The View From Fargo

GOODBYE FOR NOW FARGO/MOORHEAD

2009-08-07T12:48:00.000-05:00

Seven years in Fargo and Moorhead changed me and my life for the better.

In 2000 my mother died, I was divorced after 35 years of marriage, and my best friend got sick suddenly and died a month later. I packed up my jeep and moved to the mountains of Ridgeway, Colorado.

I spent 2001 living in a loft on the side of a mountain where I photographed the seasons, traversed the 4-wheel drive mountain roads, sat in the natural hots springs in nearby Ouray, and consulted with local clients and several back in Minnesota.

In March of 2002 I headed to Fargo.

It didn't take me long to fall in love with my new home: the clean air, the Red Hawks, good customer service, and being able to get anywhere in 10 minutes. A native of Minnesota, the winters here don't bother me. I liked the people: caring, hard working, and self-effacing who raised solid children. I had to get used to their reticence and thinking that is more black and white than my world of grays.

A leadership consultant, I paid attention to local leaders and found some of the best I've seen anywhere: Dave Pinder at Cardinal IG, Wayne Voorhees, formerly with Northern Pipe Products, and Dennis Walaker, mayor of Fargo. More recently, I've been impressed with Michael Redlinger, the young city manager in Moorhead, and Bob Zimmerman, Moorhead City Engineer—the world's most patient man. I was disappointed in the provincial political assassinations of Robert Potts, Chancellor of the N.D. University System and Sandy Blunt, CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance)--outsiders who tried to change the status-quo.

I enjoyed writing commentaries that were published in The Forum and bemused by the attacks on my political pieces by those Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, called a “Rump backwater minority”—the wing nuts who are destroying the Republican Party. For them the world is flat, gravity unreal, and up is down. F/M has its proportion of crazies.

Eighteen months after I arrived, I was married to Melanie and moved to her home along the Red River in south Moorhead. And I was introduced to the astonishing extended Fuchs family led by mother Pat--the loved and respected family matriarch. A talented and hardworking family they are; they take care of themselves and help one another.

I fought my first flood in 2006. That was nothing compared to 2009 when our family, friends, and coworkers built a 20,000 sandbag dike in three days. With each flood I was profoundly impacted by how hard the people in this region work, how much they care about their homes and communities, and how they help their families and neighbors.

Now we move to Minneapolis where Melanie begins an exciting new job that will utilize her many leadership and managerial talents. I return to my home of about 30 years, two of my three children, and five grandchildren. Two of Melanie’s children will be nearby. We will live within 15 minutes of Melanie's job, and I will walk our dogs around Lake Harriet in south Minneapolis.

I feel a sense of loss also: the Fuchs family, bantering with Gordy and the gang at the VIP where I lunch weekly with my good friend the Reverend Doctor Steve Streed, walking our dogs in River Oaks Point, our neighbors who fought valiantly to save their homes in the flood, and the solid character of the people of the Red River Valley.

With our large extended family, we will be back often for visits. Retirement down the road will bring us back permanently.

Farewell for now Fargo and Moorhead.

A LETTER TO RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF

2009-07-26T13:01:00.001-05:00

July 27, 2009

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

You are a busy man. I will be brief and to the point. What in the hell are you people doing?

President Obama was elected to transform this country. He was provided a clear majority in the House and the Senate.

Instead of using that power to effect change, you are trying to win over recalcitrant Republicans who slowly erode your power and credibility. They are your enemies vowing to bring down President Obama. Trying to appease them is a huge mistake. You are wasting this rare opportunity to use the power given to you by the American people to bring about real change.

Do not dilute the President’s vision. Please, please, please stop trying to make nice with the backwoods Republicans and craft legislation around energy, economics, education, and health care that satisfies those who elected the President for that purpose; they are the enlightened in our society. At times I think the White House is more interested in meeting the needs of their enemies than of their friends. This cannot succeed.

And take charge now. The President needs to come out of the August recess with a new plan for effecting change—use your power to do good things for America or you will lose it. Results are what matter. Hold onto your vision and use your power to make it real.

Seeking consensus makes cowards of all of us. We need strong leadership. You don’t always have to get buy-in on the front end as nice as it is to have. Sometimes leaders have to go first into the unknown to show the way. You can gain acceptance after the vision is enacted if what you enact works.

Changing the culture in Washington will happen slowly, if ever. Thinking you can win over those whose values are fundamentally different than yours is naïve leadership of change (talk to Jack Welch about leading change). They will feign cooperation on occasion but will always return to the core of who they are. And who Republicans are today is not good for America.

You need some ruthlessness as well as idealism to be a transformative leader.

NO LOVE FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES

2009-07-19T10:39:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in the Fargo Forum on July 26, 2009.

We live along the Red River in south Moorhead.

We built a 20,000 sandbag dike in March. An Army Corps of Engineers supervisor said it was one of the best he’s seen--thanks to my wife’s extended family, friends, and co-workers past and present. Our dike held: no water came over, through, around, or under it. Ordered to evacuate, we left our home by boat on March 26, 2009. In our absence, we got water and sewer back-up in our basement because of human error and mechanical breakdown.

The easy work was over.

Now we had to deal with the insurance companies.

We paid $3,400 in flood insurance last year.

The flood insurance adjusters came into town from out of state, took their measurements, and disappeared. We couldn’t understand much of what they said and the “experts” we talked to had conflicting opinions—everyone had an opinion—few had accurate answers. I went back to the Recovery Center three times and finally said to the good folks there: “I don’t care if the answer helps us or hurts us, just get us the right answer to our questions.”

We learned that flood insurance—paid by homeowners--is for the protection of bankers--not homeowners--unless your home floats down the river. We couldn’t understand their “proof of loss” document or even how much our settlement would be. Insurance companies must save billions in claims by confusing people who give up in frustration. We weren’t satisfied with the amount flood insurance paid but it was all we were going to get. We accepted the settlement.

I complained to every politician and FEMA person I talked with about the cost of flood insurance. Finally a FEMA liaison with flood insurance told us that we should have been given a grandfathered rate when we were required to buy flood insurance in 2000. We examined our agent's file; it seemed clear that a mistake had been made. Our insurance company said the file wasn't true. We are taking the next step needed to get our rate changed and to get a refund. On this issue, we won’t settle.

My advice to residents of Fargo/Moorhead who are considering flood insurance: educate yourselves so you know what is covered and what is not. Be sure you understand what flood zone you are in and be sure you get the correct rate. You have to become your own expert.

Our homeowner’s insurance adjuster visited and did his inspection and then began giving our name out to local vendors who called to solicit our cleanup business. I complained to the insurance company about this violation of privacy. They apologized and an attorney from the company called to say how sorry he was. They then declined to cover the sewer backup and sump pump failure because it occurred during a flood, which isn't covered. The sewer back-up had nothing to do with the flood; it was the result of human error.

Not happy with our homeowner’s insurance company, we shopped around. Five of the largest companies turned us down because we had a flood this year (even though they don’t insure against floods) and hail damage two years ago. Forty years of paying premiums with few claims doesn’t matter. Insurability depends on the weather.

Dealing with an insurance company is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

We learned that the unwritten contract between insurance companies and those they insure has changed: it is now, “Pay your premiums on time and in full. Then self-fund your losses so as not to get canceled by the insurance companies.” Insurance companies re-victimize the victims, and they get rich. This is why we disdain insurance companies.

Like the financial and automotive industries, the insurance industry is in dire need of new regulation, visionary leadership, and transformational change.

We Fought the Flood--Now We Need Leaders

2009-05-30T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Small Business Administration adjuster said, “Many places people just abandon their homes when it floods. Then the city comes in and dumps a bunch of dirt in the road.” The FEMA adjuster said, “We’ve brought in bus loads of volunteers to help save homes in other places and those whose homes we are trying to save, sit and watch us do the work. You people up here care and fight.”

While the details of our individual stories vary, the underlying care, courage, and commitment our neighbors and those throughout the area displayed during the recent record flood distinguished our region in ways that transcend geographical boundaries.

My family’s story reflects so many.

We began to build our 20,000 sandbag dike on March 20, 2009. While we suffered 20% flood damage this flood, no water came over, under, around, or through the sandbag ring around our home. When the Army Corps of Engineers took the behemoth down, an Army supervisor said it was one of the best dikes he’d seen. Without a dike of that size and quality, our main floor would have flooded.

As many as 150 people worked 16 hours or more a day for two days and a dozen worked for four days after that to construct this dike, which had to get larger daily due to constantly changing National Weather Service forecasts.

By March 25, 2009, our home was surrounded by water. Yet the crest forecasts continued to raise the crest level. We had no sand. We traveled by boat in and out of our neighborhood. The city built a dike on our access road communicating “we cannot protect you.”

Our home is not safe in a major flood. If a fire, the fire department could not reach us. In a medical emergency, help would have had difficulty getting to us at all, let alone quickly. If a boat motor quit, the strong currents would take us into the main channel and would put us in peril. We are lucky that we did not fall climbing over the slippery dike (due to plastic and snow) to get into the boat in water several feet deep.

To meet the challenge of the daily crest forecast changes, our family members and flood crew climbed over our dike, traveled by boat to the diked access road, walked through snow-filled neighborhood yards to pickup trucks blocks away, traveled throughout Moorhead to find filled bags, loaded the trucks, parked blocks away from our home because of city dikes, pulled a sled filled with sandbags through the snow, pulled the sled over the dike on the access road, loaded the bags into the boat, and boated back to our home. This happened over and over again.

On March 25, 2009 family and friends worked all day, night, and until 2:00AM on March 26, 2009 and had to break the ice forming in the flood waters to get the boat through the water. The situation was dangerous and some advised us to let the house go to the flood. We could not do that and stayed and sandbagged until ordered to evacuate by the police.

Now we clean up, many suffer post traumatic stress but few talk about it, and we feel vulnerable to the Red River like never before. We cannot make these kinds of efforts year after year. Soon fall will be here and a new flood watch will begin. Leaders at all levels on both sides of the river call for cooperation and long-term flood protection. Most have never worked cooperatively for the larger good. The threat of the Red River calls for visionary and servant leadership: leaders who can imagine a safer future and care about the region, not just their city or state. Today’s leaders need to develop new skills or we need to elect new leaders.

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE FLOOD PROJECTIONS

2009-03-15T14:53:00.001-05:00

It is flood season in Fargo/Moorhead. The politicians showed up last weekend to lead a pep-fest, get their faces on television, promise money for permanent flood protection (again), and extolled the virtues of our citizens. Who really listens to them?

The National Weather Service, criticized in 1997 for their constantly changing forecasts of the Red’s crest, bombard us with predictions and probabilities: There’s a 50% chance the river will crest at 38 feet, 1 in 3 chances that it will crest higher than the 39.5 feet recorded in 1997, a 90% chance of major flooding in Wahpeton, there might be a snow/rain storm in 10 days (it is March after all), and on and on. A week ago all those predictions and probabilities were different. As they cover their behinds, citizens are confused and unduly upset.

Recently WDAY weatherman John Wheeler said “Tomorrow will be cloudy all day.” The next day was cloudless all day. Last summer Wheeler said at a 5:00PM weather report: “Those of you going to the Red Hawks game will have a dry night.” The downpour began early and didn’t stop all night—his colleagues on other networks are no better at prediction. These folks are good at telling us what happened not what will happen.

The experts have a credibility problem.

One thing I can predict with almost 100% certainty: The Red River will crest in April, and we don’t know today what the crest will be.

Weather is a dynamic system virtually unpredictable with certainty until it happens.

As we enter flood season, the river approaches the extremes of its normal chaos (order without predictability). The combinations of the weather, snow melt, and the river (along with many other variables) make conditions incomprehensibly complex.

We are familiar with the “butterfly effect” meaning a small change at the beginning of a process can have a large impact at the end of that process. In the weather this dynamic is called sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Many butterfly effects are happening every day in the life of the spring floods. Some we are aware of; others we are blind to. All can impact the eventual outcome, some for good and others for bad. These dynamics are so complex and interconnected that it is beyond the human minds ability to process them. While computers are a tremendous help, they can only model the data people put in. Accurate prediction is impossible, and we can only speak in probabilities that become more accurate as the anticipated dynamics gets closer in time and place.

The weather folks should quit trying to create the illusion that they can get it perfectly right. They know they cannot. People need to understand this and learn to live with uncertainty until the weather happens. The National Weather Service should give their best guess of crest levels daily always pointing out that it is an educated guess. They might give a range of the crest levels that they are 75% certain that the eventual crest will fall within. After a few core measures, more become meaningless.

Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker has universal credibility. I’d like to see him give a daily news conference at 4:00PM with his thoughts and best predictions. The community can then hear what he has to say at the 5:00PM and 6:00PM newscasts.

We live on the river in south Moorhead. My wife watched neighbors lose their homes in 1997. We are concerned. I trust the judgment of my wife and neighbors who are experienced with floods. Right now many are skeptical of what they are hearing from the experts. We will watch as Mother Nature runs her course and will adapt our plans as the days pass. We will listen to those who have demonstrated their credibility under fire. Our community will come together as it always has.

THE CULTURAL CREATIVES

2009-03-04T11:16:00.001-06:00

As we continue the world’s transformative change journey, we must understand that the leaders who led us to success in the now exhausted ways of doing things are rarely the people to lead renewal.

Auto industry executives will not lead a transformation to a new energy paradigm. Wall Street money men and entitled bankers will not reform the financial system. Influence-peddling Washington lobbyists will not clean up corruption in our Capitol. If they could provide that leadership, they would have long ago.

President Obama must understand the risk he takes when he chooses Washington veterans for his Cabinet and for leadership roles in his government. Can they see with new eyes?

Traditional Democrats are the “either” to the Republican “or” in the Washington D.C. political game. We don’t need a liberal version of the same old game to be replaced in eight years by the failed conservative model.

We need a new game. President Obama understands this. Can he change the rules for all?

In 2000 Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson wrote a book entitled “The Cultural Creatives”—a group of 50 million Americans who are creating a new culture in America.

Cultural Creatives care about the planet, relationships, and servant leadership. They have an organic, systemic, and holistic worldview. They value authenticity, believe in purpose, and live by strong values. They are idealistic, altruistic, and spiritual—not necessarily religious. They are creative and optimistic problem-solvers; they model new ways to live.

Cultural Creatives, disenchanted with greed, materialism, and status displays, oppose the abuse of rank; inequalities of race, class, and gender; and the narrowness and intolerance of social conservatives and the Religious Right.

They are the leaders for the times. They will provide mature and responsible leadership that will replace what Bob Herbert, columnist in the New York Times, called the “reckless, clownish, shortsighted, and self-absorbed” leadership we have grown weary of.

These new leaders will continue to unite under a shared purpose: to save the world by creating sustainable organizations, a sustainable global economy, and a planet that endures for future generations to enjoy.

The people in this movement created the conditions that allowed Barack Obama to emerge from seemingly nowhere to become our president. He is the externalization of their decades of difficult effort--their reward for the risky and thankless work they have done.

Now our President must free the Cultural Creative leaders within our organizations and institutions across our nation from the shackles of an exhausted worldview so they can lead our collective vision to renew the world.

Time is running out. Our ecological crisis and national decline require an acceleration of natural processes: a conscious and sustainable fast-forward of human social evolution without harming life in the process.

We must think big, move fast, and address all our interconnected problems at once. We must see reality accurately, develop a powerful vision for the future, learn to manage massive change organically, and develop trust in others so self-organization and other natural dynamics of life can burst free from repression and emerge in full creativity.

As we move through this massive reorganization of life no one has a “fail-safe” plan. We live as pioneers who step into the unknown potential of life. We must “plan, do, reflect, and adapt” daily until we find what works.

Creativity is messy and inefficient. Mistakes will be made as we move beyond our knowledge. Not all will be done well. Such is the nature of transformational change. Those who follow can spend the next 100 years making incremental improvements.

We created the world of today that no longer works for us. We can change it.

Tom Heuerman (Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former Secret Service agent, newspaper executive, and organizational consultant. He lives in Moorhead. Email: tomheu@cableone.net)

THE SAD DECLINE OF THE STAR TRIBUNE

2008-12-14T10:37:00.001-06:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday December 14, 2008.

Like many around the region, I follow the painful decline of the Star Tribune newspaper with a sense of disbelief. How could a once dominant newspaper fall so far so fast? Was this collapse inevitable or was it caused by a lack of bold and visionary leadership at the Star Tribune over the past 20 years?

The Star Tribune’s story of decline is not unique. It is the story of many in the newspaper industry, of the auto industry and many other traditional industries, of the national and global economy, and of America’s decline and need for renewal.

This pattern of decline is similar at all levels of scale and is the story of how world views trap us and the story of how people struggle to adapt to discontinuous and chaotic changes in their environments. Ultimately the story is one of human courage, creativity, flexibility, and adaptability as systems large and small—families, communities, organizations, and nations—renew themselves boldly and routinely or stagnate and die.

In 1998 the Star Tribune was sold to the McClatchy Company for $1.2 billion. While the short term value of the company was maximized by Star Tribune executives, I wondered then if the changes needed for the long-term sustainability of the newspaper were neglected.

The Star Tribune remained threatened by demographic changes, technological advances, circulation decline, the potential of the internet, and other unknown variables and systemic dynamics. Rapid decline, long in the making, would soon begin.

Many efforts to reform the Star Tribune were made over the years. New editors redesigned the look and organization of the newspaper, new technology was incorporated, distribution models were changed, and departments reorganized. New executives came and left. The changes gave the illusion of progress but proved to be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end, all the energy expended simply recreated a lesser version of the newspaper they were trying to change.

On December 26, 2006, the Star Tribune was again sold. The sale price was $530 million plus a future tax benefit of $160 million. The sale price was not a good omen for a newspaper industry with plunging advertising revenues.

Since then I’ve watched as the Star Tribune continues to suffer declines in circulation and advertising revenues. A revolving door of executives downsizes staff and outsources work as the company cannot pay its bills. Morale plunges, behavior regresses (the Star Tribune recently agreed to pay over $300,000 to settle a sexual harassment complaint), and people become bitter, cynical, and disillusioned. Leaders lose all credibility. The Star Tribune is not a good place to work.

The future looks bleak for the Star Tribune. Bankruptcy looms on the horizon.

Forum Communications was rumored to be interested in buying the Star Tribune. Owner William Marcil responded that he had no interest. Marcil is way too smart to get involved with the Star Tribune. He’s impressed me as a very smart man, a natural entrepreneur with an eye for talent and a nose for good properties.

Was this decline at the Star Tribune (and in industries across the nation) inevitable?

Leaders created these messes by the decisions they made and failed to make over many years. Are people helpless to change what they created?

Are leaders and workers not ready to change how they do things? Have they grown too lazy, myopic, cynical, fearful, arrogant, complacent, and too entitled to do the hard work of change?

Are the systems we organized our nation and lives around too big and complicated to transform? Are they unable to adapt to changes in their environments? Should we abandon these systems and begin anew?

How we answer these questions may determine the fate of countless organizations and enterprises and of our nation.

In the end it is all about leadership. And a leader’s first responsibility is to have foresight.

THE CRIMES OF SANDY BLUNT

2008-12-09T14:34:00.002-06:00

This commentary appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on December 12, 2008.

Sandy Blunt, former CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance), goes on trial on December 15 in Bismarck.

What are the alleged crimes of this notorious outlaw from Ohio?

In April 2007, based mostly on findings of an enfeebling state auditor’s performance audit of WSI, Blunt was charged with a felony for rewarding employees with gift certificates, buying lunches for legislators, giving employees a party with costumes, flowers and other such normal and nominal corporate activities. I’m told that the charges against the audacious Blunt included the purchase of forks, plates, coffee and a cake to welcome him to WSI.

A second count alleged he had authorized bonuses for three employees—an illegal act in North Dakota. Blunt said he gave deserving employees a pay raise based on the recommendation of a nationally respected compensation consultant.

Do the citizens of North Dakota believe that these administrative actions are worthy of criminal charges, an appeal to the state Supreme Court after the charges were initially thrown out by a district judge with common sense, and a jury trial?

Do the people of the state really believe that destroying Blunt’s career and reputation and forcing him to put his life on hold in Bismarck for the past year are the right things to do to a man brought to a historically troubled WSI to bring about change for the betterment of the workers and taxpayers of North Dakota?

I think the people of North Dakota are better than this.

Blunt didn’t benefit from his acts. He didn’t intend to break the law; he was trying to run a better WSI.

Blunt’s “crimes” were administrative in nature. If anyone had an issue with them, they were more appropriately handled in the governance of WSI—between the CEO and the WSI Board and between the Board and the North Dakota legislature.

Blunt’s decisions were easily within the authority of a CEO in even the smallest for-profit company. Similar decisions are made daily by mid-level managers in thousands of organizations across the state and nation. Criminalizing such actions will make agency heads paranoid and fearful of making good management decisions.

Independent consultant Neal Conolly, hired at the urging of Governor Hoeven, concluded that WSI under Blunt was doing an excellent job. He was puzzled to come to Bismarck and, after hearing everything being said about Blunt and WSI, to then see an organization that he “would stack up with any organization that does this kind of work in the United States.” Blunt did a good job for North Dakota.

What of the judgment of the provincial Burleigh County State Attorney’s Office? Does Burleigh County have too many attorneys—too little work and no serious crimes to solve? Why prosecute these “gotcha administrative issues?” Do they really believe that Blunt’s “crimes” rise to the level of being worthy of prosecution?

On April 1, 1940, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson addressed United States Attorneys:

What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

Do the charges against Blunt meet this standard?

