigration debate that’s too often tinged with hate has exposed a very different kind of underbelly on the other end of the political spectrum.

Sure, small battles that appear trivial at first can have a big impact. Sometimes civil rights have been gained one bus seat and lunch counter stool at a time. But I’m still not sure how repainting a football locker room will pave the way for greater tolerance and acceptance.

It does give people an excuse to chuckle and tune out a message they ought to hear. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you’re protesting locker room color schemes? What’s your battle cry? Hey hey, ho, ho, that pink and mauve has got to go?

Two of Gov. Terry Branstad’s picks to serve on the state Board of Regents for the next six years were turned down for their appointments by the Iowa Senate on Monday.

A contentious floor debate over Brooklyn dairy farmer Craig Lang’s reappointment as board president and Branstad’s selection of construction company executive Robert Cramer of Grimes ended when Democrats who hold a 26-24 Senate majority failed to deliver the 34 affirmative votes needed to confirm gubernatorial nominees.

Lang’s nomination failed on a 30-20 vote, while Cramer lost by a 27-23 margin. Webster City physician Subhash Sahai, the governor’s third nominee to the regents, did win confirmation on a 45-5 vote.

I have already weighed in on the nomination of Cramer, former chairman of the board for the Family Leader. As for Lang, I didn’t have much of a problem with his nomination. He took heat for the Harkin Institute debacle. But frankly, Harkin shouldn’t have moved ahead with forming the institute while he was still in office and was, at the time, potentially poised to seek another term. It put lots of people in an awkward position, so criticizing them for then acting awkwardly seems odd. But that’s politics.

But enough of what I think. The post-takedown spin is pretty fascinating.

First, from Gov. Terry Branstad:

(DES MOINES) – Gov. Branstad issued the following statement upon learning Craig Lang and Robert Cramer did not receive the required number of votes in the Iowa Senate to serve on the Iowa Board of Regents:

“I am deeply disappointed that most Senate Democrats cast their votes against Robert Cramer and Craig Lang.

“Both Robert and Craig answered the call to public service, and they both deserved the opportunity to serve on the Board of Regents. Craig Lang showed great leadership while on the Board of Regents and Robert Cramer brought unique experience in the construction industry.

“I am greatly disappointed that these two fine individuals were treated in such a shabby manner.”

Bonus points for using “shabby.” Very nice.

But hey, governor, look on the bright side, says Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs:

Senate again on track to confirm more than 99% of Governor’s appointees

2013 results: 214 of 216 (99.07%)

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal

“Every member of the Iowa Senate takes seriously the responsibility to review the qualifications of gubernatorial appointees and determine whether they should be confirmed.

“Historically, the Iowa Senate has confirmed more than 99 percent of the appointees nominated by Iowa’s Governors. The political affiliations of the Governor or that of the party then in control of the Senate makes little difference.

“As we near the conclusion of the confirmation process for the third year of appointees from Governor Branstad’s current term, it is clear that more than 99 percent of Governor Branstad’s appointees have been confirmed.

“The few appointees that failed to be confirmed received serious, substantial consideration and their non-confirmation came after concerns were addressed in a professional manner.

“Governor Branstad’s repeated cries that “Washington-style politics” led to the defeat of a tiny number of his appointees is ridiculous and historically inaccurate.”

So we take your “shabby” and raise you a “historically inaccurate.” Intense.

Now comes the Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix, R-Shell Rock:

Senate Republican Leader Disappointed in Regents Take-Down

DES MOINES –Senate Republican Leader Bill Dix (R-Shell Rock) today expressed his disappointment in the decision of Senate Democrats to vote down two of the Governor’s Regent nominees:

“It is truly sad that this happened to two qualified and competent candidates. This take-down was completely unnecessary. Senate Democrats played politics today and focused on the nominees’ personal convictions, which have little to do with their ability to serve.

“This all comes back to the dust-up over Iowa State University and the Harkin Institute. I hope that moving forward this does not happen again. As legislators, we need to set a better example and work more constructively to settle our differences. These candidates were thoroughly vetted and were qualified for the positions for which they were nominated.”

I think Dix should try out that personal-convictions-have-little-to-do-with-their-ability-to-serve argument during his next Family Leader speaking engagement.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker is also unhappy:

DES MOINES –Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker today expressed his disappointment in the decision of Senate Democrats to vote against two of Governor Branstad’s Regent nominees:

“It is disappointing to see this happen to two solid candidates. The “NO” vote was completely unnecessary. Democrats played party politics today and focused on values held by the candidates rather than their ability to serve the state of Iowa.”

This seems lame. Where’s the fire? Couldn’t you have thrown in at least one “shabby?”

It’s hat-throwing season, but it seems like the ring is filling with towels.

When current 1st District U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley announced a run for the U.S. Senate, I figured candidates would line up for his House seat, especially Democrats, who have a registration edge. And in a state that hasn’t sent a woman to Congress, it’s a chance to make history.

But on Saturday, state Sen. Liz Mathis, D-Robins, who would have been a top contender, said she’s not running. Ditto from State Sen. Steve Sodders, D-State Center. Assistant Dubuque City Manager Teri Goodmann also is out, reports the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald.

State Rep. Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, is running, although Murphy mania has yet to catch on. Wait for it.

Two Republicans who ran before for Congress and lost, Rod Blum of Dubuque and Steve Rathje of Cedar Rapids, also are in, as of now. It’s still early. But it’s later than you think, in terms of organizing a run, raising bucks and such.

Why so few applicants? Maybe it’s our want ad.

“Help wanted.

“We’re looking for an ambitious, hardworking, idealistic candidate willing to vie for a high-profile position. An ideal candidate must be optimistic, realistic, consensus-driven, ruggedly individualistic, guided by principle, steered by public opinion, with a heart of gold, a killer instinct, a thick skin, a sense of humor, low expectations, high self-esteem and a photogenic golden retriever.

“The candidate must be willing to subject any and all beloved family members to numerous, new and unique discomforts, inconveniences and insults, while also spending far less quality time with them.

“The candidate, if selected, must be prepared to tackle vital policy issues, but should expect to encounter ceaseless gridlock, partisan warfare, procedural barriers, enormous egos, powerful interests and shameless horse-trading. Accomplishments will be few, and may bear no resemblance whatsoever to original intentions. When not engaged in frustrating and largely fruitless legislative pursuits, the candidate should be prepared to spend several hours each day begging for money.

“The position offers competitive pay and benefits. A successful candidate will be expected to simultaneously live in and relentlessly repudiate Washington, D.C. You’ll be joining a historic organization that is also, currently, reviled by the vast majority of Americans. Apply to the voters of the 1st District.”

Yeah, it’s weird that more people aren’t running. Maybe we shouldn’t sugar-coat it so much.