Based on media accounts and the report of credible independent consultants, the nose of this former Secret Service agent smells a politically motivated witch hunt from the day an unsuspecting Blunt crossed the state line into sleepy North Dakota. The message is: don’t come to North Dakota and try to change the way we do things.

Justice in this case will be “not guilty” for Sandy Blunt followed by accountability for those responsible for the charges against him.

(Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former Secret Service agent, Star Tribune newspaper executive, and organizational consultant. His web site is http://www.amorenaturalway.com/. He lives in Moorhead and can be contacted at tomheu@cableone.net)

OBAMA OVER EXHAUSTED REPUBLICANISM

2008-10-27T12:14:00.000-05:00

Republicanism is exhausted—fatigue reflected by old, small or no ideas when it comes to solutions for our problems. John McCain—his experience mostly irrelevant in today’s world--embodies that weariness and represents decline—the continuation of vacuity. His lack of intellectual vigor, erratic leadership, poor judgment (Palin) and demagoguery exemplify a shadowy and narrow Republicanism with a distorted view of reality.

Gareth Morgan’s discussion of Plato’s Cave in his book Images of Organizations illuminates the challenge Republicans face if they want to renew their philosophy for the future. This allegory describes what happens as some see the world beyond superficiality and others do not.

The allegory pictures an underground cave with its mouth open toward the light of a blazing fire. Within the cave are people chained so that they cannot move. They can see only the cave wall directly in front of them. This is illuminated by the light of the fire, which throws shadows of people and objects onto the wall. The cave dwellers equate the shadows with reality, naming them, talking about them, and even linking sounds from outside the cave with the movements on the wall. Truth and reality for the prisoners rest in this shadowy world, because they have no knowledge of any other.

However, if one of the inhabitants were allowed to leave the cave, he would realize that the shadows are but dark reflections of a more complex reality, and that the knowledge and perceptions of his fellow cave dwellers are distorted and flawed. If he were then to return to the cave, he would never be able to live in the old way, since for him the world would be a very different place.

However, if he were to try and share his new knowledge with them, he would probably be ridiculed for his views. For the cave prisoners, the familiar images of the cave would be much more meaningful than any story about a world they had never seen. Moreover, since the person espousing this new knowledge would now no longer be able to function in the old way, since he would no longer be able to act with conviction in relation to the shadows, his fellow inmates would no doubt view his knowledge as being extremely dangerous. They would probably regard the world outside the cave as a potential source of danger, to be avoided rather than embraced as a source of wisdom and insight. The experience of the person who left the cave could thus actually lead the cave dwellers to tighten their grip on their familiar way of seeing.

The cave stands for the world of appearances and the journey outside stands for the ascent to knowledge. People in everyday life are trapped by illusions, hence the way they understand reality is limited and flawed. By appreciating this, and by making a determined effort to see beyond the superficial, people have an ability to free themselves from imperfect ways of seeing. However, as the allegory suggests, many of us often resist or ridicule efforts at enlightenment, preferring to remain in the dark rather than to risk exposure to a new world and its threat to the old ways.

McCain remains chained in the cave of failed ideas—unable to see a changed world.

Barack Obama—a seeker of knowledge and insight--sees the world through fresh eyes. He has the potential to renew and transform America in today’s new world. Obama, Colin Powell said, has the judgment, intellect, substance, and temperament to be a great president—“he is ready on day one,” said Powell.

Will we remain in the dark comfort of caves we know and decline as a nation or vote for a transformative Obama and the renewal of America?

THE REPUBLICAN MONOCULTURE

2008-09-30T11:05:00.001-05:00

I watched as the television cameras scanned the faces at the Democratic National Convention. I saw men and women, old and young, African American, Latino, and Asian. I checked out the convention demographics:

White: 56.7%; African American: 24.5%; Latino: 11.8%; Men: 50%; Women: 50%

I watched the Republican National Convention. I saw mostly middle-aged white men. Their demographics:

White: 93%; African American: 2%; Latino: 5%; Men: 68%; Women: 32%

The U.S. statistics are: White: 74%; African American: 13.4%; Latino: 14.8%

The Republican Party is a monoculture.

Steven Nachmanovitch in his book, Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art:

The conformity that is taught by the big school that surrounds us resembles what biologists call monoculture. If you walk in a wild field you see dozens of different species of grasses, mosses and other turf in each square yard, as well as a rich supply of tiny animals. This is nature’s insurance that changes in climate and environment will be matched by requisite variety in the plant life. But if you walk in a domesticated field you will see only one or a few species. Domesticated animals and plants are genetically uniform because they are bred for a purpose. Diversity and flexibility are bred out in exchange for maximizing certain variables that suit our purpose. But if conditions change, the species is locked into a narrow range of variety. Monoculture leads invariably to a loss of options, which leads to instability.

A metaphorical monoculture in society or a political party is a group where everyone looks alike and sees, does, wears, reads, watches, and thinks the same thing. The Republican Party composed primarily of white men cannot sustain itself as a vibrant system in a society that will be 54% minority by 2050.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks provided an example of the Republican monoculture in action. Referencing the failure to pass the “recovery bill” on September 29, 2008, he wrote: “House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.”

John McCain tries to frame Barack Obama as an outsider, not really American in his values, not one of us: urban, subversive and even unpatriotic.

Obama’s story is the quintessential American dream in our rapidly approaching country of minorities: Born of an immigrant black father and a Kansas white woman, raised by a single mother and white working class grandparents, this bi-racial man rose to great heights on his merits and courage alone. His story is the best of America, and he reflects America’s near-term future: a nation that grows more racially and ethnically diverse daily.

Obama is like ‘the rest of us.” He just isn’t like the Republican Party. Obama represents the future of America--if not this election, then soon.

Republicans would be wise to understand this American future before they try to govern again. Instead of running fearfully to a romanticized past (Sarah Palin and white small-town America), they should move boldly to the future and embrace America’s diversity. Along the way, they must, as Brooks wrote, “…project a conservatism that emphasizes society as well as individuals, security as well as freedom, a social revival and not just an economic one and the community as opposed to the state.”

Republicans need to reinvent themselves for the future—not artificially as McCain is trying to do to win an election but for real.

LOW INFORMATION VOTERS

2008-09-24T10:23:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday, September 28, 2008.

I heard the term “low information voter” recently. Some definitions:

Individuals who are not knowledgeable and vote anyway, and
Those who rely on talk radio and less-than-factual hearsay from friends and family members to shape their political decisions.

Low information voters were, I believe, deceived by the “compassionate conservative” in 2000 (fool me once, shame on you) and were scared by “the decider” in 2004 and re-elected the worst president in our history. Republicans counted on their ignorance—the country paid the price (fool me twice, shame on me).

They are the folks John McCain targets with dishonest television ads—strongly criticized by even conservative columnists. They are the people who pass along and then parrot the lies in emails that tell us Barack Obama is a Muslim, a friend to terrorists, and isn’t like the rest of us white folks. The McCain camp counts on their mindlessness. Democrats do this too but pale in comparison to Rovian Republicans.

Thoughtless voters got hysterical about the invented Sarah Palin—a symbol of a romanticized past--before they knew a single thing about her experience, her belief system, or her policies, and some hastily decided to vote for McCain—no feminist he. Such silliness is wishful thinking at its worst—the regression of maturity. The solution to our nation’s problems isn’t a fearful return to the past—the remedy is a bold step into the future.

Ignorance isn’t reserved for low information voters. Some people have much data but little insight. Delegates at the Republican National Convention thumped their chests and yelled “drill, drill, drill.” Thomas Friedman, columnist at the New York Times, said that was like screaming “carbon paper, carbon paper, carbon paper” as the computer replaced the typewriter. As Obama said, “They take pride in being ignorant.”

We are told that these folks want a president they can relate to—someone like them. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said about Obama, “With people who have a lot of gifts, it’s hard for people to identify with them. Barack Obama is handsome. He’s incredibly bright. He’s incredibly well spoken, and he’s incredibly successful—not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with.” The most recent financial crisis should tell all but the most oblivious of us that “smart is in.”

I don’t want the neighbors next door to be my president and vice president nor them me. I want my president to be smarter than me. I’d like him to be more mature and even-tempered than me too. I don’t expect to relate to him or for him to relate to me. I want him to solve the problems we face: two wars, global warming, an economic meltdown, and universal health care for starters.

A role of citizenship is to pay attention to what is going on—to be mindful. Thomas Jefferson said that an enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a nation. Self-government is not possible unless citizens are educated enough to hold leaders accountable. New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks wrote, “Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.”

The elections this year are important and become more important weekly as crisis follows crisis. Will a large segment of voters be fooled again? Will the least informed or the least discerning again be manipulated by fear and nonsense to vote against their and the nation’s self-interest? Or will they become widely informed and put country first?

Obama expresses great faith in Americans to get this election right—to vote based on the potentially catastrophic issues facing the nation. McCain has a more cynical view of the wisdom of the electorate.

Fool us three times, and we deserve our fate.

MCCAIN NO CHANGE AGENT

2008-09-14T09:06:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday September 14, 2008.

John McCain’s message in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention:

"I was transformed when a prisoner of war. Now, 40 years later, my party has failed in its stewardship of America. We didn’t change Washington; we were changed by Washington. We became corrupt, out of touch, and incompetent. I am again transformed. After being part of the problem for the past 25 years, I am now a change agent and will rise above party and transform Washington. Trust me."

Really?

McCain acknowledged in his acceptance speech that America is in decline.

This decline takes place in a larger context of global warming and other daunting environmental challenges that call us to change how we live on this planet.

Barack Obama says repeatedly that we face “the fierce urgency of now.” We need massive change—today. How does renewal happen?

In decline, change grows increasingly difficult as the decline deepens and downward momentum accelerates. Leaders, heroes in more successful times, lose credibility in failure (George Bush), energy is low, apathy and lowered motivation prevail (congressional gridlock and public cynicism), and resources may be exhausted (a national debt of $8.9 trillion in 2007). It takes great leadership and effort to lift a nation from decline and most fail and civilizations die or fade to a mere shadow of their more glorious days.

Today America’s future is unclear—at home and abroad. Old paradigms and new ideas collide; we are in a place of confusion, uncertainty, fear and anxiety; a place of no rules; and a place of conflict between the status quo (McCain) and the new, emerging vision for the future (Obama). We feel frustrated, overwhelmed, and we seek quick-fix solutions--drill for more oil, Sarah Palin for vice president and gas tax holidays. We should be saying: invent, invent, invent. That would be real change.

Energy and commitment are needed to renew our nation. Experience in the old ways is not helpful—often it is detrimental. What is needed is a leader with the vision and courage to step into the unknown and learn as he proceeds—just like Lewis and Clark and explorers throughout time have done.

The leader needed to guide a nation through such renewal will be an optimistic and hopeful visionary with a clear strategy for transformation, a reflective leader who engages the nation, adapts to new information and circumstances, and who involves and inspires citizens. Barack Obama is that leader.

The key insight to understand: McCain is a rebel—rebels react against something—they solve problems generally with the flip-side of “either/or.” Soon the solutions are new problems—the flip-side of the one fixed.

Good and great leaders share one characteristic: the continually evolve a vision to make life better. Obama is a leader--a person who leads towards a vision of a new future—a new creation that makes the best of the “either” AND the “or.” Creativity is the answer to today’s issues, not problem-solving.

I don’t trust John McCain.

His effort to transform himself is disingenuous and too late. He is part of the problem and has lost credibility along with his president and party. His convention acceptance speech was an opportunity to convince Americans that he is capable of changing the system he is a part of. His challenge was to offer a compelling vision for America and show us that he can see beyond small fixes to the status-quo. He failed to do that.

Instead he focused on the past and offered a list of recycled Republican ideas. He offered reform which is the equivalent of putting a new façade on an old building—it looks good but underneath the wiring and plumbing remains outdated.

John McCain would lead America deeper into decline.

CRAZYMAKING & POLITICS

2008-09-13T16:18:00.000-05:00

Have you ever listened to someone talk persuasively and felt confused: suddenly up was down, right was wrong, and you felt the rug was pulled out from under your experience of life?

Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort we feel whenever what we know, value, or believe differs from what we experience. Sometimes the dissonance is the result of intentional manipulation by another person with ulterior motives. I call this “crazymaking.”

A few of the crazymakers repeated mindlessly on opinion pages by the minions of the far-right:

1. Obama can give a great speech but lacks details and, therefore, substance.

Obama is a brilliant and thoughtful thinker—at a new level in American politics. He is deep, broad, and nuanced. He understands that most things that matter are not either/or, black/white, or good/bad but are gray, complex, and both/and.

The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group dedicated to balancing the budget examined Obama’s and McCain’s policy proposals and found Obama’s much more detailed.

A Washington Post editorial (August 25, 2008) said, “The suggestion that Mr. Obama is all rhetorical fluff is mistaken. In the course of his meticulously planned campaign, he has laid out a set of detailed policy positions—more detailed, in some key areas, such as health care, than Mr. McCain’s. He has set broad presidential priorities: getting troops out of Ira; expanding health-care coverage; promoting alternative energy and dealing with climate change. He is smart and thoughtful.”

2. Obama is motivated to be president by personal ambition not patriotism

John McCain is fond of saying he puts country first with the implication that Obama doesn’t. McCain wrote in 2002 that he sought the presidency not as some grand act of patriotism or because he wanted to implement political reforms he believed in but because it had become his ambition to be president.

Can any serious person believe that picking Sarah Palin as McCain’s vice presidential candidate was putting country first?

3. Obama is an outsider, not really American in his values, not one of us, and is unpatriotic.

This is dark code for several things: Obama is black, he’s uppity and not part of the political “good old boys” club. In other words, he is not a middle-aged white guy from the Viet Nam era—neither a war hero (McCain, Kerry) nor a draft-dodger (Bush, Cheney, Clinton).

Obama’s story is the quintessential American dream: Born of an immigrant black father and a Kansas white woman, raised by a single mother and white working class grandparents, this bi-racial man rose to great heights on his merits and courage alone. His story is the best of America and he reflects America’s near-term future: a nation that grows more racially and ethnically diverse and a nation that will be 54% minority by 2050.

4. Other crazymakers: Obama is the most liberal senator (actually he’s a pragmatist), just another politician (just better at it than most), has no accomplishments (really? A black man as a presidential nominee—no small accomplishment), McCain is a maverick (who votes with Bush 90% of the time), and McCain is a straight-talker (who panders to whoever he is talking to at the moment). A couple more: McCain is a change agent and Palin is a reformer.

We are now fully in the theatre of the absurd where cognitive dissonance will be a constant companion and much of the information coming our way dishonest. The McCain campaign wages the most deceitful campaign in modern history. Immaturity flourishes in grown ups. The self-righteous extremists on the right will demonize Obama to retain power and divert attention from their lack of solutions to our problems.

Is this how we want to elect our next president?

Thoughtful people can have legitimate concerns about Obama as they can about McCain. Mature voters will pay close attention, ponder the assertions, weigh the evidence, separate crazymakers from legitimate issues, and seek the truth as to the right course for America.

JOHN MCCAIN AND COMPUTERS

2008-09-13T15:57:00.000-05:00

John McCain doesn’t use a computer; he doesn’t know how to log on to the internet.

Some other things he may not know:

Humanity increases the search for knowledge by 50% a year,
There are 6 billion google searches a month,
Over two trillion text messages will be sent in 2008,
If MySpace were a country, it would be the 11th largest,
More information is added to the internet in one week than was available from prehistoric times through the 19th century,
By 2013 supercomputers may exceed the computational capacity of the entire human race,
By 2048 the power of a $1,000 computer will probably exceed the computational power of the entire human species,
This capability will create a world of instant communications and instant access to all knowledge for virtually all of humanity,
The fight for the future will be for the best education, best technology, and best business value.

Today computing power rides a curve of exponential change unprecedented in human history, and the exponential change itself will continue to accelerate. Moore’s Law states that the power of information technology will double every 18 months. In 2002, the 27th doubling occurred. A doubling means that the next step is as tall as all the previous steps put together. The potential systemic impact of such power translated to new technologies (genetics, robotics, nanotechnology) and on all of life staggers the mind.

We are on the verge of an almost unimaginable future: what scientists call the Singularity. At the point of Singularity technology evolves so rapidly that our everyday world no longer makes sense. We cannot escape this “perfect storm” of chaos (order without predictability), nor can we go back to an earlier time; we must go through this global transformation.

Author Vernor Vinge wrote of the essence of the Singularity: A super humanity--artificially created. Soon machines smarter than the human brain will be created according to Vinge.

Vinge wrote that this change will be comparable to the rise of human life on earth. This will be a unique transition with profound systemic implications for humanity fraught with unpredictability and unintended consequences.

Will we create a new heaven on earth with all problems solved? Or will a new hell on earth emerge where the technology goes bad and the machines rule and humans become their slaves? Or will life continue as it has in the past—imperfect and creative--just with new complexities to cope with?

Are our children prepared for this world?

McCain’s lack of computer skills is less a practical issue than a reflection of a worldview from another time—a worldview that no longer solves problems for America. His is a cold-war worldview that no longer fits the world of today.

The world is in the midst of a great shift. The distribution of American power is shifting in most all dimensions—industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural. The black/white thinking of McCain makes no sense in the world of chaos theory, quantum physics, and a diverse, alive, interconnected, and interdependent world and global economy where many nations are powerful and are global leaders. The world is in need of wisdom and intellect along with computer skills.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, McCain said that he understands the world. Can a man who does not understand the internet understand the world?

I believe that a well-intended McCain will lead America deeper into decline and mediocrity because he doesn’t understand the world of the Singularity. Will we follow blindly?

McCain lives in a world that no longer exists. He is a “Smith Corona” typewriter in an iPhone world. Do we want our future in his hands?

JOHN MCCAIN'S DAN QUAYLE

2008-09-05T17:15:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday September 7, 2008.

Let’s put things in perspective: The United States faces many problems that threaten our way of life, our standing in the world, and the planet itself: two wars, a recession, an energy quagmire, an overheated planet, a health care crisis, unlawful immigration, and a loss of respect around the world.

Thoughtful Americans agree that this election is one of the most important in American history—the problems are massive, the threats to us are real, the differences between the candidates are great, and our future as a nation may depend on the choice we make for our next president. We need our best and brightest people to lead us into an uncertain future.

In these critical times and with John McCain’s age and past health problems, he called on Sarah Palin to be his vice-president--a first-term governor of Alaska who he met once before he offered her the job— a cynical display of gender politics—a political gimmick and a “laugh our loud” moment that insulted the seriousness of the times in which we live.

Have you ever experienced something and felt confused: suddenly up was down, right was wrong, sane was insane, and you felt the rug was pulled out from under your experience of life? Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort we feel whenever what we know, value, or believe differs from what we experience.

I felt disoriented when I read that John McCain called Sarah Palin his soul mate. I felt like up was down when Cindy McCain said that Palin has national security experience because Alaska is close to Russia. I felt disoriented with I listened to Republican leaders assert with straight faces that Palin has “good judgment” and is qualified to be president on day one—a requirement McCain said was his first priority in selecting a vice president. Suddenly the Republican attacks on Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience became disingenuous.

I think David Gergen, advisor to many presidents, felt crazy too: “But what surprises me so much is that John McCain again and again and again has said the transcendent issue of our times is the fight against terrorism and that we live in a dark, dangerous world. And the most important thing is to have a commander in chief that’s ready on day one. So, here to reach out—and he’s criticized Barack Obama as not being ready—to reach out to Sarah Palin who has no national security experience, no national security exposure, and say you’re my standby and I’m 72 years old and I’ve had some bouts with melanoma….”

I began to feel more aligned with reality when Palin’s mother-in-law—in a moment of candor--said, “I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.

I felt a little saner when I read a commentary in the Anchorage Daily News: “We're not sure she's a competent governor of Alaska. And yet McCain, who is no spring chicken, has decided she's the best choice to replace him as president if he should win and then fall afoul of the Grim Reaper. Sarah Palin?

Americans are not as dumb as politicians think: A Gallup poll shows that Palin is seen as less qualified to be president than any vice presidential selection since Dan Quayle in 1988.

Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was kind when she described McCain’s first presidential decision as “a strange choice.” I think it is an irresponsible act of by a man incredibly immature for his 72 years. McCain put his country last at a moment in history that calls for Americans to put excellence first. I hope for the good of the country that this folly fails.

OBAMA & MCCAIN ON EVIL

2008-09-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama and John McCain about evil at Saddleback Church on August 16, 2008.

WARREN: How about the issue of evil? Does evil exist?

OBAMA: Evil exists. I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. It has to be confronted squarely. It is important for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

MCCAIN: Defeat it. If I’m president of the United States, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden, and bring him to justice. I will do that, and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. Of course evil must be defeated. We are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century—radical Islamic extremism. And we’re going to defeat this evil.

M. Scott Peck, M.D. defined evil as the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion in order to avoid facing their own failures and spiritual growth. Evil is the intentional infliction of harm on people. All of us do bad things--that is part of being imperfect human beings. That does not make us immoral people. Evil people are distinguished not by their sins but by the subtlety, persistence, and consistency of their sins. Wicked people kill the spirit of those they blame for their own deficiencies.

Healthy people see their mistakes, are responsible for the effects of their acts, and try to become as aware as they can of the impact of their behavior on others. Evil people, with an excess of self-esteem, deny their imperfections, run from their guilt, and perpetuate their cruel behavior.

We can see evil all around us, as Obama stated, not just in our enemies (real and imagined) abroad where McCain focused: parents who neglect and abuse their children, men who emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse women, supervisors who routinely mistreat employees, and in racists, sexists, and those who use rank in any form to disrespect others.

A common characteristic of evil people is scapegoating. Because they think so highly of themselves (with little to justify such an opinion), they must attack anyone who criticizes them. Often, in their own righteousness, they project what they don’t like about themselves onto others. Political leaders frequently demonize and scapegoat their opponents and other nations to justify violent and oppressive actions. Scapegoating allows evil to masquerade as good.

Men and women in business suits perpetuate more evil by far than most criminals in our jails—something I learned quickly as a young Secret Service agent in Chicago, Illinois. Our most dastardly people dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, coach their kid’s sports teams, and outwardly appear to be above approach. Unable to be good they excel at appearing to be good. And, the scapegoaters they are, they would be shocked and offended deeply to be characterized as inhuman. Evil people like to think of themselves as victims.

As long as people are imperfect, we cannot eradicate evil. We must, however, confront it with courage and humility as Obama said. For when each of us looks the other way in evil’s presence, we collude with it. We need to make wise moral judgments, and we must judge others. But before we do, we must look within our own hearts and see our own capacity for evil.

What do Obama’s and McCain’s words about evil say about what their focus as president would be?

SOMETHING SPECTACULAR IS GOING TO HAPPEN

2008-08-24T08:12:00.001-05:00

This commentary was published in The Fargo Forum on Sunday August 24, 2008.

New York Time columnist Thomas Friedman wrote, “We don’t have a ‘gasoline price problem.’ We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports…destroying plants and animals at record rates…..”

More fundamentally our problem is that six billion people (10 billion by 2050) are addicted to the consumption of our alive, interconnected, and interdependent planet.

That is not sustainable.

Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., wrote, "A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations.” Sustainability is the moral issue of this generation.

We will change how we think, and we will figure out how to live sustainably on this planet or we will not. Either way, something spectacular is going to happen. If we change, we will renew our economy, restore American global leadership, and help save the planet. We will experience a new renaissance of ideas and an indefinite future. Nothing less will save our way of life and perhaps the young of today and the unborn of tomorrow.

People I believe (Al Gore, scientist Jim Hanson, philosopher Daniel Quinn, & explorer Will Steger) say we have 10 to 40 years to change. If we don’t change, the momentum that carries us to possible extinction will be too great to overcome. Without change, within 200 years we may perish as a species or a few islands of prosperity and privilege may survive surrounded by a sea of misery and violence. We need to move quickly and boldly.

We are experts at denial. We like quick and easy fixes to our problems. We expect magic or God to rescue us. No hero or heroine will rescue us. No miracle will save us. We are responsible for our collective fate. The great threats of climate change, population growth, species extinction, resource depletion, and global poverty have called for change for a long time. Are we ready to listen and to change how we live together on this planet?

Some signs offer hope. Global warming and the economic and national security threats posed by fossil fuels are in the forefront of our presidential election. As we consider which candidate’s vision for energy independence is best, consider Buckminster Fuller’s Law: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” In other words, we should not try to continue our dependence on fossil fuels. To do so only makes the problems greater. We should instead move to the solution on the other side of today’s problem and that is a full transformation to green energy sources.

Change will be difficult but ease or difficulty is not the issue. The question is: are we ready to change or not? If we are ready, we will get behind a new vision for the renewal first of the United States and then of the world and we will do what is necessary.

We put a man on the moon eight years after John Kennedy challenged the nation. We can be free of foreign oil and produce 100% of our electricity from renewable energy within 10 years.

Whatever we do, something spectacular is going to happen soon. We will experience an evolutionary bounce or an evolutionary crash.

MCCAIN'S INAUTHENTICITY

2008-08-11T10:56:00.000-05:00

We can sell our souls—be inauthentic and behave counter to our deepest purpose and values—to many things: fame, money, and power. John McCain sold out his “authenticity brand” recently to try to win a presidential election.

McCain promised a high-minded campaign against Barack Obama. That promise fit with the long nurtured image of McCain as a man who put personal honor and courageous authenticity at the center of his political identity.

Then Obama, goaded by McCain, went to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe. His highly publicized trip showcased his grace, dignity, strategic mind, and the hunger abroad for new American leadership.

The McCain camp suffered a collective nervous breakdown over Obama’s media coverage. McCain stammered and stuttered that Obama was wrong about the surge and didn’t understand what was at stake in Iraq. He attacked the media and demanded credit for himself.

In his outrage McCain made more of his famous gaffes saying Iraq borders Afghanistan. Pakistan, not Iraq, borders Afghanistan. The previous week McCain repeatedly referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed for 15 years. He misstated the history of the surge and the Anbar Awakening. I

Over the next two weeks, an envy filled McCain set out to destroy Obama—the only way he thinks he can win. He willfully, intentionally, and with full knowledge of his own dishonesty (as documented by countless fact-checkers):

--Accused Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers in Germany,
--Called Obama a traitor who would lose a war to win an election,
--Put out a slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad filled with racist overtones. McCain’s 96 year old mother called the ad, “kinda stupid.”
--A Charlton Heston ad comparing Obama to God. David Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat said, "…when you see this Charlton Heston ad, ‘The One,’ that’s code for ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’”

The New York Times editorial page, “Both (ads) were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.”

The goal of this character assassination is to raise Obama’s negatives with pivotal voting groups to give McCain the presidency. If McCain cannot win on the issues or on his own charisma, he will destroy Obama to win, just like Bush did to John Kerry.

I’ve watched McCain for many years. I’ve always thought of him as a man at war with himself, a man who struggled to be true to himself in the phony world of Washington politics. I’ve also experienced McCain as an angry and wounded man whose dark side often burst through in temper tantrums and ugly jokes and comments.

The ugly twin of the warrior who struggled to be authentic appears to be winning right now. His ambition to be president and his dark envy of the attention and celebrity of Obama override his better self. The more inauthentic John McCain is, the angrier he will become and the more unappealing he will be to the voters he seeks to manipulate.

For a man in his 70’s, McCain is remarkably immature. He parrots the words of the Karl Rove clones in his campaign. He appears bitter and desperate. What kind of president would such a malleable man be?

Voters need to remember that these kinds of politics brought America two terms of disastrous George Bush. McCain, who once said, “I want the presidency in the best way, not the worst way” needs to get his dark side under control. Our nation’s problems demand a deep dialogue about the issues and the direction of this country. We need better from John McCain than his recent behavior.

DEFENDERS OF THE STATUS QUO WILL ATTACK OBAMA

2008-08-11T10:35:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday August 10, 2008

In a recent column, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote, “I’ll say this about Senator Obama. He sure raises people’s hackles.” Leaders who represent change tend to do that.

Herbert continued, “I’ve never seen anyone so roundly criticized for such grievous offenses as giving excellent speeches and urging people of different backgrounds to take a chance on working together. How dare he? And 200,000 people turned out to hear him in Berlin. Unforgivable.”

We’ve watched the McCain camp sputter in outrage at Obama because he exposed McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops, and tired political games. Republicans call Obama unpatriotic because he wants to conclude a war Americans want to be rid of. McCain even blamed Obama for high gas prices--a dull-witted and clownish assertion. Each week McCain becomes grumpier and looser with the truth. America, in a time of crisis, needs better from McCain than dishonest and sophomoric attack ads that demean the McCain brand.

Powerful politicians invested in the old ways that no longer solves problems suffer hubris, entitlement, and intellectual laziness. They do not offer new solutions to problems. Instead they attack bold and imaginative leaders who offer new approaches to serious issues. Doesn’t Obama know his place?

Anger isn’t the only emotion those who attack Obama feel. Often they feel scared of the change he symbolizes. Obama calls for the renewal of America. This revitalization threatens ambitious politicians and special interests that benefit from the status quo--regardless of the harm to America. Others feel envious of the attention the political rock star receives and try to make people’s attraction to him a character defect. The McCain camps recent “nervous breakdown” over Obama’s successful overseas trip appeared to be fear and envy driven.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren wrote in A Letter to America: “The country we love is in trouble. In truth we are in grave danger of declining as a nation. If we do not act quickly, that decline will become dramatic.” Most Americans say they are unhappy with the direction of the country. Are we ready to do the work of sustainable change?

My experience as a change consultant tells me that most people don’t change willingly or easily; they want to feel better without doing the hard work necessary to improve the health and success of their lives, nation, and organizations. They want a painless and easy quick-fix.

A rule of thumb: 10% will do the work of real change. Another 10% will resist to the death, and the remaining 80% stand around docile and passive.

Pundits say this election will be a referendum on Obama. More broadly it’s a referendum on transformative change. He has to overcome his race, newness on the scene, resistance from the status-quo, and politicians who have left us cynical and disillusioned—no small task.

Most of all he has to confront Americans with the truth and seriousness of our problems and reassure the 80% that they are up to the challenges as Americans throughout history have demonstrated. He can do his part by offering a vision that represents our values and aspirations and arouses our courage.

Arctic explorer Will Steger told area residents last fall that he likes “do or die” situations and that we are in that situation now. And he was only talking about global warming. We also have two wars, a recession, a shrinking middle class, a health care crisis, and an educational system that does not prepare our students for a global economy.

Change has risk. It is riskier to not change. We need to channel our fear and pain away from childish attacks on those who can lead and into good works that renew the American spirit. The alternative for America is continued national decline that will grow increasingly frightening and painful.

MERITCARE'S LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

2008-07-28T14:00:00.001-05:00

Recent troubles at MeritCare—layoffs, accreditation issues, and revenue shortfalls/expense overrides—illuminate MeritCare’s more profound issue: how to lead an organization in a chaotic and unpredictable world.

Mort Myerson, former chairman and CEO of Perot Systems said several years ago, “Everything I thought I knew about leadership is wrong.”

Throughout the Industrial Era, managers led organizations as if they were great machines. The emphasis was (and often still is) on top-down control with hierarchal and compartmentalized departments with rigid boundaries. Conformity became the first rule. Creativity, initiative, and innovation came from the top or from outside experts. Human potential was ignored (leave your brains at the door) and most organizations were mediocre with life-spans of less than 50 years.
.
A leadership revolution exploded over the past 20 years as the marketplace shifted from stable to chaotic and the metaphor of organizations as a lifeless machine was encompassed by one of a dynamic, potential filled living system. The new metaphor requires new leadership talents, hence the Myerson insight.

Have MeritCare leaders, like Mort Myerson, changed their core assumptions about leadership in today’s world? Can MeritCare employees tell an outsider what MeritCare’s vision, values, and purpose are? Do MeritCare managers know how to lead others through change? Does MeritCare have a culture of high accountability? Do MeritCare leaders realize how much human potential has been lost in the mechanistic model of organizations?

Core leadership practices in a dynamic organization:

See reality as it is. “Thirty to 50 percent of what we do doesn’t add value to patients,” said Dr. Roger Gilbertson, president and CEO in a stunning admission of “remarkable inefficiencies.” Do MeritCare executives receive ongoing feedback on their conduct and initiatives? Are they quick to discard failed programs, strategies, and subsidiaries? Do they explore and bring to light the dark side of the corporate culture and receive ongoing feedback on their leadership impact? Have executives been in denial, slow to respond to issues in recent years?
Create an organizational identity that inspires people: a spiritual purpose for why they exist, noble values to guide behavior, and a vision that provides direction and courage to employees. Is MertiCare’s vision bold enough, its goals big enough?
Practice tough love—a high standard for behavior and performance with a deep respect and compassion for others. People thrive in organizations where responsibility and accountability are valued and where the neurotic, mediocre, immature, irresponsible, and passive-aggressive are exposed, confronted, and held accountable. Does MeritCare invest in the quality supervision needed to retain their best employees?
Involve people in change and require empowerment. Leaders understand that people support what they help create. They require people to make decisions about the work they do. People are often lazy and don’t want to do the work of empowerment. Good leaders don’t let them get away with upward delegation. A stated goal at MeritCare is to have “fewer people and pay them more.” I would add “fully utilize the talents of people” to that objective.
Embrace and go into and through the anxiety, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the chaos of today. This is where people find their creative energy. They “plan, do, reflect, and adapt” constantly. They act boldly and decisively and change everything but their identity as they adapt continually to the world around them.

Efficiency is important at MeritCare and the recent discovery of major inefficiencies (Why weren’t they discovered years ago?) gives MeritCare a great opportunity for transformation.

But efficiency is just one element of an overall leadership philosophy for an organization. Enlightened leadership of people, seeing reality accurately, a tough love culture, imaginative and creative vision and strategies for continued development, and the courage to go into the unknown regularly and courageously are even more important.

It’s always all about leadership.

KEEPING JOBS IN NORTH DAKOTA

2008-07-19T12:37:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on July 20, 2008

North Dakota has 14,000 job openings.

A report entitled “Workforce Policy System Recommendations” commissioned by the North Dakota Legislative Council highlights ideas to attract and retain employees. The majority of the suggestions involve incentives to attract and then retain North Dakota workers.

The report did not focus on improved leadership, management, and supervision by North Dakota employers as a proven way to attract and retain not only employees but quality employees.

Absent the ongoing development of quality supervision, I predict the ideas proposed will prove to be little but cosmetic quick-fixes that give the illusion of progress but, in reality, are disappointments.

Employers first attract good employees with competitive compensation, fairly administered, and with clear guidelines on how to earn increases. Competitive compensation, while necessary, is not sufficient for the retention of great employees. Good supervisors and a culture of engagement are crucial to the attraction and retention of quality workers. Such supervisors and cultures are rare: The Gallup Organization reported that 76% of American workers are disengaged clock-watchers who cannot wait to go home at night. Their discretionary energy—the energy available to them beyond that needed to keep their jobs—is lost to their employers.

Gallup conducted over 1 million interviews and massive statistical analysis to answer the question: “What do the most talented and productive employees need from their workplace?”

Twelve questions emerged from the data. These questions captured the most important information about how to attract, focus, and keep (physically and mentally) the most talented employees. The questions, from the book First Break All the Rules by Marcus Buckingham & Curt Coffman, are:

Do I know what is expected of me at work?
Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday?
In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
At work, do my opinions seem to count?
Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel like my work is important?
Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
Do I have a best friend at work?
In the last six months, have I talked with someone about my progress?
At work, have I had opportunities to learn and grow?

High ratings correlate with high productivity, increased profit, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. The data shows that engaged employees miss less work, quit less often, steal less from their employers, have fewer accidents (all by dramatic percentages), and more engaged organizations outperformed the earnings-per-share of their non-engaged competitors by 18%.

A key finding of the study was that opinions are formed by the employee’s relationship with the immediate supervisor, not the overall company, its leader, its structure, or its policies and procedures. In other words, people quit their immediate supervisor, not their company. Therefore, the selection and development of supervisors is crucial to the retention of the best employees.

If North Dakota enterprises want to attract and retain the best employees, make a lot of money, and endure longer than the length of a career; if North Dakota schools want to attract and retain quality teachers and administrators and graduate educated students; and if North Dakota governments want to provide efficient services, then North Dakota employers would be wise to create a well led and engaged workforce.

A SUSTAINABLE MERITCARE

2008-07-05T18:38:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on July 6, 2008.

MeritCare recently laid off 90 employees. Ninety others had hours reduced, and 120 open positions will be absorbed.

Being laid off is a big deal to people: lives, families, and communities are impacted negatively. When people are laid off from one of the area’s largest employers, a little bit of the community’s vitality and sense of security is destroyed.

I once led a 4,500 employee business unit at a major newspaper. Faced with a revenue shortfall, we had to reduce staff. Serious about our employee engagement efforts, we worked hard to reduce our staff in voluntary ways that built trust.

We offered early retirements, gave incentives to leave, eliminated open positions, retrained people to fill open jobs in other departments, and redesigned jobs and departments to operate more efficiently and with fewer, more fulfilled people. Extra people were used in new product lines that generated new revenues. We made our downsizing goals and grew trust and commitment too.

Dr. Roger Gilbertson, president and chief executive officer of MeritCare, said that cutting costs is the only way to keep the organization viable for another 100 years. “The actions of today are a way of safeguarding the organization,” he said.

I disagree.

The layoffs were a temporary fix to deeper dynamics—within and outside of MeritCare. No organization ever downsized its way to long-term sustainability.

What do we know about sustainable organizations?

Some companies endure for hundreds of years. Sadly, however, the average life-expectancy of a Fortune 500 company is only 40-50 years. This statistic cuts across nations and is even worse for smaller start-up companies—40% survive less than 10 years.

Arie DeGeus, former coordinator of worldwide planning for Royal Dutch/Shell, wrote in The Living Company: “Companies die because their managers focus on the economic activity of producing goods and services and they forget that their organizations’ true nature is that of a community of humans.” Layoffs destroy trust, loyalty, and the strong relationships essential for survival amid change.

How do organizations like MeritCare endure in a today’s turbulent world?

Sustainable organizations:

1. Continually adapt to the external environment. Leaders constantly imagine a better future and rally people to join together to make the vision come true.
2. Have a core identity of purpose (why they exist) and values (guiding principles) that provide stability and continuity as all else changes over time. Most organizations today have vision and values statements. Few make them real by holding people accountable to “walk the talk” of the enterprise.
3. Change everything but the core identity: culture, strategies, operating practices, and products as they learn continually and adapt to the world around them. They experiment with ideas to find what works. Employees do the work of re-engineering and redesign while consultants provide methods, experience, and facilitation.
4. Are inclusive of those who stretch their understanding of what is possible: critics, outliers, risk-takers, and different points of view.
5. Are fiscally conservative. In sustainable companies profits are necessary to sustain the enterprise but they are not sufficient; they are an outcome of leading engaged people. In long-lasting companies researched in the book Built to Last an investment of $1.00 in those companies on January 1, 1926 would have grown to $6,356 by 1994—over 15 times the general market—15 times by putting the “community of humans” first.

The health care industry thinks it is in the midst of transformation. They haven’t seen anything yet. The leadership challenge of the 21st century is to achieve outstanding and sustainable business results by creating conditions for employee engagement that bring forth the vast untapped human potential in organizations—the competitive advantage of our time. Sustainability will go to those organizations whose leaders have foresight, are creative, can engage the talents of all, and can lead others through change.

A WELL CONSIDERED PATRIOTISM

2008-06-29T09:12:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on June 29, 2008.

I learned as a child that patriotism is love of our country and devotion to the ideals we believe in. Patriots are people who act courageously for their country. I love America, but never thought of myself as a patriot—that title was reserved for those who sacrificed greatly for the rest of us—usually on the battlefield.

Somehow over the years the definition and symbols of patriotism changed for some to a narrow and shallow aberration disrespectful to true patriots: lapel pins, polarization, empty swagger, artificial conflicts, and a refusal to admit mistakes or errors of policy.

Patriotism became a bludgeon used to intimidate anyone who criticized these pseudo-patriots or their policies in an effort to silence dissent and to deceive, frighten, and manipulate citizens. Even obvious patriots like John McCain and John Kerry were not immune from vile personal attacks. Concomitantly mediocre political leadership became the norm, and our nation’s problems grew in number and complexity as gridlock prevails in Washington.

This year’s presidential election promises to be definitive for America. We face many intertwined problems that demand an end to obstruction: two wars, a recession, energy costs, an overheated planet, a health care crisis, unlawful immigration, and a loss of respect around the world.

Already the dark side of patriotism rears its ugly head as some try to frighten us about Barack Obama. Those who demonize him cry out: “He doesn’t wear a lapel pin! He’s not patriotic! His middle name is Hussein! He’s not like us, and his wife hates America!” Such foolishness. We can be better people.

Mike Huckabee, former presidential candidate got it right, “Elections ought to be about elevating the best ideas and exposing the worst ones—not engaging in character assassination with half truths, innuendoes, and disputable ‘internet facts.’”

We need a broader and deeper definition of patriotism today—a “well-considered patriotism” that Alexis De Tocqueville wrote of in “Democracy in America” that is rational, creative, and enlightened.

Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer wrote an important new book, “The True Patriot.”
True patriots, they wrote, “believe that freedom from responsibility is selfishness, freedom from sacrifice is cowardice, freedom from tolerance is prejudice, freedom for stewardship is exploitation, and freedom from compassion is cruelty.” Each of us can get engaged and give of ourselves for love of country—to be a patriot—not just on the battlefield but also in everyday life.

We can pay attention, become informed, get involved, and tell the truth.
We can see through lies, distortions, partial truths, political spin, misrepresentations, and intellectual dishonesty. We can say “NO” to mock patriotism, unenlightened egoism, and its selfish ends. We can stand up to those who try to corrupt our political process.

The problem in the world is not the liars, the manipulators, or the fear-mongers. The issue is the good people who have gone to sleep. They need to wake up, stand up, and speak up against those who appeal to the most irrational of our fears. We can renew our public morality as we redefine what it means to be a patriot. Future generations demand this of us.

When someone sends us a dishonest email about a candidate, we can refuse to pass the message on and return it with criticism. We can refuse to listen to radio and watch television that tear people down. We can write letters to the editor and confront intellectual dishonesty on the editorial pages. We can make this election about ideas and solutions instead of character assassination. We cannot afford to be fooled again by the politics of fear-mongering and manipulation. We need aware, informed, and courageous citizens who raise our public standards.

Robert Kennedy said in 1968, “I am dissatisfied with our society.” Eighty percent of Americans feel the same today 40 years later. Kennedy stood for economic fairness, a thoughtful foreign policy, and justice and opportunity for all—principles in need of renewal today.

A well considered patriotism loves country always and from this tough love of country sees clearly and confronts our nation’s flaws and finds creative solutions to the problems that seem insolvable.

As the 4th of July approaches each of us might reflect on what patriotism means to us. Patriotism belongs to us all and each of us can be a patriot. If we say no to character assassination and attack our nation’s problems with the fervor of a patriot’s love, we will be energized, and we will evolve America.

AN OBAMA LANDSLIDE?

2008-06-15T16:44:00.003-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday, June 15, 2008.

Approximately half the states may be competitive in November’s presidential election. Barack Obama plans a 50 state campaign to take advantage of changed demographics, superior fund-raising, and his unmatched ground organization. A landslide Obama victory is possible.

I believe that Obama will break away from the recent statistical tie with John McCain and win an overwhelming majority of electoral and popular votes.

How?

Brand--Obama will solidify his image: an inspirational candidate with a vision for the renewal of America that will “turn the page” to a new generation of leaders. His style, message, and the momentousness of his quest will swell passion for his campaign to more Americans and will bring out contributors and voters in record numbers. McCain will try to brand himself as a reformer with a vision that conserves the best of the past. But he cannot escape George Bush whose brand is one of corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent leadership. Only 28% approve of Bush’s leadership, 82% believe the country is going in the wrong direction, a majority of American want our troops withdrawn from Iraq, and 87% believe the economy is getting worse. McCain cannot separate himself: his Senate votes were consistent with Bush’s positions 95% of the time over the past year.
Issues—Obama is, I believe, on the right side of the issues of Iraq, the economy, health care, and global warming. Those who wonder what change Obama advocates need to become informed citizens.
Temperament—Obama models grace, patience, and calm under fire. He can take a political punch and can counterpunch fast and effectively. He will be tougher on McCain than he was on Hillary Clinton, a fellow democrat. McCain is an angry man easily provoked by Obama who has political killer instincts. McCain’s anger should concern us. Unable to win on issues or personality, McCain will take the low road and try to demonize Obama. Doing so makes McCain appear small and ungracious. McCain comes off as an immature and grumpy granddad, which raises concerns about his age.
Leadership--Leaders have a vision for the future that inspires people to get involved. Obama’s inclusive campaign is a new model and foreshadows how he will govern. His grassroots organization, organic and networked, makes use of the internet, volunteers, and social networks to create commitment and exemplify his leadership style. McCain is a rebel who reacts against problems and looks to the past for solutions but lacks a creative vision for a new future. So far his campaign has stumbled and fumbled failing to get even the basics of campaigning right.
Transform or reform—some change is reformation: putting a new façade on an old building but underneath the plumbing and wiring remain defective. This is John McCain and the Republican Party. To transform is to bring about fundamental and sustainable change in values, practices, and culture. This is Obama’s goal and what America needs.
Experience and Judgment—John McCain has been a Washington insider for decades. What has he learned? Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan wrote that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. Why didn’t McCain’s experience give him the insight and judgment to see through the Bush propaganda and faulty decision-making process? Obama demonstrated superior judgment in opposing the Iraq war from the beginning and has consistently shown that judgment during his primary campaign. Obama will challenge McCain on foreign policy and demonstrate his superior intellect and insight into a changed world. McCain’s thinking reflects his lack of intellectual vigor and his attachment to a military worldview that mirrors our historical past, not our present or future.

The 2008 presidential election is about Barack Obama. Americans recognize the need for dramatic change in direction from how we engage with the rest of the world to how we educate our children, to how we give every American the opportunity for success, to our stewardship of the planet. We are tired of saber-rattling and fear-mongering. John McCain cannot see the depth of change needed. He wants to change by reinventing the past—never a good strategy.

Obama’s challenge is to introduce himself to more Americans and to gain their trust and confidence—no small task in light of his newness and Reverend Wright. If he can do that, he will be our next president with the electoral mandate—up and down the ticket--needed to bring about the changes we need as a nation.

THE LESSON OF ROBERT POTTS & SANDY BLUNT

2008-05-14T10:55:00.004-05:00

This commentary appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on May 14, 2008 and in The Fargo Forum on Sunday May 18, 2008.

Robert Potts and Sandy Blunt came to North Dakota to lead change in dysfunctional and insular organizations—Potts as chancellor of the North Dakota University System (2004-2006) and Blunt as CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance, 2004-2008). Both learned that nothing is more difficult or dangerous than to initiate a new order of things.

Trouble began for Potts—by all accounts a good person and a terrific leader--when he stood up to a powerful university president who wanted to do things his way to the detriment of the North Dakota University System as a whole.

When Potts threatened to hold the university president accountable, the battle began and moved underground—to the land of cynical and passive-aggressive political intrigue and manipulation. The university president maneuvered and manipulated with the media, governor, legislature, and members of the Board of Higher Education. Soon all were engaged in a nasty game of sabotage.

Potts refused to go along to get along and asked the board for authority to enforce policies and reporting lines equally across all the institutions in the university system. In other words, he asked for the authority to discipline subordinates who would not accept his leadership. The spineless board refused to support the leader they hired. Potts resigned. Ultimately a local politician replaced Potts and the status quo was restored.

Sandy Blunt was hired to lead WSI—the fourth CEO since 1995 at the troubled agency.

Blunt, an enthusiastic and positive leader, set out to change the culture of the mismanaged WSI. A powerful shadow culture invested in the old order set out to get Blunt because of the change his ideas represented. Blunt wanted to fire those with personal agendas but was discouraged. Soon, with the zeal of partisans and a “kitchen sink” strategy, the media, legislators, state auditors, and even the local prosecutor’s office joined forces against change. Blunt was forced out.
Consultants were hired to sort out the mess.

Consultant Neal Conolly on Bismarck’s KX television: “WSI is really doing an excellent job. It was almost puzzling to come in here and after hearing everything that we heard to see an organization that I would stack up with any organization that does this kind of work in the United States.”

The consultant reports were clear. Blunt, his staff and employees at WSI served their clients well. Business results were impressive. A local politician replaced Blunt and the attacks stopped.

Blunt and Potts were victims of provincial and passive/aggressive political gamesmanship colluded with by the media and politicians more interested in their own agendas than in good leadership or excellence in state organizations. Outsiders were not going to change the way things are done in North Dakota.

Both men were sullied and subverted by unethical underlings invested in the status quo. The “leaders” above Potts and Blunt buckled under “shadow managements” and failed to support the leaders they hired.

Why would Potts and Blunt want to transform these organizations?

Most organizations and most leaders are mediocre when actual performance is compared to potential. Almost 75% of American workers are disengaged clockwatchers who cannot wait to go home at night. Nineteen percent work against the leadership of their organizations.

Transformational leaders—those who can imagine a better way--lead sustainable change in organizations that bring about engaged employees with high morale and improved business results in the 25% to 50% range. These leaders engage employees, involve employees in the redesign of jobs and work processes, empower workers to make decisions about the work they do, and are value driven. These leaders believe in “tough love” and in high levels of accountability.

Such change is difficult--conflict and resistance unavoidable--many benefit from the status-quo and few have the courage to bring about something new Seventy to ninety percent of these change efforts fail—many overthrown by the shadow side of organizations that undermines good, smart, and decent leaders whose fearful supporters offer only lukewarm support.

If North Dakota government wants sustainable change in its agencies that brings forth operational excellence, then it must hire transformational leaders and must support those leaders when difficult actions are needed. Otherwise North Dakota must settle for mediocrity. Asking leaders to bring about change without giving them the power to affect change sets them up to fail.

Robert Potts and Sandy Blunt are good men. They did not fail North Dakota; North Dakota failed them.

JOHN MCCAIN: WARMONGER?

2008-04-09T12:36:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on April 9, 2008.

Ed Schultz, Fargo’s liberal talk radio host, ignited a political brushfire when he called John McCain a “warmonger” during a passionate warm-up of hundreds of Barack Obama’s enthused supporters at a fundraiser prior to the political rock star’s speech at the North Dakota Democratic Convention (April 6, 2008).

Is McCain a warmonger?

McCain went on a “biography tour” the previous week and shared his life story with America. He proudly (as he should) outlined his family’s martial heritage going back to the Revolutionary War; he described his high school years when a chip on his shoulder led him to respond, “aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone whom I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect.” McCain described his four years at the Naval Academy, “were not notable for exemplary virtue or academic achievement but, rather, for the impressive catalogue of demerits I managed to accumulate;” he beautifully described the horror of war and the aliveness fighting for a cause greater than self can evoke as only one who has been there can: “The combat veteran knows what great loss and great joy feel like when they occur in the same moment, the same experience. It can be transforming.”

Clearly McCain’s life and worldview were framed and formed by wars, preparation for wars, and the losses of war. He is a true, noble, flawed, and courageous warrior.

Has his recent military judgment manifested his vast and honorable experience?

McCain supported the war in Iraq—the wrong war, against the wrong country, at the wrong time—a war based on lies and ideology that will go down in history as this nation’s greatest strategic blunder--a decision that took our eyes off the real enemy: al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

McCain called for and supported the surge. The purpose of additional troops in Iraq was to quell violence so political reconciliation could take place. Violence, until recently, went down; political reconciliation—the goal--has been minimal.

A paper written by some of the same experts who advised the Iraq Study Group concluded that political progress has been “so slow, halting and superficial, and social and political fragmentation so pronounced, that the US is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.”

In addition McCain threatens a war with Iran to prevent it from having nuclear weapons, expresses willingness to occupy Iraq for 100 years if necessary, and promises Americans that there “will be more wars.”

Is John McCain a warmonger: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war? Make your own decision. Consider two other issues that may impact McCain’s judgment as president as you do.

McCain recently repeated three times the false assertion that Sunni al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Shiite Iran. Conservative commentator Brit Hume described McCain’s confusion—which happens often--as a “senior moment.”

A recent study shows that one out of every three Americans over 70 has some cognitive decline. Laura Carstensen, head of Stanford’s Center on Longevity, said, “I see better reason to know about someone’s cognitive health than medical health.” Listen when McCain’s doctors publicly discuss his health soon—do they talk about cognitive function?

Add his famous temper to McCain’s war worldview, judgment about Iraq, and advanced age. Republican Senator Thad Cochran wrote, “The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.”

With McCain there is no need to worry about domestic programs—there will be no money. Our recession is impacted directly by the $400 million/day spent in Iraq. The money would be better spent achieving energy independence from the Middle East and improving our economy. McCain admits that he doesn’t understand economics and conservative columnist George Will said McCain’s economic proposals are “adolescent.”

John McCain is a noble man, however, the times are too perilous, the problems too complex, and the stresses too great for us to elect as our next president a man who is one dimensional and whose time, sadly, has passed.

"THE SPEECH"

2008-03-23T14:19:00.002-05:00

This commentary was published in The Fargo Forum on March 30, 2008.

I see in Barack Obama the potential and possibility of transformative leadership. When I listen to Barack Obama speak, I feel hopeful. Maybe we can renew our nation. Perhaps we can recommit ourselves to the noble values and grand purpose of America. He reminds me of the best energy of the 60’s.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s words upset me as they did so many others, but for reasons different than some. A mature person can separate the truth from hyperbole and can place words in local and historical context. While stunned by Wright’s vehemence, I did not judge him or Obama. We have free speech in this country, and I do not practice guilt by association—not for Obama, McCain, or Clinton. I formed my opinion of Obama by studying the man, his life, and his actions and by what I see in him with my own eyes.

I did, however, wonder if Wright’s anger and extreme words would destroy Obama’s bid for the presidency. Could Obama—still unknown to many—withstand the stereotyping that was sure to follow? Could he withstand the mindless projection of white fears of black men unto him?

I watched his speech on :"Race and Politics" (March 18, 2008) with concern.

What would Obama do? Would he be defensive? Would he blame others? Would he demonize and scapegoat Reverend Wright? Would he rebuke the media?

I held my breath as he spoke. I watched carefully. I saw something new and different. This man was real. He spoke from his heart. He told the truth and revealed himself to us. He respected us and talked to us as adults. He was responsible. He taught us.

He put the immediate political predicament into a larger, more encompassing and enduring context. He asked us to choose to be responsible and to engage in a deeper conversation. He called on us to be a better people: more aware, more understanding, more compassionate. I marveled at his insight, empathy, and authenticity. His stature grew before me; he dwarfed other candidates—past and present--in his spiritual essence.

This was a speech more important than a presidential campaign. The speech rose far above politics and how white working class men would react to the message as so many myopic pundits wondered. They assumed that the white working man is too dumb or too racist to understand what Obama called for. Are they?

Obama asked us to see the dark side of fear, anger, and race in American life, to surface the dark shadows, talk about them, and from the conversation forge a new vision for relationships in our lives. From new relationships we can join together to solve the problems our nation faces that have so far been unsolvable. This was a speech about healing and evolving to a higher level of humanity--Obama called us to greater maturity.

As I listened to him speak, I relaxed. I was not wrong. Obama is for real—a good person and a true visionary leader. My question shifted from “Is he up to the challenge” to “Are we up to the challenge he gave us?”

Not all responded favorably to Obama’s speech—mostly those on the far right of American politics. As you listen to them, consider these questions: Why are they so angry? What do they fear? Why are their hearts so closed? Do they benefit from hatred, racism, and division? Do they apply the same standards to themselves and their candidates that they apply to Obama? Think about their assertions and ponder their motivations.

Ignorance is a choice. We need to think, think, think, about Obama’s message, how it applies to each of us, and ask what we can do to contribute to the conversation. What efforts can we make today in our own lives?

Obama’s success in the presidential campaign will depend not on him, but on us. Are we ready to seize the moment and the opportunity of Barack Obama? Can we grow along with him as he calls upon our higher needs? Do we really want the change we say we do? Are we ready for more challenges to evolve ourselves sure to come from this transformational leader? Or will fear paralyze us and foreshadow more of the same politics? How sad it would be for us to miss this opportunity for leadership in America.

Barack Obama is ready to be our president. Are we ready for a president as gifted as he?

WE LEARN FROM THE DIFFERENCES OF OTHERS

2008-03-19T10:22:00.002-05:00

WE LEARN FROM THE DIFFERENCES OF OTHERS

An editorial in the March 30, 2008 Fargo Forum properly castigated students at the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University for offensive behavior towards Native Americans and African Americans. The same day, E. Allan Branstiter wrote a thoughtful commentary about the hate and bigotry common in our fragmented society. In a year when the first woman, African American, or man over the age of 70 will be our next president, it is appropriate to reflect upon the value of diversity in our lives.

I grew up as a man in white America. I had an unconscious assumption that everyone experienced life and saw the world as I did. I learned that we often demonize and dehumanize people different from us, because it is easier to mistreat those we fear if we first see them as objects.

Bettye Granger taught me that there are many worlds—not just mine—and all are worthy of respect. She led me to reflect on my childhood assumptions about others through adult eyes. I realized that each of us has a unique history, experience life in a singular way, and can learn important lessons from those different from us.

I met Bettye when I became the manager of the department she worked in. I held meetings with employees and got to know her. Bettye was a stately black woman with a loud voice and a great sense of humor. She was down to earth and asked tough questions. She was not intimidated by me. I liked her.

One day I invited Bettye to lunch. I told her about a problem I had with plans for a vacation. She listened thoughtfully and then told me how she raised four children without a father. She described how she tried to protect her children from gang influence and how she raised them to value work, education, and concern for others.

I felt about two inches tall as I listened. How could I work so close to someone and have no idea what her life was like? How could I assume that she experienced life like I did? How could I be so oblivious to the challenges my coworkers faced?

Months later, at Christmas, Bettye and I shared lunch again. She told me that she and her children had a monthly roundtable where they discussed issues and made decisions. The discussion that month had been whether to use their available money to either get their car fixed or to buy Christmas presents. The younger kids wanted gifts. The older kids realized the importance of a car in the wintertime and reminded the younger ones of the difficulties of riding the bus in cold weather. The consensus was to get the car fixed. I felt humbled by the dignity of her life.

Bettye taught me that the barriers of age, race, rank, gender, politics, and religion can be overcome, and we can experience the humanity of others if we are willing to listen, understand, and learn from one another.

I sat about one hundred and fifty feet from Bettye. The CEO of our company sat about one hundred and fifty feet above me. I wondered if his world was as far away from mine as mine was from Bettye’s. I wondered if he was as unaware of the differences between his life and mine as I was of Bettye’s and mine.

Bettye taught me that the antidote to seeing others as objects is to spend time getting to know them as people. It is difficult to be insensitive and hateful towards those we know as fellow human beings.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is an organizational consultant, former Secret Service agent, and newspaper executive. He lives in Moorhead, MN

SKULLDUGGERY AND DIRTY POLITICS AT WSI

2008-03-11T22:05:00.005-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday, March 16, 2008

I‘ve been a student, teacher, and practitioner of leadership and organizational change all of my adult life. I’ve followed the drama at WSI (Workforce Safety & Insurance) for the past 15 months.

Last fall Governor Hoeven recommended that independent consultants determine what changes should be made at WSI. He said their recommendations should then be implemented.

Two consulting groups were hired: one to audit the WSI claims process (Marsh USA, Inc.) and the other to review WSI leadership, structure, and governance (Conolly & Associates).

The consultant reports are in. They are excellent. The recommendations should be followed. The media and citizens of North Dakota should hold leaders accountable for implementing them as Governor Hoeven directed.

Did the consultants find that WSI was “burn (ing) to the ground” as a Bismarck Tribune editorial asserted? Did they find a “dirty little secret” and a management conspiracy to hide improper claims practices from the Board as alleged by Kay Grinsteinner, internal audit manager at WSI?

Consultant Neal Conolly on Bismarck’s KX television: "WSI is really doing an excellent job. It was almost puzzling to come in here and after hearing everything that we heard to see an organization that I would stack up with any organization that does this kind of work in the United States.”

From Conolly’s report: “WSI is possessed of well trained and well meaning staff and managers who, in the vast majority of cases, serve well the work force of North Dakota.”

And, “The vast majority of WSI program staff are well trained, understand their jobs and responsibilities, perform as team players, and are lead by a strong group of mid level supervisors and managers. WSI is not in danger of collapse….”

What can we learn from the consultant reports?

1. The evidence in the reports is overwhelming that former CEO Sandy Blunt, his staff, and employees at WSI served their clients well. Business results were impressive. The consultant’s recommendations are non-spectacular and commonplace.
2. Blunt’s mistakes were in the leadership of organizational change. He made at least one terrible hiring decision of a senior executive. Methods used to change leadership positions and redesign areas of WSI were ignorant, manipulative, and hurt and alienated many people. The objectives were fine; the methods abusive. Those mistakes are, sadly, common; few leaders know how to lead change effectively. Blunt needed an experienced consultant.
3. Leaders need a healthy ruthlessness. Blunt should have fired executives he did not want on his team. Giving them lower-level jobs at WSI was a sure route to passive-aggressive sabotage. When members of his staff proved to be incompetent and others set out to undermine him, he should have dismissed them immediately. That did not happen and Blunt’s leadership errors foreshadowed the distrust, resistance, and subversion that followed. Blunt was doomed.
4. A shadow management culture evolved and enlisted the aid of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s office that brought frivolous criminal charges against Blunt (thrown out of court) and executed a Gestapo-like search warrant at WSI. Were personal and political ambitions behind such skullduggery? Citizens of North Dakota should ask the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court to investigate the conduct of the Burleigh County Attorney.
5. The shadow management also enlisted the media and politicians to their cause. Many were eager to join the trashing of Blunt and WSI without investigation or facts. No leader can survive such attacks—even when false. How ironic that an independent board was established in 1997 to ensure WSI’s “freedom from political influence.” I recall the undermining that led to the resignation of Robert Potts, former chancellor of the North Dakota University System. Neither he nor Blunt deserved the treatment they received. Is North Dakota government and media too cliquish—North Dakota too provincial--for outsiders to ever be accepted?
6. The Conolly report is scathing in its condemnation of the behavior of internal auditor Kay Grinsteinner and says her actions have, “divested her of the kind of perceived trustworthiness, objectivity, and organizational stature necessary to perform effectively within the organization.” She and her co-conspirators must be fired immediately. The shadow management that undermined so many at WSI must go.
7. WSI must hire an outstanding leader as CEO. This leader should be hired first for character, next for leadership talents, and finally for the appropriate skills and knowledge. Seek a leader who is a proven change agent for there is more change ahead for WSI.

It is always all about leadership.

POSTSCRIPT: Kay Grinsteinner, Billi Peltz, human resources director, and Jim Long, chief of support services were fired on March 12, 2008. See my previous commentaries on the events at WSI. I believe that most of those at WSI who claimed whistleblower protection did not deserve that protection; they were part of the shadow management at WSI. I hate bad leadership; I despise good people being sabotaged by political game-players even more.

OBAMA: TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, GO NEGATIVE OR IS THERE A THIRD WAY?

2008-03-06T12:03:00.001-06:00

Barack Obama stands for a new kind of politics that build up our nation instead of tearing one another down. But recently Hillary Clinton has gone negative: ads, mailers, robo-calls, personal attacks and she revels in it: "I've just gotten started."

How to fight back?

If Obama does nothing, he will be perceived as weak and that will then translate to how he would lead and protect our nation. Doing nothing is a sure path to defeat.

If Obama goes negative, he plays her game and she will be better at it.

If you roll in the dirt with pigs you get dirty and the pigs win because they like the dirt.

Is there a third way?

Yes, Obama can tell the truth, describe for the world what Clinton is doing, why she is doing it (fear, desparation, and unchecked ambition), announce to her that the world is watching, and call on her to rise above the politics of the past. Put a light on her dark side and illuminate it for all to see. He can call on her to engage in a great debate about the future of the United States of America.

He can also ask her questions and call for transparency: "Why won't you release your tax returns?" "Why won't you release the doners to Bill Clinton's library?" "Why won't you release your White House papers?" "Who has contributed to your campaign?" What specific foreign policy experience do you have that makes you qualified to be president?" "What promises did you make to voters in New York and what results did you produce for them?"

Hold her accountable.

Be real, be authentic, call us again to our better selves.

I can hear the speech now.

POLITICS & GRUMPY OLD MEN

2008-02-24T09:29:00.001-06:00

Images from the campaign trail:

--Former President Bill Clinton in angry exchanges with hecklers,

--A red-faced and finger-pointing Clinton angrily lecturing a reporter in South Carolina,

--Senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain exposing his dark side in a debate with Mitt Romney showing a dark smile of satisfaction when he thinks he hurts his opponent.

McCain has a long history of temper tantrums and has been referred to as “Senator Hothead” by several publications. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

--“F---you,” he shouted at Texas Senator John Cornyn last year,

--“Only an a----would put together a budget like this,” he told the former Budget Committee chairman, Senator Pete Domenici, in 1999,

--“I’m calling you a f----jerk!” he once retorted to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.

These guys remind me of the loveable curmudgeon Max Goldman (played by Walter Matthau) in the 1993 movie "Grumpy Old Men." But when out of control, Clinton and McCain are not loveable. How would behavior like theirs be treated in your workplace?

Chris Crowley wrote in "Younger Next Year" that men get noticeably grumpier when they reach the last one-third of their lives. We snap at our spouses, blow our horns, and stick our middle fingers up in traffic. Even the most even-tempered of us may suffer a general impatience just below the surface of our outwardly sunny dispositions.

I am about the age of Bill Clinton. Generally optimistic and idealistic, I too have a general impatience just below the surface of my normally calm exterior. The older I get, the less tolerant I am of selfishness, incompetence, political correctness, and the games people play.

Anger is an unpopular emotion because it scares people and can cause tremendous harm. But anger is part of who we are--it cannot be wished away. If we try to banish anger from our psychic system, we drive our aggression underground into the unconscious where anger will find expression in destructive ways. Anger is not the problem. The problem is our incompetence in facing anger within ourselves and others.

A peaceable young man asks a rabbi:

"Are we not to forswear anger and live peacefully with all men?
The rabbi answers, my son, God made anger for a purpose. If he
had not intended for us to use it He would not have put it in our souls.
Only be careful how you spend your anger. There are many things we
should not be angry about. We should save our anger for those things
which demand it."

We have plenty to feel angry about in today’s world: lies told, trust betrayed, innocence violated, reality denied, power abused, and incompetence rewarded. Our anger provides the energy and motivation necessary to bring about change. We desperately need leaders who will stand up, speak up, and take actions that remind us of our own best possibilities.

The grumpy old men on the campaign trail need to develop some self-awareness and fight their crankiness. They are making fools of themselves. They along with the rest of us need to learn to express anger fully, maturely, and courageously. They also need to be role-models and mentors to others, young and old.

VISIONARY LEADERS FACE DANGER

2008-02-01T11:20:00.000-06:00

This commentary appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on Friday February 1, 2008 and The Fargo Forum on February 10, 2008.

PROTECT OUR VISIONARY LEADERS

When I listen to Barack Obama speak, I feel hopeful. Maybe we can renew our nation. Perhaps we can recommit ourselves to the noble values and grand purpose of America. Obama takes me back to the 60’s, and I remember the dangers visionaries like he face willingly.

I was a senior in high school when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. I was finishing college at the University of Minnesota when Martin Luther King was murdered on April 4, 1968 and then Robert Kennedy two months later.

These men transcended politics: they had greatness in their visions, fire in their words, and magic in their personas. So many hopes and dreams flickered when those men died—aspirations never extinguished but their energy dampened.

These tragedies inspired me to become an agent in the United States Secret Service. The image of agent Clint Hill as he bravely and desperately tried to save President Kennedy that dark day in Dallas moved me. Nobility resides in those willing to die to safeguard democracy.

I was trained to protect our leaders.

For half of my first year in the Secret Service, I protected former Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey. I also worked at the White House and traveled around the world in July of 1969 as part of President Richard Nixon’s security detail.

I know two things from these and other experiences in the Secret Service. First, determined women and men protect our leaders. Second, no one can be protected completely. If someone wants to get a shot at a leader, they probably can.

I fear most for our visionary leaders. Those rare people, who rise above politics and have a spiritual nature, offer a vision that calls for a future never seen before. A reality not foreshadowed or predicted by the past.

Such leaders stir strong emotions in their followers: hope, excitement, enthusiasm, and renewed faith in the possibilities of our better selves. These emotions energize and give people courage and everything feels possible.

Such leaders also bring forth powerful feelings in those committed to an earlier and now exhausted vision: fear, envy, anger, jealousy, and resistance to the losses they anticipate. Change does not happen easily. Those invested in the status quo fight hard to hang onto what benefits them. A few kill people.

Many leaders do not survive the movements they begin: Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, King, Kennedy, and recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan. Transformational leaders know the perils. They go forward inspired and given courage by a noble vision, a powerful sense of purpose, and values made strong by tests and temptations.

I feel the best energy of the 60’s when I listen to Barack Obama. He knows our deepest yearnings. His special gifts match our dreams. He gives this weary idealist renewed hope for a better future for our nation and our world. I believe he can lead our country from the precipice of decline.

Mr. Obama faces danger. He and the Secret Service know it. I am sure hundreds of threats have been made against his life and many twisted and dangerous people are being watched and accounted for as he travels.

The agents of the Secret Service will do all they can to protect him and all our leaders. People who attend political events can keep their eyes open too.

So say a prayer for his safety and the well-being of all who inspire us to be better people so our hearts will not be broken and our spirits disillusioned yet again.

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS: WHAT IS TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP?

2008-01-26T08:00:00.000-06:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum newspaper on Sunday, January 27, 2008.

Senator John Kerry said recently:

There are moments when America is ready to move in a different direction. I believe this is one of those moments. Barack Obama has the ability to be a transformational leader.

The theme of this presidential election is change. All the candidates say they are the one to bring forth renewal in America.

Are they, including Senator Obama, transformational leaders?

Our great success as a nation sets us up for decline as is always the case; we are not exempt from the patterns of history. Our problems are many: war, energy, education, health care, global warming, globalization, immigration, social security, an economic downturn, and our international relationships. The thinking that gave us continual progress in the past does not solve our problems today.

Our nation is in dire need of a transformational leader.

To avoid catastrophe Americans must look to new leaders with new energy and new ideas. Not all change is good. The change they lead must be guided by a renewed sense of commitment to our eternal values and core purpose as articulated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Transformation is not about a change in appearances, a reinvention of the status-quo, a repeat of the past, or quick-fixes to difficult problems. Transformation creates something never seen before. Something not foreshadowed or predicted by the past. Transformational leaders bring something new into being.

Such leaders have the ability to connect with the hopes and dreams of people and make them real. They inspire belief in a new idea or vision, they mobilize people around that idea, and they create a movement that takes us places we’ve never been before. They do not buy votes with false promises.

Transformational leaders are: passionate, courageous, single-minded, and have a strong value system—they stand for something, and they tell the truth about what is right and wrong in our society. They can also be ruthless, humorless, and self-absorbed as they fight for difficult change.

Like explorers transformational leaders are courageous in their pursuit of their vision. They are people of action—bold, tough, and with no illusions about threats to our freedom. They are real, complete, and mature people—they ring true. They exude the leadership we want to see in the world.

Transformational leaders embrace inevitable conflict in their fight for justice and fairness. They are willing to make enemies. They do not shun conflict; they confront it, exploit it, and ultimately embody it.

Transformation begins with hope, faith, imagination, and courage not experience in the old ways. Because transformation is from something familiar to something new, transformational leaders often do not have experience in what they advocate.

No first term president has ever been president before. No job prepares a person to be president. Abraham Lincoln served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives. Beware of claims of “vast experience.” Look for wisdom, compassion, and judgment often born in loss and suffering and rooted in diverse life experience.

Who can best lead and guide us through change that is increasingly rapid, complex, turbulent, and unpredictable? Who best can bring forth our vast untapped human potential? Who has the best instincts for navigating chaos?

Most of the candidates are not transformational leaders. Some are reformers: people who want to improve on existing programs and approaches. That is not sufficient today. Others are phonies too eager to win.

What qualities of transformational leadership do you see in the presidential candidates? Which candidates ring true? Whose life experiences fit the times in which we live? Who exudes character? Who can be elected?

Our choice might determine our national fate: glory or decline.

THE PASSING OF THE GREATEST GENERATION

2007-12-22T13:04:00.000-06:00

This commentary was published in The Fargo Forum on December 30, 2007

The death of one man symbolizes the passing of what Tom Brokaw called “The greatest generation.”

The flag-draped coffin of Walter Scheffler of Barnesville rested before us as we walked into the small Lutheran church recently.

Walter was a quiet man with bright eyes and a big smile. Since the death of Violet, his wife of 53 years, in 2002, Walter continued to live on the family farm—active and engaged--until he was 91 years old.

Walter served his country as an army infantryman in World War II from 1941-45. A good soldier, he experienced the horrors of war.

I noticed a blue cord on Walter’s right arm.

The church hushed and the dozen honorary pallbearers marched to the front pews. These veterans—some old, some middle-aged—from wars long ago and far away—represented the grandeur of the human spirit. Their time as a generation comes to an end; their work almost done.

A young man stood tall and spoke from his heart:

World War II was an era when men were defined by their actions. Our brave fathers, husbands, sons, and friends were called to fight in a foreign land against a tyrant that cared nothing for God, His people, or God’s creation.

Grandpa was one of those men. He was one of millions of brave soldiers that the United States called into service. They didn’t ask to be a part of this war, but their country called them and they responded with honor and character. They rallied to the greater good, shed their blood, gave their lives, and defended our freedoms from tyranny.

Grandpa served in a time when the gallant distinction of infantry, and what they bring to a battlefield, was not fully honored. In 1951, the army leadership sought to encourage and recognize foot soldiers that were bravely fighting intense battles in Korea. They soon adopted the Infantry Blue Cord. This cord would only be worn by fully qualified infantrymen and would announce for all to see that these men would be on the front line when our nation was at war.

I had the honor of serving our great nation as one of those honored and distinguished infantrymen. I was awarded the coveted Infantry Blue Cord. I then completed my time in the military burying our honored dead at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, DC.

It is with a heavy heart and great honor that my coveted blue cord is now placed on a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a grandfather in recognition of the service he provided, the man he was, the life he lived, the man that God called him to be, and the man that is now enlisted in the heavenly ranks.

Some wept openly—others silently—at this young man’s fire, idealism, and reverence for the old soldier.

We drove as a pilgrimage to the cemetery in the country. We gathered under the canopy that sheltered the coffin of the humble man we honored. The cold wind blew and snowflakes dotted the gray land and forlorn trees prepared by fall for the sleep of winter.

The young man who spoke so eloquently—a former Army Ranger--folded the American flag--slow and with precision. He stepped forward and pivoted to face Walter’s son Rodney, flanked by sister Beverly and brother Richard. Walter’s seven grandchildren wept openly at the power and deep dignity of the moment.

The proud infantryman whispered: “Rodney, it is truly an honor and a privilege to be able to present this flag to you in recognition of grandpa’s dedicated and faithful service.” He saluted—smart and strong. Rodney, eyes glistening, returned the tribute.

The honor guard of old men stood behind us on the boundary of the cemetery and a corn field. They pointed the muzzles of their rifles over Walter’s casket and fired a 3-volley salute. A trumpeter blew taps.

Walter returned to the earth he loved.

At the end of the movie “Saving Private Ryan” an aged Ryan visited the grave of the soldier played by Tom Hanks, who had saved him. Ryan was an average man who worked, raised a family, and lived an everyday life. He knelt at the grave and said with great emotion to his wife: “Tell me I’m a good man. Tell me I’ve led a good life.”

Daughter Beverly answered Ryan’s questions for Walter: “He provided for us, protected us and cared for us. I’m glad God sent him to be our Dad.”

The same can be said of a generation.

EMOTIONAL ABUSE: I SEE MYSELF

2007-12-02T14:37:00.000-06:00

This commentary was published in The Fargo Forum on Sunday December 2, 2007.

My wife and I spoke about emotional abuse to approximately 85 students at the North Dakota State College of Science recently.

Millions of women (and some men) live with repeated verbal assaults, humiliation, sexual coercion, and other forms of psychological abuse, often accompanied by economic exploitation. I’ve worked in organizations for 40 years as a leader and consultant, and I’ve never been in an organization that didn’t have abuse as part of its dark side.

Yet few of the students had heard the term “emotional abuse.” It remains one of a community’s dirty, dark secrets. The community needs to illuminate its shadows.

We defined emotional abuse as the chronic use of words and acts (including body language) that devalue and frighten another person for the purpose of control. Emotional abusers rule the lives of victims through the power of words and actions and the constant implicit threat of physical assault.

Consummate name-callers, abusers criticize constantly—nothing is ever good enough. They yell, scream, and drive the victim’s friends away to isolate her. They eavesdrop on phone conversations, censor mail, and expect instant responses to pages, cell phone calls, and instant messages. They control with lies, confusion, and contradictions; they make a person feel crazy. One abuser said to a victim: “I had to keep you down. I was afraid you would outshine me.”

Victims of emotional abuse live in fear and repeatedly alter thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to avoid further abuse. They lose themselves. Emotional abuse, like brain washing, systematically wears away at the victim’s self-confidence, sense of self-worth, and trust in their own perceptions. Whether abused by constant berating and belittling, by intimidation, or under the guise of “guidance, teaching, or advice,” the results remain the same: the victim of the abuse loses all sense of self and lives in confusion. The scars of emotional abuse may be far deeper and more lasting than physical wounds.

After our presentation, a man talked to me. He said, “I see myself in the traits of abusers.” What did he see?

Abusers tend to have explosive tempers triggered by minor frustrations and arguments when their egos are threatened,

They are possessive and jealous: “I own you. Where were you? Who were you with? What did you do?”

Abusers tend to think too highly of themselves: arrogant, entitled, superior, and selfish—everything is always about them, and they always come first.

Abusers have a great capacity for self-deception: they play the victim, always have an excuse and deniability for their acts. They blame others for what goes wrong in their lives. They deny and distort their behavior and cannot give an accurate picture of themselves or of their partner.

They manipulate: they lie always, can be charming in public, and can convince others of their innocence--family, friends, judges, and lawyers get fooled by them everyday—you must look at their behavior over time to see their patterns.

Emotional abusers learn their behavior, and the man who could see himself in the traits of the abuser spoke for many men who have learned to abuse their power to control others in brutal ways—at home, at work, and in the community.

The rest of us—too often indifferent—need to stand up for our mothers, daughters, sisters, neighbors, co-workers, and friends who are victims and hold abusers accountable for their behavior; they victimize each of us. We must take sides. Neutrality helps only the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the abuser, never the innocent. Indifference to disrespect is a community’s greatest sin.

Young women must be educated about the dynamics of emotional abuse so they can avoid the suffering abusers inflict. Men must be encouraged to stand up to their peers who abuse others and those men who see themselves in the traits of abusers must be directed to resources that can help them change destructive patterns of behavior with women.

(Heuerman is a former Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and organizational consultant.)

NEW LIGHT AND DARK SHADOWS AT WSI

2007-11-16T18:22:00.000-06:00

In a Fargo Forum commentary on November 1 and Grand Forks Herald on November 4, I wrote about the seizure of a personal journal from the desk of WSI executive Mark Armstrong on the same day that a criminal charge against WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance) Executive Director Sandy Blunt was dropped by the prosecutor.

I asked, “What was the probable cause to seize a personal and private journal?”

On November 15, The Forum obtained the transcript of Special Agent Mike Quinn’s (NDBCI) testimony used to establish probable cause for the warrant.

Quinn testified obtusely that he received copies of journal pages from James Long, WSI’s chief of support services who said he got the “notebook” from Armstrong’s office. Long said the notebook was in the center desk drawer of Armstrong’s desk.

The judge asked Quinn bluntly, “And did this person say that he had gone into someone’s private desk and taken something out and photocopied it?” Quinn responded, “Yes, ma’am.”

Quinn testified that two isolated sentences in the journal, open to interpretations bound only by one’s imagination, justified the warrant: “Got the secret documents out. Lengenfelder (friend of Armstrong) did the deed but ran into Dave Thompson (a reporter with North Dakota Public Radio) in the press room.”

Quinn testified, apparently referring to the two sentences: “…there is a notation in here that Mark Armstrong was involved with removing secret documents from Workforce Safety….” I think that interesting paraphrase of “Got the secret documents out,” which assumed illegal activity, and the prosecutor’s leading questions to a befuddled Quinn to try to establish a conspiracy theory that connected suspicions about earlier missing emails (said not missing by Bob Indvik, chairman of the WSI board) to the “secret documents” entry reflected the prosecution’s pre-existing mindset and wishful thinking, not the context of the entire journal. The journal contains several references to a media campaign to exonerate Blunt. I understood “out” to mean distributed, not taken from WSI, when I read the journal because of those references and the mention of the “press room.”

Mark Armstrong on November 15:

Q. Getting secret documents "out" could mean "out" of WSI or "out" as in "distributed." Which did you mean?
A. This was a joke reference. Sandy Blunt wanted the media to report on this story from his perspective. As a WSI employee I was prevented from discussing his case. So, I could not directly assist him in getting his story out. As a result, my good friend Kris Lengenfelder…agreed to deliver Sandy's documents that he created on his home computer about why the charges against him were bogus to the local media. We joked that he was like "Deep Throat" and the "carrying secret documents"...they were in no way anything created from WSI. When I saw the journal after it was seized and thankfully photo-copied to me by Detective Quinn I knew that reference was going to be misinterpreted. That's why I wanted to call a news conference about it.

Q Why do you think they needed a warrant to get the journal if they already had a copy?
A That a good question. I think because they knew they got it violating company policy and thought it best to get it "legally….”

Q As they had a copy of your journal, why do you think the officer didn't simply come and interview you about the passage in question?
A Good question.

Q Now that Mr. Long admits rifling your desk, what will happen from a disciplinary perspective? A He is not the one who admitted to doing that in our internal investigation, which was completed on Wednesday. Someone else said they did that, Kay Grinsteinner, the Internal Auditor. She said she entered my office without permission, took the journal, photo copied it and gave it to Jim Long.

Q I read the transcript again and it seems clear that Quinn identifies Long as the person who took the journal from your desk? Why the difference between his testimony and the internal report?
A. Good question.

The findings of the WSI report of investigation prepared by Rob Forward, WSI staff attorney say, in part:

“Kay Grinsteinner entered Mark Armstrong’s office without permission on the evening of October 15 or 16, 2007, and searched it for specific items. She found his journal, which she was not searching for, in his desk drawer. She was concerned about its contents so she ran a copy of it and returned the journal to Mark’s desk. Kay gave a copy of the journal to Jim Long. On the day that Kay searched Mark’s office, she went home at the end of her regular work-day and later returned around 7pm with the specific intent of entering Mark’s office when no one was around.”

Grinsteinner admitted the above in a signed summary of her interview with Forward dated November 13, 2007. No concerns on her part justify her actions, which destroyed her credibility as a whistleblower.

Long told Forward he got the journal from Grinsteinner—documented and signed in his summary of interview. That is not what agent Quinn testified to. Did Long lie to Quinn?

I believe four things:

The prosecutors try too hard to get Blunt and damage their credibility.

Some whistleblowers need to have the whistle blown on them; they must be held accountable for their actions.

I don’t want to be one of agent Quinn’s secret informants—exposed for all to see.

If Quinn’s flimsy testimony justified a search warrant, we all better clean out our offices.

PS: Jim Long was placed on administrative leave on November 15, 2007.
Investigator and whistle-blower Todd Flanagan was fired on December 5, 2007
CEO Sandy Blunt was fired on December 6, 2007
A request for services is made for organizational consultants to submit proposals to look
at WSI management, human resources, and claims processes.

AN EMAIL TO NORTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR JOHN HOEVEN'S CHIEF LEGAL COUSEL RYAN BERNSTEIN

2007-11-15T11:34:00.000-06:00

Nov. 14, 2007

Dear Mr. Bernstein:

Now retired, I spent about 40 years as a Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune Newspaper in Minneapolis, and independent organizational consultant who specialized in leadership and transformational change in several markets.

Along the way I completed a Ph.D. in Leadership and Organizational Change. I write extensively about leadership and organizations and have a large and global following of readers. My Pamphlets can be found at my site: http://www.amorenaturalway.com/

I've written four commentaries about WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance) over the past year, based on what I've read in the newspapers. One was published in both The Fargo Forum and The Grand Forks Herald and another in The Grand Forks Herald. All are available at my blog: http://www.viewfromfargo.com/

Below is the most recent, which I sent to WSI, all state senators and representatives, and the regional newspapers. I posted it on my blog (http://www.viewfromfargo.com/) and on my internet site.

Based on what I wrote below, I was really pleased to see the governor's announcement last Friday (Nov. 9, 2007) "to bring in outside consultants for a comprehensive review of the troubled agency's operations...."

Spokesman Don Canton said, "It should include any and all issues, including the claims issue." He added, "The investigation needs to be thorough, it has to be transparent and it has to be inclusive."

Bringing in consultants of national repute was also mentioned--as did I in my last commentary for they will bring the credibility needed.

Since last Friday (November 9, 2007), the focus in the media has been on a consultant to review the claims process and an attorney to deal with the whistleblower issue. I think each of these important.

I imagine reasonable people can disagree about claims philosophy but serious charges have been made that cut to the core of the WSI mission and need to be taken seriously for there to be public trust.

I have concerns, as I wrote in a previous commentary, about the quality of some whistleblower claims. I think the claims and motivations of those seeking protection need to be examined closely and then they need to be protected or fired as is appropriate.

So far so good.

But, if that is all that is done, I suggest that everyone will have missed the primary question and issue and WSI will soon be in trouble again.

A leadership and cultural assessment is needed at WSI to get to the root causes that lead to the above symptoms of distress within the organization.

What in the culture and leadership of WSI (and in the political and legal communities) led the agency to this place of distress?

My experience and organizational data say a leader cannot lead an organization from decline to renewal once credibility and trust are destroyed. Is Mr. Blunt in a position to lead WSI effectively?

It is a given that serious conflict exists in the community and within WSI between employee groups. Can that be healed? A trained, experienced consultant can evaluate that situation and provide methods and facilitation to help mend relationships or tell you which ones cannot be treated.

An experienced consultant can take organizational structure and reporting relationships out of the political realm and make appropriate recommendations based on organizational effectiveness.

I've assessed organizations for about 30 years, quite effectively based on the eventual outcomes. My experience is that the problems on the surface are rarely those that the consultant finds as the true causes of the organizations distress.

Unquestionable new skills, knowledge, and talents are needed to change how the organization is led, how people follow, and how people engage together. An employment attorney and/or a claims review person cannot provide these skills, talents, and knowledge.

Employment attorneys deal with employment law and strategy; claims people examine the process of making a claim and evaluate decision-making. Talented organizational consultants evaluate organizational dynamics, leadership, and culture and provide facilitation, methods, and experience to leaders and followers. Experienced organizational consultants deal with people, leadership, and change.

This organization requires a serious, competent, and complete assessment of its leadership, followership, and culture and then professional help to change as well as help in dealing with whistleblowers and the claims allegations.

You need a team of experts to look into WSI (maybe even more than the three I've listed), guided by a credibly steering committee empowered to make decisions.

The state auditor came up with more than 200 recommendations in last year's audit. But that seemed to be more problem solving; problems that reflected deeper organizational dynamics, which remained unidentified and/or unarticulated--like removing tumors without treating the underlying cancer or putting a new facade on an old building with faulty wiring. In each case, the outside looks good, while the inside continues to rot away.

True transformation requires a fundamental and sustainable change in vision, values, and operating practices, not just making symptoms go away.

In my opinion, 200 recommendations reflect an inability to prioritize issues--no one can deal effectively with 200 issues at one time and new issues are added every day in a rapidly changing world. I can go into any organization and find 200 issues that need work. That is easy.

The challenge is to find a few things to focus on that give the organization tremendous leverage to grow its effectiveness, efficiency, and people.

In the aftermath of that audit, some say that the auditor's office became involved in politics. If that is true, they should be disqualified from this process and from future audits.

I always write and say, "In the end, it is always about leadership." I believe that but I want to be sure in this case that Mr. Blunt is not more a victim than a villain of internal and external political forces before I want to see him replaced. It seems that plenty of villains are involved in this--the biggest mess I’ve ever seen in an organization.

So, my hope is that the group selected does what the initial statement called for: a broad review of any and all issues, including the claims issue by outside consultants of national repute. A review that is thorough, transparent, and inclusive.

And seeks only truth and justice.

WHAT NEXT AT WSI?

2007-11-04T10:07:00.000-06:00

(See the previous blog for more about WSI)

It’s been a difficult year at WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance): negative internal audits and employee surveys, criminal charges later dismissed, employee whistleblowers, and search warrants, plots and conspiracies.

And that is only what we read in the newspapers. I assure you, what you see in the lethargic newspapers is only the tip of the iceberg of the troubles within WSI. This is an organization in serious distress for reasons broad and varied.

Morale is low and productivity suffers. People are too preoccupied with what happened yesterday and anxious about what will happen tomorrow to concentrate on their work today. People take their frustrations out at home, and suffer stress symptoms. Yet, despite the difficulty, many people do good things—for WSI, for workers, for employers, and for one another. Adversity truly is the test of our goodness.

The Gallup organizations reported that 74 percent of American workers are disengaged clock-watchers who cannot wait to go home at night. They sleepwalk through their workday putting time but not energy or passion into their work. Fully 19 percent of employees are actively disengaged—employees aren’t just unhappy at work; they’re busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day these workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.

I wonder what the percentages of disengaged and actively disengaged employees are at WSI.

What to do?

Based on my 40 years experience as a senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, academic (Ph.D. in Leadership and Organizational Change), organizational consultant specializing in leadership and organizational transformation, globally-read writer about leadership and organizations (www.amorenaturalway.com) and Secret Service agent, I suggest:

1. Do not knee-jerk into reorganization as called for by The Fargo Forum in an editorial on October 30, 2007. The calls to return control of WSI to the governor remind me of the quote of Petronius Satyricon in the First Century A.D.:

Beginning to form up into teams, we would be
reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we
tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. . .
and a wonderful method it can be of creating the
illusion of progress while producing inefficiency
and demoralization.

Any changes in structure/reporting relationships should come from expert recommendations for organizational effectiveness, not politics.

2.Understand that all involved bear their share of responsibility for the mess at WSI: employees (past and present), the legislature, the board of directors, the management team, the North Dakota auditor's office, the Burleigh County attorney’s office, and the local media whose lethargic failure to investigate the Burleigh County attorney and to dig deeply into what is happening at WSI explains partially why newspapers are in decline.

3. WSI needs to undergo a brutally honest assessment and soon. This assessment should be done by outside, experienced, and independent consultants who have no “dog in the fight” and who have the courage to tell the truth to the various people in power--consultants who know what they are talking about.

I recommend the Gallup Organization. Gallup has powerful research about how to grow an engaged workforce where “employees work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward.”

State leaders could use the WSI fiasco to elevate not only WSI but the entire state government through Gallup with direct impact on budget, productivity, customer service, and the retention of the best employees. The one-time cost for Gallup would be offset by annual savings and other benefits that far exceed the initial investment.

4. Assessments by professional and detached consultants who are educated, experienced, and knowledgeable and only interested in finding the truth of the organization to help it grow go below the surface and the headlines and provide a broad and deep diagnosis and recommendations for systemic change. Everyone gets their share of critical feedback. Recommendations include replacement of employees, structural changes, developmental needs for all concerned, and reporting relationships.

5. Competent external consultants should replace credibility-challenged state auditors and conduct the follow-up to the 2006 internal audit in 2008. Experienced and unbiased consultants can put issues in context and separate the important from the insignificant and will, in 2008, remove the 2006 audit from politics.

6. Citizens of North Dakota should ask the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court to investigate the conduct of the Burleigh County attorney to determine if professional and ethical standards have been violated in this case (Secretary of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 180, Bismarck, ND 58505-0530).

7. It is easy to scapegoat Sandy Blunt. I suggest people avoid the temptation. I despise bad leadership; I hate the sabotage of decent people even more. I have serious concerns about the actions, ethics, and motivations of many involved in this sad situation and an assessment can sort it all out. I suspect Blunt is as much or more a victim than a bad leader; the assessment can answer whether he can lead WSI through a process of renewal.

I hope North Dakota leaders will do their jobs and will put a process in place that will be fair to all concerned—a process interested only in truth, justice, and renewal of WSI. In the process North Dakota can elevate the state’s management thinking, knowledge, and skills to 21st century levels.

In the meantime leaders at WSI, at all levels, should lead and people who care should speak up.

Postscript: On November 9, 2007, North Dakota Governor John Hoeven urged the WSI board to bring in outside consultants of national repute for a comprehensive review of the agency's operations. "It should include any and all issues...The investigation needs to be thorough, it has to be transparent and it has to be inclusive, said Don Canton, Hoeven's chief spokesman.

WSI AND THE POWER OF THE PROSECUTOR

2007-11-01T09:59:00.000-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on November 1, 2007 and the Grand Forks Herald on November 4, 2007.

See the previous blog for more on WSI.

On April 1, 1940, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson addressed United States Attorneys:

"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations.

What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain."

Bismarck, North Dakota in 2007:

Many things are rotten at WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance) to paraphrase the editorial headline in the October 30, 2007 Fargo Forum. This commentary is about one stinky element of the situation.

Burleigh County State’s Attorney Richard Riha charged WSI Executive Director Sandy Blunt with two counts of misapplication of funds for allegedly misspending WSI funds. The frivolous charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing—an embarrassment for the prosecutor.

Blunt and Special Investigations Director Romi Leingang were also charged with conspiracy to disclose confidential driver’s license photos. The county attorney dropped the charges before arraignment—another embarrassment for the prosecutor.

Are these prosecutions “in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland intimated that WSI attorney Jodi Bjornson withheld information and/or changed her testimony thus the dismissal of the conspiracy charges. Bjornson said she was defamed by Feland. State’s Attorney Riha agreed that Bjornson’s testimony in two depositions was consistent.

“Veiled or unveiled intimations” by prosecutors in public statements abuse prosecutorial power because they damage the reputations of citizens and often hide failings of the prosecutor.

The Bureau of Criminal Investigation executed a search warrant at WSI and seized a journal of WSI executive Mark Armstrong accused of “plotting” the removal of Burleigh County State’s Attorney Riha.

On October 30, 2007, a Fargo Forum editorial scapegoated the journal as “…evidence of the bunker mentality, arrogance, and dysfunction of WSI’s senior management” and “a never-executed conspiracy” and people mentioned in the journal as “conspirators” and “Corruption is not too strong a word to describe the attitudes reflected in Armstrong’s journal….” And “a condescending insult.”

I read the 20-page handwritten journal that recaps events during the three weeks after Blunt and Leingang were charged. The comments about the Burleigh County state’s attorney are a handful of sentences in the journal—certainly not worthy of the extreme, bombastic, and expansive comments in The Forum editorial. The “conspiracy” was small potatoes, I am sure, compared to the strategizing that went on in the Burleigh County attorney’s office as they “plotted” the charges against Blunt and Leingang.

On what basis was a search warrant sought and approved? What was the probable cause to seize a personal journal? This Gestapo-like tactic should concern all citizens.

It is the right and duty of citizens in a democracy to strategize how to lawfully remove officials who abuse their power.

Where is the media? Where is the search for truth and justice? Where are the aggressive questions, investigations, and news reports about the prosecutor’s use of power? Has the county attorney wasted money and the court’s time in bringing charges best handled by the WSI Board and the political process? Has the search warrant become a political tool? Have lives, families, and careers been damaged cruelly and unnecessarily by acts and intimations of the prosecutor’s office?

I wonder what Attorney General Jackson would think.

PS: On November 7, 2007, The Fargo Forum reported that the search warrant affidavit was obtained. In the affidavit in support of the warrant, Special Agent Mike Quinn of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, wrote that he had reason to believe that a "stenographer style spiral bound notebook constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense." Quinn did not elaborate. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Back in my day as a Secret Service agent in Chicago, search warrants required a whole lot more information to justify a search for a personal journal.

PSS: On November 15, 2007 The Fargo Forum obtained and published the affidavit for the search warrant. The affidavit identified one of the whistleblowers as the person who went into Mark Armstrong's (Communications Director at WSI) office, searched his desk, copied the journal, and then gave it to the authorities. The affidavit offered, in my opinion, very flimsy justification for a warrant--the drama continues.

A WEEK OF CHAOS AT WSI

2007-10-27T10:08:00.000-05:00

(See my blog of December 12, 2006 entitled: "It's All About Leadership" that was published in The Fargo Forum on December 12, 2006.)

The chaos at WSI (Workforce Safety & Insurance) during the week of October 22, 2007:

--Conspiracy charges against Executive Director Sandy Blunt and Special Investigations Director Romi Leingang were dropped. They returned to work

--WSI attorney Jodi Bjornson accused the Burleigh County state’s attorney of defamation.

--Four WSI employees requested “whistleblower” protection.

--The North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation seized a personal journal of a WSI employee.

My observations and questions about these events based on my 40 years experience as a Secret Service agent in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and Chicago, Illinois, senior business executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and organizational consultant specializing in leadership and culture change:

1. In April 2007, Blunt was charged with two counts of misapplication of funds for allegedly misspending about $18,000 in WSI funds. Those charges seemed political to me and were rightly dismissed by a judge. It is an embarrassment for the state’s attorney when their case cannot survive a preliminary hearing. Why was this frivolous charge brought?

2. Blunt and Leingang were charged with conspiracy to disclose confidential driver’s license photos. That charge survived a preliminary hearing, to my surprise: I saw an effort to put together a photo array, not to disclose confidential information. Last week this charge was dismissed. Why was it brought? Why was it dropped?

The Fargo Forum quoted Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland: “…WSI witnesses have come forward with candor not previously offered…..” And, “I just wish people would have been candid in the beginning.” As I read, I imagined that someone at WSI had lied.

Bjornson, the person referred to, said she was defamed by Feland. She said her testimony was consistent in two depositions. The Bismarck Tribune quoted Burleigh County State’s Attorney Richard Riha: “It is the state’s position that Ms. Bjornson gave consistent testimony at both her April 17, 2007, and October 15, 2007 depositions.

Does this mean that Feland’s comments were incorrect? Did she try to blame Bjornson for her failure to properly investigate the case?

3. Four WSI employees requested “whistleblower” status to protect them from retaliation by Blunt. Are the requests for protection and new charges of wrongdoing (seemingly petty, frivolous, and late in the process, calling into question the employee’s credibility) an effort to protect the requestors from being accountable for their actions at WSI?

Subordinates often try to sabotage their bosses. If you try to destroy your boss, you best succeed or you will be gone instead. Is it possible that the worst villains at WSI are not Blunt and his followers but others acting from political motives?

Leadership at WSI needs to enforce their code of conduct without fear. People who sabotage leadership should be fired. Whistle-blower protection should go to those truly deserving of such protection. In any case, those employees would be wise to update their resumes. They will never be happy at WSI again.

4. Why would the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation search a WSI executive’s office in search of a personal journal that outlined thoughts about how to remove an elected official from office? The tactics strike me as Gestapo-like. Who called them? Which state’s attorney approved the warrant? What was the justification?

Do not citizens have the right to use lawful means to remove public officials? Is to do so a “plot” or “conspiracy?” I’d consider it a strategy to achieve a political goal.

It is good to remember that chaos always comes to order and it does so quickly. It will do so at WSI. People should avoid hasty decisions and actions; instead, let the dust settle and then assess the reality they have to deal with.

WSI is mean, petty, and the harm done to people will never heal completely. Whatever Blunt’s mistakes, I don’t like how the law has been used in this workplace political intrigue. I hope Blunt succeeds. My experience tells me, however, that WSI will require a major change in leadership (top to bottom) to renew trust and credibility. If so, I hope all those who created this situation will be identified and replaced.

I believe that the biggest concern for citizens is not the soap-opera at WSI but the conduct of the Burleigh County State’s Attorney. I hope someone asks some tough questions. They’ve wasted taxpayers money and the court’s time in bringing inappropriate charges and charges best handled by the WSI Board and the political process, damaged the lives and reputations of Blunt, Bjornson, and others unnecessarily, and acted in ways that call into question their motivations, capability, and stewardship of government power. Voters should ask if the Burleigh County State’s Attorney has served the law and the county well.

A LETTER TO SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

2007-08-30T09:19:00.000-05:00

A letter to Senator Larry Craig of Idaho:

Dear Senator Craig:

I see that you got yourself in yet another humiliating situation in a men’s room. You and I are close to the same age, and by my calculations we have been going into public restrooms without chaperones for at least 50 years.

Your confusion in the men’s room led me to reflect on my “unwritten rules” of conduct for when I am in a public restroom—perhaps they will help you stay out of trouble in the future.

1. Look twice to be sure it is the men’s room you are going into.
2. Be careful of what you touch or sit on.
3. Do not smile or make eye contact.
4. No peeking into closed stalls. If the door is shut, assume that someone is inside.
5. Keep your eyes straight ahead when standing at the urinal—no glances right our left or down. It is okay to look at the ceiling.
6. Only use a stall in the direst of emergencies.
7. No foot-touching with the guy in the next stall—that is poor boundaries.
8. No hand-holding.
9. No foot-tapping.
10. If you get caught with your hand in the wrong stall, say you are reaching for the toilet paper.
11. Do not stand against the sink or you risk wet pants.
12. No reading in the men’s room.
13. Get in and out as fast as you can even if your hands are not dry.

Senator, I think you should get a second chance—to use a public restroom. If you follow these rules, you will not get into trouble.

I saw George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” today (August 29, 2007) and he said words to the effect that your wife is a real heroine for standing beside you. I must differ: your wife is an enabler who should get brave and kick you out of her life just as fast as she can. I know you can’t imagine the pain, humiliation, and embarrassment you have caused her, but I imagine that she feels it every minute of every day.

Your sexuality doesn’t matter to me. What matters is your lack of authenticity and how your denial of who you are continually gets you into trouble.

Your nutty explanations for your behavior and for your guilty plea tell me that you would rather be an idiot than gay or bi-sexual. I’d rather have a senator who is gay or bi-sexual than a bonehead. We already have plenty of nincompoops in Washington.

Show some courage and judgment Mr. Craig—wash your hands of the whole mess, come out of the bathroom, and be the man that you are.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A MALIGNANCY ON THE SOUL OF A COMMUNITY

2007-08-29T07:57:00.000-05:00

My wife and I stopped at the Moorhead Hornbacher’s recently. A tall, muscular young man ran past us in the parking lot. He was outraged and out of control. He screamed profanities at a young woman in a car. He kicked the car’s door, pulled it open, and dragged the terrified woman to the pavement. My wife called 911.

The man got into the car and accelerated, tires squealing, past us. The woman walked away. He circled around and caught up to her, got out of the car, and ordered her to get in and drive away.

The August 23, 2007 Star Tribune reported that at least a half-dozen people witnessed a rape in St. Paul. One tried to help. None of the others intervened or called the police. The lack of intervention in this case is similar to one in Minneapolis 10 years ago when a woman’s face was slashed down to the bone at a bus stop in the bustling Uptown area. No one stopped to help or called the police.

Also on August 23, 2007, Mike McFeely, sports columnist for The Forum, wrote about the uproar about professional football player Michael Vick who pleaded guilty to committing violence against dogs and the outrage about his despicable acts. He also wrote about the lack of outrage about 40 instances of alleged violence against women by professional football players since 2000 (animal abuse and child, spousal, or elder abuse often go together).

Experts believe violent incidents against women are vastly underreported: for every assault where police are called, at least three or four go unreported. Estimates range from 960,000 to three million women annually who are physically abused by an intimate partner. Emotional abuse magnifies these numbers.

Fargo/Moorhead has its proportional share of these statistics: in 2006 the Rape and Abuse Crisis Center served 1561 victims.

The verbal and physical abuse of women (and children) by men is a dark and dirty underbelly of a community. Many of us live in denial. Others are afraid to speak up. Many lawyers enable abusive men in exchange for money. Reputable companies profit from dehumanizing women. Some judges are ignorant of the dynamics of abuse. Some celebrities demonize women. All bear a share of responsibility for domestic violence. Deep down many in our community still blame the victims of domestic violence—maybe because many men see a little of themselves in the abusers.

Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote, “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.”

No man has the right to harm the body or spirit of women and children—never, ever.

Women and children are not responsible for men’s violence—never, ever.

Men, along with women, need to stand up and support their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters against the cowardly monsters in our community. The police, judges, lawyers, teachers, and other good people who collude with this malignancy on our civic soul because they are afraid to stand up to it, feel overwhelmed by the sickness, are confused by the distorted thinking, or fear losing something need to find their courage, enlighten their ignorance, and do their jobs.

Our greatest mistake is to refuse to look this dark behavior in the face—to not confront evil is to enable it and give up our freedom.

I-35W BRIDGE COLLAPSE AND THE CULTURE AT MNDOT

2007-08-15T17:52:00.000-05:00

I was in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007.

I went to dinner with my daughters and their families. We sat down and looked at the television above our table. A news helicopter flew over a fallen bridge. Suddenly my daughter said, “That is Minneapolis.” We realized it was the 35W Bridge. We watched in stunned silence.

I thought of Matt, my stepson. He worked in downtown Minneapolis and sometimes took that bridge home at night. I called him and left a voicemail: “Let us know you are okay.” I felt scared.
I called Melanie, my wife, home in Moorhead. I told her what happened. The next two hours, until she heard from her son, were the worst of her life. She didn’t know if her boy was alive or dead. Finally he called; he was okay. He took another route home, went jogging, and saw the immediate aftermath of the bridge collapse. Ours is one of thousands of stories—how fortunate we felt.

Inspection reports show a bridge known to be at risk for many years.

My friend and colleague Diane Olson, Ph.D. was head of the Employee Assistance program at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (approximately 1999-2000) after being an independent psychologist and consultant for them for years.

Olson hated how the Human Resources Department of MNDOT was led. She told me of a dehumanized and dysfunctional management that abused people routinely. She so wanted the managers to see the impact their actions had on others. Olson, not outwardly emotional, cried as she told stories of how the executives hurt others in passive/aggressive and cowardly ways.

She was humiliated and marginalized as she held up the mirror to the organization. Another psychologist and co-worker said, “They stripped her of her professionalism.”

Shortly before she was hospitalized for aggressive and terminal cancer (August 2000), Diane called me and said, “I feel awful. I don’t know if I am sick or if I am just so depressed at work.” It turned out she was both.

As she lay on her deathbed, she said over and over again, “I am so relieved that I don’t have to go back to MNDOT.” Her professional assessement of the human resources department was also her expert opinion of the MNDOT-wide culture.

In 2003 the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a series of investigative articles about MNDOT that covered many years and reflected Diane’s experiences. The articles described an organization torn between pressures to get roads built and between laws, regulations, and regulators, which slow MNDOT down.

The newspaper discovered laws violated, mismanagement, rules broken, conflicts of interest, and excessive and questionable consultant fees and practices much to the detriment of women, minorities, the disabled, and the taxpayers of Minnesota. Paranoid managers shifted blame, hid their actions, smeared their critics, investigated their opponents, destroyed public documents, manipulated public opinion, and lied to protect themselves.

I know about cultures and how hard they are to change. I wonder if the MNDOT culture changed since 2003. I suspect it has not.

My question for investigators is: “How did the culture at MNDOT impact the inspection and decision-making processes when risks to I-35W were uncovered?

Would an engineer have the courage to call for a bridge shut-down in the MNDOT culture? What drove decisions—money, safety, or politics? What pressures were put on people—their work and their reports? Is telling the truth welcomed at MNDOT? What would have happened to an engineer who called for a bridge shut down?

We need to know the answers to these questions.

THE WINDOWS THEORY OF CRIME

2007-07-05T13:19:00.000-05:00

The June 29, 2007 Fargo Forum had an article about the new focus on combating drug trafficking in Cass County under the leadership of Sheriff Paul Laney.

We are taking drug trafficking enforcement efforts to a new level, explained Laney. This includes restructuring the sheriff’s department’s patrol division, requiring drug interdiction training of officers and ensuring they have the tools to curb drug trafficking. Laney recently applied for a grant to add a narcotics search dog to the department.

“It’s definitely something I feel very strongly about,” Laney said. “And I want to make a difference.”

The sheriff’s actions brought to mind the Windows Theory of Crime described in the book The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell.

Conceived by Criminologists James O. Wilson and George Kelling, this theory puts forth that crime is the natural outcome of disorder. For example: if a window is broken and left unrepaired, people who walk by will conclude that no one cares, that no one is in charge. More windows get broken and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes.

This is an epidemic theory of crime that says crime is contagious--that it can begin with a broken window or experimentation with a new drug from somewhere else—and then spread throughout a community.

Gladwell wrote: “The Tipping Point in this epidemic isn’t a particular kind of person…. The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind of person but from a feature of the environment (a rundown neighborhood or a drug-friendly highway system running through a county). An epidemic can be reversed, can be tipped, by tinkering with the smallest details of the immediate environment.”

New York City tested this theory with stunning results in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
To change this environment, they enforced the smallest violations and changed the context of the community. First New York City transit police began to arrest those who engaged in fare-beating—an estimated 170,000/day didn’t pay for their subway ticket. Police previously ignored this crime because the value of a ticket ($1.25) was small; police felt it was a waste of time. They discovered a high percentage of fare-beaters had outstanding arrest warrants for serious crimes (1 of 7). Five percent carried illegal weapons. Making these arrests proved worthwhile and crime in the subway system went down dramatically.

New York City police then began enforcing minor quality of life crimes: graffiti, squeegee men, public urination, public drunkenness, and minor property damage violations—all went to jail. The serious crime rate fell dramatically and the environment changed.

If our police ignore small acts of drug use and minor violations of the law, if our family law judges ignore violations of court orders and cases of spousal abuse, if schools ignore acts of disrespect and bullying, if business leaders turn away from small ethical transgressions, then people believe that no one cares, that anything goes, and we go down the slippery slope to more serious issues; we have a culture of non-accountability. Conversely the proactive enforcement of laws for small crimes changes the context and environment of the community and we have a culture of accountability.

Sheriff Laney wants to close the window on drugs: “Don’t come through Cass County, because you will be caught. It’s not if but when. We’ll make room in the Cass County jail for drug traffickers.”

I look forward to future reports from Sheriff Laney.

NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS AND INTEGRITY

2007-07-03T09:35:00.000-05:00

Marti Buscaglia, 54, publisher of The Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, Minnesota since 2002, was slated to be the new publisher at the Orange County Register and Tribune in Santa Ana, California.

That is until it came out that she had misrepresented her educational background. Five previous newspaper employers and at least one recruitment firm failed to check out her background.

“Credibility is a hallmark of Freedom and our products,” N. Christian Anderson III, current publisher of the Register and president and CEO of Freedom Orange County Information, said in a news release. “We agreed that this breach would make it impossible for her to fulfill her responsibilities”

Elsewhere in Minnesota, the publisher of The Minneapolis Star Tribune spent last week in court—his credibility under attack. Par Ridder jumped ship from the St. Paul Pioneer Press where he was publisher and went to the larger cross-town arch rival Star Tribune in March of 2007.

Ridder took two senior managers from St. Paul with him to Minneapolis.

The issues in court were:

Are the noncompete agreements Ridder and the other executives signed when at the Pioneer Press still valid? If they are, the three would be prohibited from working at the Star Tribune for one year. And did Ridder break the law when he took computer files with him from St. Paul to the Star Tribune that contained confidential information about Pioneer Press advertisers, finances, and personnel?

Ridder’s testimony, as reported in the Star Tribune, lacked credibility to this former Secret Service agent and former executive at the Star Tribune (I worked at the Star Tribune from 1976-94 and my dad for 42 years before that). To say he took financial reports to show the formatting to executives at the Star Tribune is just not credible. While he denied using the reports for advertising competitive advantage, he did acknowledge using compensation reports to negotiate the salary of one of the managers he hired away from St. Paul.

Mr. Ridder and his colleagues should have gotten their releases in writing from the Pioneer Press.

Mr. Ridder should have cleaned his laptop and had it verified by Pioneer Press people before he went to Minneapolis. Taking it and then saying he did not use it to harm the Pioneer Press or only used it to show the format of reports is just not credible (any publisher spending his time on report formats is not a publisher). The damage to his credibility was done when he took the information.

A leader’s greatest asset is credibility as Orange County’s Anderson said. Leaders are responsible to create visions for growth and adaptation to the environment before an industry or organizations slides into decline. Leaders in the newspaper industry failed to provide this leadership over the past decade and the industry falls into decline and its leaders lose their credibility a bit every day. Mr. Ridder’s ethics further erode his ability to lead.

Star Tribune business columnist Neal St. Anthony said, “Par Ridder has become the local business ethics case of the year.”

When I left the Star Tribune in 1994, Cowles Media CEO, David Cox, told a group that my leadership in the Circulation Department had changed the company forever. That leadership was based on what we called “value-driven leadership.” Nothing is forever and since that time the Star Tribune has slipped into decline. Mr. Ridder’s actions hasten that decline. He should resign just as Ms. Buscaglia withdrew at Orange County.

In the end it is always all about leadership.

PUBLIC EDUCATION NEEDS MORE OF THE UNUSUAL AND UNORTHODOX

2007-06-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

Moorhead School District Superintendent Larry Nybladh is upset that Moorhead City Manager Bruce Messelt--soon to be president of Oak Grove Lutheran School in Fargo--sent an email to parents of Moorhead students asking their input and opinions about the possibility of a Spanish immersion program at Oak Grove that would pick up where the Moorhead program leaves off. Mr. Messelt has two children in the Moorhead program.

Mr. Nybladh was quoted in the June 26, 2007 Forum, “It’s very unorthodox and unusual for any school system to communicate with the parents of another school system."

Mr. Nybladh said the way Mr. Messelt communicated with Moorhead parents is "very troubling, not only to parents but also to the school district" and that parents considered the e-mail communication a breech of ethics.

Mr. Nybladh's comments reflect the paternalistic attitude that is the root of the educational problems in our nation today.

I think it was wise of Mr. Messelt to ask the advice of people whose experience and opinions would benefit other students in the larger community. Mr. Messelt contacted people who are citizens of the broader community as well as parents of Moorhead public school students. The parents are free and responsible adults fully capable of responding or not responding to his request, as they wish. They are not minions of the Moorhead School District nor should their experience be the intellectual property of the Moorhead School District.

It may have been politically correct for Mr. Messelt to inform the Moorhead School District of his plans ahead of time, but he did not need their permission to communicate with other adults in the community.

Calling Mr. Messelt's actions unethical is a cheap shot. Parents who were contacted should be flattered that he valued and asked for their opinions. I wish more leaders did so. What is unethical is the selfish hoarding of experience and knowledge to the detriment of our larger community. Servant leaders give their experience and knowledge freely to others because they recognize that what is good for the large community is good for their small portion of it.

I understand if people felt threatened by Mr. Messelt's email and plans for Oak Grove, however, we need to rise above our selfish emotional reactions to do what is right for the larger community.

The educational system in the United States is a disaster. I encourage Mr. Messelt to embrace the unorthodox and the unusual as he begins his new role. If he does so, people in the entrenched culture of our educational system will resist change and try to teach Mr. Messelt the rules of”how things are done around here."

I hope Mr. Messelt is a force for rewriting the rules of our educational system. I always did my best work as a leader before I knew what the rules were.

Mr. Nybladh owes Mr. Messelt an apology.

THE FARGO FORUM AS ENABLER

2007-05-31T09:30:00.000-05:00

In a May 27, 2007 opinion piece, Eddie Dunn, chancellor of the North Dakota University System, corrected what he described as “serious factual errors” in the May 23, 2007 Fargo Forum editorial about the conflict involving North Dakota State University President Joseph Chapman and himself. Last year Mr. Chapman was involved in conflict and controversy with Chancellor Robert Potts, who eventually resigned.

Mr. Dunn also criticized The Forum’s characterization of this conflict as “no big deal” and a “dust up.”

I found the Forum editorial of May 23 defensive. It explained, minimized, and rationalized Mr. Chapman’s behavior in an apparent effort to support the home town university president at the cost of the documented facts.

I read the original Forum article that described the conflict between Mr. Dunn and Mr. Chapman, and I read the correspondence between them. I was impressed with how Mr. Dunn documented the situation. My reaction was based on 35 years experience investigating and documenting crimes, conflict, and disciplinary situations as a Secret Service agent, business executive, and organizational consultant/executive coach. I would not dismiss the behavior in question as “no big deal.”

The passive-aggressive political behavior of Mr. Chapman and others documented in the Robert Potts affair and now with Mr. Dunn is highly disruptive to trust, relationships, productivity, and ultimately to the organization’s bottom line whether financial or the education of university students. Such behavior is not unique to Mr. Chapman or the university system—it is commonplace in many organizations.

The antidote to passive-aggressive behavior is simple to state and difficult to do: leaders must model the behavior they want to see in followers and create the conditions where people can learn and practice being straightforward as Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Chapman to do. Leaders must also hold people accountable as Mr. Dunn did.

Psychologist Carol Pearson wrote that people thrive in organizations where integrity and appropriate assertiveness are expected and rewarded. And people need to be cared about enough that they will not be allowed to get away with being dishonest, manipulative, irresponsible, or passive-aggressive.

Talented employees stay in such organizations, relationships and creativity thrive, and time and energy are spent furthering the vision of the institution instead of expending tremendous amounts of time and energy maneuvering and protecting oneself from political games.

In many editorials during the Robert Potts saga, The Forum defended Mr. Chapman without criticism and blamed Mr. Potts for the problems. If one reads the correspondence between Dunn and Chapman, The Forum’s unqualified support of Mr. Chapman in the recent situation is not credible and raises questions about The Forum’s support of Mr. Chapman in the Robert Potts situation.

People have different opinions—that is what an opinion page is for. But when a newspaper’s opinion slides from opinion to blind support of the home town favorite, it loses credibility as an opinion people will respect.

When The Fargo Forum becomes an enabler to destructive behavior, it does not serve the community well. Nor does it help Mr. Chapman develop as a leader. I hope The Forum’s editorial board will review and reflect on their editorials about Mr. Chapman’s behavior in the Robert Potts and Eddie Dunn situations and ask themselves if their opinions are supported by the facts of each situation.

By all accounts Joseph Chapman is a fine leader. Like all leaders he has his blind spots. I hope he will examine his behavior and find new ways to interact with his boss and peers—ways that grow trust, relationships, and productivity.

HERE WE GO AGAIN IN NORTH DAKOTA HIGHER EDUCATION

2007-05-22T11:51:00.000-05:00

Poor Joe Chapman, president of North Dakota State University.

He just can’t get along with anyone—especially his bosses—and it’s not his fault.

In a July 27, 2006 commentary entitled, HIGHER-ED FOLLIES: Passive-aggressive tactics win out in N.D. higher ed published in the Grand Forks Herald, I documented the passive/aggressive (the expression of anger and aggression in passive ways to frustrate the wishes of others—often bosses) of Chapman and others as they colluded to undermine the leadership of Chancellor Robert Potts.

Chapman and his allies succeeded, and Potts resigned (He is now the chancellor of the Jonesboro campus of Arkansas State University, which has an enrollment of approximately 11,000 students).

In this years legislative session Mr. Chapman differed with Potts replacement, Eddie Dunn, over legislative issues. The issues are less important than how Chapman handled them.

Dunn wrote in a letter to Chapman dated March 20, 2007:

1. Chapman breached Dunn’s faith and trust by repeating to the State Board of Higher Education president comments made by Dunn and others in a Chancellor’s Cabinet meeting where there is an expectation of confidentiality,

2. Chapman misrepresented statements made by Dunn and Pat Seaworth (General Counsel to the State Board of Higher Education) to the board president causing considerable stress for those involved,

3. Chapman conveyed to the board president that one of the college presidents said the “board is passive” and that Mr. Dunn agreed with that statement. Mr. Dunn denied agreement with that statement and, as in each of the above situations, asked Mr. Chapman to speak to him directly if he had issues.

4. Mr. Chapman says he reports to the board and not to the chancellor—the root of his problem with Robert Potts and now Eddie Dunn. Mr. Dunn pointed out to Mr. Chapman that he reports to the Chancellor and that Mr. Chapman’s conduct has harmed the trust, respect, and credibility of the State Board of Higher Education.

Mr. Chapman deflected Mr. Dunn’s concerns.

Chapman feared he might be fired over the disagreement, hired an attorney, and asked Dunn to excuse himself from writing a performance evaluation because Dunn demonstrated a personal bias against him. Poor Joe Chapman.

Managers administer tens of millions of performance appraisals in the United States annually. A significant percentage involves people who don’t like each other and most contain some elements of criticism.

Mr. Chapman, here’s the point: performance appraisals exist so bosses can give subordinates feedback—critical and positive. The ordinary people who work for NDSU don’t get to have their boss step aside because the boss might criticize them—neither do you. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous.

Mr. Dunn reviewed Mr. Chapman’s performance via telephone on May 17, 2007. Mr. Chapman didn’t get fired. His spokesperson says Chapman believes the “matter is closed.”

I’ve read the letters and other documents in this matter. I congratulate Chancellor Dunn and Mr. Seaworth for their direct handling of this issue. It is clear that they kept the lines of communication open with the appropriate parties and learned something from the Robert Potts fiasco.

Joe Chapman has not learned. His immature behavior in the Robert Potts situation was repeated in this situation and will likely be repeated again in the future to the detriment of higher education in North Dakota. Any future attempts to undermine others by Mr. Chapman should be dealt with directly with progressive discipline.

President Chapman cannot be trusted and should resign. Perhaps Robert Potts could be persuaded to return and lead NDSU.

DON IMUS--DIRTY AND RACIST

2007-04-12T17:05:00.000-05:00

Bob Herbert wrote in the April 12, 2007 New York Times: In a “60 Minutes” interview with Don Imus broadcast in July 1998, Mike Wallace said of the “Imus in the Morning” program, “It’s dirty and sometimes racist.

Imus recently referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as, “nappy-headed ho’s.” I have two beautiful bi-racial grandchildren. I am saddened by Mr. Imus’ remarks. How would my spirited and joyful granddaughter, Saige, feel if she were referred to in those terms? How would my special grandson, Stephon, feel to hear Saige called a “nappy-headed ho?”

I was an executive at the Minneapolis Star Tribune for many years. One day a young black woman came to see me. Lisa was a proud and assertive woman. She was angry. She told me that she had an argument with a white woman in another department. The other woman called Lisa a bitch. Lisa told her boss, and he and a man from Human Resources investigated and handled the situation. Lisa did not know what happened but she did not feel that she was heard and understood. She felt that the white men had tried to pacify her. “How would they know how this feels to me,” she asked.

Lisa explained that in our society white men have the most status and power followed by white women, black men, and finally black women. Because of this perception of low power and low status, to be called a bitch is the ultimate insult to a black woman. “A person could get killed on the street for calling a black woman by that name,” Lisa said. She wanted the white employee to understand how she felt and why she felt so strongly about what had happened. In an instant, I realized how little I knew of Lisa’s world.

I learned many things from these experiences. I better understood the pain of anyone in an organization who is different from the majority or different from those in power. I learned that in a crisis the bureaucracy cares more about protecting the organization than about the people. I realized that the white man’s views are institutionalized in the cultures and systems of organizations and institutions. The white male’s world view prevails, and white men are mostly oblivious to this fact—it is just normal to them. I realized how very, very little we understand about diversity in organizations.

I feel proud of the articulate and intelligent women of the Rutgers basketball team for the dignity they displayed. Bravo to the employees--especially women--at NBC and MSNBC who made powerful statements about how black women are devalued in this country, just like Lisa at the Star Tribune, and forced Imus’ show off of cable television and finally got him fired.

I don’t think of Mr. Imus as a “bad” man. I think of him as an ignorant and arrogant caricature of a fool—like so many other blabbering mouths on talk radio.

The media needs to increase its efforts to put a human face on the world of callous talk-radio garbage-talkers. Each of us needs to bear witness when cowardly bullies hurt others: at home, at work, and in the community.

I hope Mr. Imus uses this experience as the springboard to his growth as an empathetic human being. Each of us should examine our own attitudes and behaviors.

LEADERSHIP BARNESVILLE

2007-03-29T11:56:00.000-05:00

I recently talked to the graduates of “Leadership Barnesville,” a leadership program that prepares leaders to be effective and progressive civic leaders.

Some of my comments:

Anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Wheatley defined a leader as “anyone who wants to help.”

Gandhi said: "if you want to change the world, be the change that you want to see in the world."

You are doing these things: you are a group of committed people who want to help and want to make your community even better than it is. Your leadership program prepares you to be effective, progressive civic leaders by developing your leadership skills and broadening your community awareness.

A few suggestions for your journey to leadership:

Know who you are. Why are you here? What is your purpose in life? Where are you going? What is your vision for your life? What values will guide you along the way as you move toward your vision as you fulfill your purpose?

Develop your talents—not your weaknesses. What are your God-given gifts? What do you love to do? What are you doing when time flies for you? What do you learn easily? The answers to these questions are clues to your talents. Develop them by gaining new knowledge and new skills. Highly actualized people develop their talents. They do not waste a lot of time trying to get good at what they are bad at.

Take time to think; no one will give you that time. In fact, many prefer that you not think for yourself. Demand that time for yourself. Do not mindlessly allow the organization or institution to replace the parents of your childhood—become independent and become your own person in your adulthood. Outstanding people take time to think.

Stay connected to your humanity—nothing is more important to our collective community. We live in a time of great and constantly accelerating change that threatens what makes us human. Don’t allow yourself to lose your humanity: stay in touch with your spirit and emotions, know your impact on others, develop your empathy and your compassion for others, for the endangered natural world, and for yourself.

Great leaders take bold actions. You will make mistakes, I promise you. Face them head-on. You’ll have failures and disappointments as all of us do. When you make a leadership mistake: admit it, apologize, fix what needs to be fixed, and move on. People will respect you for it.

Get comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and change for they will be with you throughout your life. Resist simplistic black and white answers to life’s complexity and mystery—the more you do the more successful you will be. I once told a consultant when I was in the middle of a leadership challenge, “I’ve grown comfortable feeling scared and inadequate much of the time.” You need to gain that same comfort with being uncomfortable.

Finally, live creative and create with love. Only work for organizations that expand human potential, and be who you are—life demands nothing more and nothing less of you.

Robert Greenleaf, author of “Servant Leadership” wrote that caring is the essential motive of leadership. Caring, Greenleaf wrote, is an exacting and demanding business. It requires not only interest and compassion and concern; it demands self-sacrifice and wisdom and tough-mindedness and discipline—just as you have shown in your leadership program.

If you always care, including taking care of yourselves, I predict that Barnesville will be just fine in 20 years and will be a better community because of you—and that will be a grand legacy for each of you.

Your time as community leaders will go fast so follow your heart and spend time doing what you love to do with people who bring out the best in you.

My wish for you is that you choose values, authenticity, and personal responsibility. I wish for you grand visions of the future you want to create and noble goals and the courage to be great.

A NEWSPAPER RENEWS ITS PURPOSE

2007-03-21T10:06:00.000-05:00

In the March 18, 2007 “From The Editor” column, The Forum’s Matthew Von Pinnon placed the blame squarely on the media for the lack of aggressive questions, investigations, and news reports on the war in Iraq.

This is a stunning and honest admission. The media has colluded with people in power, enabled them, and allowed themselves to be manipulated to serve the purposes of politicians, bureaucrats, and insular institutions interested only in their own agendas to the detriment of all others. And the media has failed us in all areas of our shared lives—not just the war in Iraq.

Newspapers are in decline. While the reasons for the decline of newspapers are complex, the loss of its fundamental purpose—its soul—is primary: In its desire to be all things to all people for profitability, American journalism abdicated its noble purpose: to uncover and report the truth, on issues large and small, to the American people.

Mr. Von Pinnon wrote: “We’re not going to follow the pack any longer. We’re going to aggressively find the war stories shaping this region and our people.” In other words, we will rededicate ourselves to our fundamental sense of purpose—a necessary first step on the road to restoring the daily newspaper as our primary source of in-depth investigation, analysis, and reporting. I hope the corporate bean-counters will allow him to fulfill this purpose.

We live in difficult times. Some would say we live in a time of darkness—a time of insanity. Psychologist Val Farmer wrote in The Forum on March 16, 2007: “Despite all this new knowledge, the world is becoming more aimless and antisocial.”

Ernest Becker wrote: “If everybody lives roughly the same lies about the same things, there is no one to call them liars. They jointly establish their own sanity and call themselves normal” When it treats truth and lies the same, the media joined in the dysfunction of the times and became part of it. Their neutrality helps only the perpetrators of lies, never the victims of lies.

Our civilization faces grave challenges. The torment and tragedies of celebrities like Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith serve as dark entertainment for millions and divert us from more serious issues that beg our attention. Great leaders seem harder and harder to find at all levels. Arrogant incompetence seems a pattern in leadership from top to bottom. “It’s all about me” is the norm for many. Many professionals and many of our institutions—far away and close to home—are arrogant, mediocre, and travel down slippery slopes of unethical behavior.

As good people struggle and find it harder and harder to do good work and to do the right thing, has it ever been more important to our community for newspapers and the media in general to again become bold truth tellers?

Our nation and all of our institutions cry for renewal. Many seem clueless of their slide away from their values. Without consciousness there can be no values and newspapers can illuminate our values for us to compare our behavior to. Newspapers can lead the way and provoke change in others.

Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about newspapers: “We should underrate their importance if we thought they just guaranteed liberty; they maintain civilization.”

I say “bravo” to Mr. Von Pinnon and encourage him to extend this commitment beyond the war in Iraq to the actions of all institutions: law, family, religion, industry, education, and government with emphasis on local and regional skepticism, questioning, and reporting. We need the truth whether we like it or not.

JUDGE BORGEN VINDICATED

2007-02-28T17:07:00.000-06:00

Former Clay County prosecutor, Lisa Borgen, was appointed last year to a 7th Judicial District judgeship. Last fall (2006) the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction (2004) of Troy Demetrius Mayhorn. The Court sated that Borgen displayed misconduct while she cross-examined Mayhorn, specifically citing her comment, “You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in the face.”

The Minnesota Office of Lawyer Professional Responsibility, an arm of the State Supreme Court, upon its own initiative, opened an investigation into Judge Borgen’s conduct in the Mayhorn case.

Judge Borgen received support by county attorneys and law enforcement representatives from across the state. Ms. Borgen’s legal bills were paid by Clay County and they will total more than $20,000.

This week after five months (the goal to complete an investigation is 90 days), the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility released its report with the conclusion that “discipline is not warranted.”

I am happy to see this outcome. I don’t know Judge Borgen. I do have a favorable impression of her as a hard-working and no nonsense prosecutor and now judge who is tough with criminals and abusers.

A couple of thoughts:

The Minnesota Supreme Court is stuck in its ivory tower. A jury is going to be convinced by the evidence--not by an attorney’s rhetoric in closing arguments. I assume the prosecutor considers a defendant who goes to trial to be a liar—otherwise they wouldn’t prosecute the case. If accusing a defendant in a murder case of being a liar is unethical, then the justices should spend some time in family court and see what lawyers say and write about good citizens every day.

What was the motivation of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in opening a case? Why did it take five months to complete its investigation—a seemingly simple investigation. I have to wonder about their judgment and motivation.

I once filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. I questioned the ethics and professionalism of an attorney. They wrote back and asked me to send more information, which I did. I sent all the legal documents I had including motions, affidavits, a judge’s ruling, and attorney arguments. The facts surrounding my issues were mostly clear-cut. To my surprise the opened an investigation (they dismiss 90% of all complaints).

After more than 90 days they wrote back with the same language: “discipline is not warranted.” I was okay with the outcome as I had expressed my concerns; it was the investigative report that I had issues with. After 30 years as a Secret Service Agent, business executive with heavy involvement in labor relations and the courts, and a consultant who conducted investigations, I was appalled by the quality of the investigative report: factual inaccuracies, a serious misquote of my complaint, a failure to even address seven of the eight issues I raised, and more. I did not appeal the decision, but I did write a long letter to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility complaining of their work. No one wrote back.

A legal professional, upon hearing of my experience said, “That is how they all are (lawyers)—shoddy and sloppy—it is all about billable hours.” I consider the legal system to be highly dysfunctional. I think people from outside the legal system should investigate lawyers—people with clear heads whose feet are on the ground. Using people from outside the profession to investigate lawyers might help confront the denial in what one local professional in a position to know referred to as a ‘broken system.”

A CHOICE FOR THE STATUS-QUO

2007-02-26T18:14:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to Bill Goetz on his selection as chancellor of the North Dakota university system (See July 24, 2006 commentary “Sabotage the Leader” and the August 1, 2006 commentary, “Interim Means Caretaker.”)

A few reflections:

Mr. Goetz is the “status-quo” selection—predictable after the Robert Potts fiasco when the State Board of Higher Education demonstrated that it did not want change or a strong leader. Mr. Goetz is probably a fine choice if North Dakota wants the university system to be maintained with only incremental and non-threatening changes rather than new ideas to transform North Dakota’s higher education system to meet the needs of the 21st century—that’s assuming North Dakota higher education needs to be transformed. Perhaps it is, unlike most organizations and institutions today, just fine as it is.

North Dakota higher education remains (like so much else in North Dakota) a “good old boys/girls club” led tacitly by Joseph Chapman, president of North Dakota State University. The next chancellor will be someone just like them—someone who will not upset things.

It was unimaginable to me that the State Board of Higher Education would select a black outsider (the other candidate: Paul Keys, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Governors State University, University Park, Ill.) with international experience (when state leaders do not know who Bono is) to lead the university system of 11 colleges and universities. That would be far outside their comfort zone.

Besides how many great leaders from the outside would want to come to North Dakota after the Potts fiasco?

Some criticized Goetz’s lack of a Ph.D. That is ridiculous; Mr. Goetz has an impressive resume. If he has learned from his experiences as a leader, he has the equivalent of more than one Ph.D. If, on the other hand, he has had one year of experience repeated 40 times, then a Ph.D. would not help him. I suspect he will be a more than competent status-quo executive who will do nothing to disturb the insular system as his boring incremental improvement “Goetz’s plans” in the February 24, 2007 Fargo Forum promised—a plan that lacks energy, ambition, and inspiration.

The North Dakota University System paid a consultant $96,000 to conduct a national search for the chancellor position and for presidents of Mayville State University and North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton. In each case local talent was hired.

Chancellor Eddie Dunn said, “It’s good to know they won it in a national search. It wasn’t just handed to them because they were in the state and inherited it.” Meaning no disrespect to those selected, I find it hard to believe that at least one better candidate could not be found after an almost $100,000 national search. Perhaps the results reflect the fear that new people with new ideas, different experience, and a view of the world different than that of clubby North Dakota would threaten the entrenched culture. The consultant creates the image of a sincere national search and covers an “inside job.”

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

It's All About Leadership

2006-12-12T10:19:00.000-06:00

The Fargo Forum Newspaper reported that WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance) will hire consultants to help identify and fix staff morale problems identified in employee surveys and an audit. Fully 50% of employees believe there is favoritism at WSI and fear retaliation if they tell the truth about issues. Only 6% of employees agreed with the statement: “leaders and managers practice what they preach.”

Sandy Blunt, who took over WSI in mid 2004, stated: “I take absolute responsibility because that is what a leader does.” Blunt said consultants are needed to fix morale problems because “morale is more than just being nice.”

As a consultant who will not submit a proposal to “fix” WSI’s morale problems, I will offer some thoughts based on 18 years experience as a senior leader at the Star Tribune newspaper and a leadership and change consultant in three markets over the past 13 years:

I am not surprised at the percentage at WSI who fear retaliation. I’ve never seen an organization where fear of retaliation wasn’t high. The first rule of organizations is conformity, and those who don’t conform are generally punished.

The Gallup Organization reported that 74% of American workers are disengaged clockwatchers who cannot wait to go home at night. Fully 19% of them are actively disengaged meaning that they do less work, are less productive, and miss more time at work at an estimated cost of $300 billion a year. WSI appears to have their share of disengaged employees.

This massive disengagement is symptomatic of organizations in decline. We experience that decline as stress, pettiness, power struggles for control, cynicism, and higher turnover.
This disengagement is a leadership failure. Effective leaders can change this but it is difficult work.

Leaders are not in the happiness business. It is the job of leaders to imagine a better future for the organization and create conditions where employees can choose to be engaged at work. It is the job of supervisors and managers to respectfully and effectively utilize the talents of employees in ways aligned with the vision and/or mission of the organization.

I’ve seen the disengaged of organizations come back to life when they are well led. Leaders have tremendous impact on people and often lack empathy for their effect on others. Mr. Blunt and his staff need to take a long and hard look in the mirror.

Consultants cannot “fix” the problems at WSI. A consultant can provide support, knowledge, experience, methodology, and facilitation. They cannot lead. The hard work of leadership, change management, and renewal of the organization must be done by competent leaders and managers within the organization. That is what leaders do.

Most efforts to change cultures fail—70% to 90%. To evolve sustainable culture change requires courageous, committed, and highly skilled leaders throughout the organization. The leader’s greatest asset is his/her credibility.

If change hasn’t happened in the 2 ½ years of Mr. Blunt’s leadership and if his credibility is damaged, then it will be almost impossible for him to lead change from a position of decline.

If Mr. Blunt stays, he must put all his time and energy into renewing WSI and he needs immediate (not months from now) help in doing so. If, in 3 to 6 months, change cannot be felt and seen, then new leadership is required. While it can take years for a complete culture change, positive and energized leadership can bring about short-term change that shows progress is being made.

In the end, it’s all about leadership.

POSTSCRIPT: Mr. Blunt telephoned me a few days after this commentary was published in The Fargo Forum newspaper. We had a great conversation about leadership. Later I had lunch with him in Bismarck, ND and we again had an energized conversation about leadership.

On April 18, 2007 Mr. Blunt was charged with three felonies: two counts of felony misapplication of entrusted property and one count of conspiring to disclose confidential information. Mr. Blunt is on paid leave while the charges are pending. He will plead not guilty and his board stands behind him. Is this lawbreaking or politics?

ABUSE: AN ISSUE FOR MEN

2006-11-18T08:01:00.000-06:00

October was domestic violence awareness month.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 5.3 million incidents of intimate partner violence occur each year in the United States. You can witness, as filmed, domestic violence live, at 20/20 at www.abcnews.com and search for the October 27, 2006 video entitled “Abuse Behind Closed Doors.” I promise: it will sicken you.

Fargo/Moorhead has its proportional share of this abuse and violence.

I completed a 48 hour training program for volunteers at the Fargo-Moorhead Rape and Abuse crisis center recently. Volunteers serve as advocates who take crisis calls during off hours, court watchers who track cases in the legal system, and public speakers.

The training sessions were emotionally difficult. Speakers taught us about incest; stalking; cyber-sex; date rape; pedophilia; emotional, physical, and sexual abuse; and the difficulties victims face personally, within families, and in the legal system. At times I felt ashamed to be a man.

I asked a counselor what one thing she would change in the make-up of the abusers if she could. She answered, “Empathy.” None of the abusers can feel for themselves what they do to others.

I see two challenges:

Hold abusers accountable.

I call on policemen, lawyers, and judges to learn about abuse and the dynamics of abusive men. Ignorant people in authority bear some measure of responsibility for the bad things that happen to women and children. Some of you are arrogant and think you don’t need to learn. Trust me, you do need to learn. I was a Secret Service agent, a senior business executive, and an organizational consultant. I needed to learn. So do you. The Rape and Abuse Crisis Center will be happy to help you.

Lundy Bancroft’s books: “Why Does He Do That” and “The Batterer as Parent” should be required reading for every attorney and judge who work in family law.

Our greatest mistake is to refuse to look abuse in the face; to not confront abuse is to cooperate with it.

Raise boys differently.

Joe Ehrmann, former NFL star and author of “Season of Life” wrote that our definition of masculinity and manhood must change before we can address other societal issues to make America a more just and fair society.

Ehrmann:

"Masculinity… ought to be defined in terms of relationships. If you look over your life at the end of it…life wouldn’t be measured in terms of success based on what you’ve acquired or achieved or what you own. The only thing that’s really going to matter is the relationships that you had. It’s gonna come down to this: What kind of father were you? What kind of husband were you? What kind of coach or teammate were you? What kind of son were you? What kind of brother were you? What kind of friend were you? Success comes in terms of relationships.

And I think of the second criterion—the only other criterion for masculinity—is that all of us ought to have some kind of cause, some kind of purpose in our lives that’s bigger than our own individual hopes, dreams, wants, and desires. At the end of our life, we ought to be able to look back over it from our deathbed and know that somehow the world was a better place because we lived, we loved, we were other-centered, other-focused."

We can also teach young girls to speak up about men’s violence. If we do these things, then we won’t have abusers who victimize others in this world.

The Wisdom Is In the System

2006-11-08T16:49:00.000-06:00

I do not listen to conservative talk radio, but I felt compelled to tune in to Scott Hennen and Sean Hannity today (November 8, 2006) on WDAY radio to hear their post-mortems on yesterday’s election results. They struggled mightily to be gracious losers, but they seem constitutionally unable to hide their venom, and they whined as fast as they could talk.

Their defenses were high: blame, projection, minimization, rationalization, and explanation ad nauseam. They couldn’t expunge their angst fast enough in their frenetic efforts to make themselves and their faithful feel better.

On the surface the election results appeared to reflect the outrage of Americans with the war in Iraq. If we look deeper, the Democrats takeover of the House of Representatives and possible majority in the Senate, followed by the hasty firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are about President Bush’s failure of leadership. Success or disappointment is always about leadership.

President Bush had the complete support of the American people and of the global community after 9/11. The war with Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Energy was high. The failure of leadership was the decision to invade Iraq—the wrong war, for the wrong reasons, done the wrong way--a fundamental misjudgment driven by the grandiose vision of neoconservatives for the Middle East, the unfulfilled past agendas of Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and President Bush’s understandable desire to strike out against an enemy he could see.

Fighting the wrong war depleted our energy and treasure, divided our people, and alienated our friends. We became bogged down fast--hastened by the incompetent arrogance that permeates the Bush administration. Corruption (much, I believe, yet to be exposed) and a stubborn and rigid determination to force reality to bend to their will followed naturally. We sit in quagmire unable to see options other than to fight against reality or to leave.

Had Mr. Bush focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden and renewing the Afghan nation, who knows what successes those choices would have led to and what yesterday’s results would have been?

The silver-lining in yesterday’s humiliations for Republicans, as Mr. Hannity stated, is that they have two years to renew their party with a new vision for the future, a dusting off of their values, and a long, hard look in the mirror.

The Democrats got what they wished for—a voice at the table and power. Now instead of being rebels against President Bush, they have to lead or the same thing will happen to them in 2008. To renew the Republican Party and for Democrats to provide leadership, we need creative leadership in both parties. The rock-star reactions to Illinois Senator Barack Obama express our national hunger for leadership.

We have a vacumn of leadership in the United States. President Bush lacked the talent, skills, and knowledge to lead us in this chaotic world. If he was fit to be President, he was fit for an earlier time. The American people neutralized him yesterday. They did the right thing. The leaders we yearn for will emerge and they won’t be who we think they will be today.

Fasten your seat belts; the ride will be fast, furious, and fascinating the next two years.

Stand Up to People With Power

2006-11-02T11:04:00.000-06:00

George Ellis was the sports information director at North Dakota State University in Fargo, North Dakota for 30 years. The school was moving from a lower athletic division to Division 1 status--big time competition. They decided that Mr. Ellis wasn't the person they wanted for the role of sports information director and fired him, citing poor job performance. Mr. Ellis sued for age discrimination and this week won his suit against the powerful North Dakota institution.

I am appalled at what athletic department executives did to Mr. Ellis. You simply do not fire an employee of 30 years unless that employee did something incredibly egregious, which Mr. Ellis did not do.

I’ve spent the past 30 years as a Secret Service Agent, an executive at the Star Tribune Newspaper, a Ph.D. student of leadership, and, for the past 13 years, a consultant to leaders. I am a prolific writer about leadership and will talk about leadership to anyone who will listen at any time. In my career I put people in prison, fired many people, and feel most organizations are in dire need of greater accountability; however, I believe that what they did to Mr. Ellis was wrong.

The corporate and institutional worlds are filled with George Ellis’s: the ordinary and everyday people who invest their lives in their schools or companies only to be tossed aside by men and women hungry for fame, money, victory, and the next step up the occupational ladder. I’ve felt the anguish of men and women whose careers were ended and their life’s work marginalized by “leaders” who lack empathy for other human beings. I only wish the leaders of the North Dakota State Athletic Department who testified in this case could feel for themselves 10% of the pain, anxiety, and disillusionment that Mr. Ellis and his family must have felt.

Who will be held accountable at NDSU? Why didn’t they offer Mr. Ellis a decent early retirement or another position until he retired out of respect for his age and 30 years of service and avoid looking like big bullies? Athletic Director Gene Taylor’s testimony was deemed “not credible” by the judge. Did he lie under oath? Women’s Athletic Director Lynn Dorn made comments about Ellis being too old to do the job if NDSU went to Division 1, which, the judge wrote, showed evidence of age discrimination. Her incredibly poor judgment in saying what she said cost NDSU hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. Her mistake was immeasurably larger than anything they fired Mr. Ellis for.

NDSU says it will appeal this case. I urge NDSU to pay the settlement and move on. You have lost me as a ticket-buying fan, and I am sure you have lost others. Don’t make a bad situation worse for yourselves. The leaders of the athletic department who appear to be so full of themselves should remember that while they may think of themselves as ‘big fish,” they are still swimming in a tiny pond. Some humility is in order.

Congratulations to Mr. Ellis. It took courage for him to stand up to a large and powerful institution. His victory gives hope and inspiration to victims throughout our society and community who are abused by those with power.

STAY HOME ANDY ROONEY

2006-10-30T08:59:00.000-06:00

Commentator Andy Rooney concluded “60 Minutes” on Sunday, October 29, 2006 with a commentary on the names of towns and places across America. He concluded with the statement, “I only like to go to cities I’ve been to before so I’ll probably never get to Fargo, North Dakota.

I spent 2001 living on the side of a mountain between Ouray and Ridgway, Colorado. Prior to that I lived in Minneapolis, Minnesota for most of my adult life with a two-year stint in Chicago. The time in Colorado fulfilled a dream and when it was finished, I packed up my jeep and trailer and headed East. I decided I would stay in Fargo for a while as I had no where I had to be.

Initially I had the typical stereotype of Fargo: the end of the world, nothing to do, cold and lonely, and the people talk funny. I didn't know if I would like it here. It turned out that I love it here: the air is clean, the sunsets big, crime is minimal, the people nice, and a traffic jam means it takes you five minutes longer to get to your destination. I have cable television and high speed internet. I saw Springsteen here and hope the Fargo Dome will get another concert one of these days. I work as a consultant and some of the best leaders I've ever met are in Fargo. I am a day from Yellowstone and just east of me is Minnesota lakes country. I also rediscovered Northern League baseball from my youth and am a big fan of the Fargo/Moorhead Red Hawks; they are winners. In a time of voluntary simplicity, I cannot ask for more.

I've now been here for four years. The first blindness of romance has worn off, and I've seen some of the dark side of Fargo: the Scandinavians are tight with a dollar, can be hard to get a reaction from, and they really make a big deal of high school graduations in this part of the world. Graduation gives everyone an excuse to fix up the house periodically as the kids grow up. When one of your kids graduates, you plan on eating the left-over shredded pork for many months.

After being in Fargo for a while I told a brother about it and he said, "You sound like the Chamber of Commerce." I realized that I really liked it here. He said, "Too bad you have such cold winters." I replied, "It keeps the California 'riff-raff' out of here (he is from Carmel, California).

Besides with global warming, Fargo will become the next hot real estate market.I decided to stay, got married, and we live across the Red River and about 100 yards from Fargo in south Moorhead, Minnesota. Our home is along the river in a natural setting within the city. Wild turkeys are regular visitors.

Stay away Andy Rooney; help us keep our secret.

RIGHT STRATEGY--WRONG WAR

2006-10-25T12:44:00.000-05:00

RIGHT STRATEGY---WRONG WAR

I watched with admiration as President Bush used a press conference in the East Room of the White House today (October 25, 2006) for a campaign-stop style political news conference.

Iraq was the topic, and the President was impressive: forceful, confident, and a true-believer in his war, which he says is the calling of this generation. Mr. Bush was shrewd, showed a depth of thought, and a connection with reality in Iraq that I have not seen during this Presidency of arrogant incompetence.

The President’s goal is to remain in Iraq until the Iraqi government is a sustainable democracy able to stand on its own against threats internal and from its neighbors. The President is setting “benchmarks” (goals) to measure the Iraqi government’s progress. Under the circumstances, the President’s strategy makes sense and he has clearly put more thought to it than ever before; however, two fatal flaws undermine his strategy.

First, there are not enough troops on the ground in Iraq to control the nation’s borders, disarm the country, and provide safety and services to Iraqi citizens. Absent security for citizens to live a basic life, political progress in Iraq is doomed to failure.

Second, the vision of a unified Iraq asks the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds (and tribes, clans, and families within those groups) to put aside their religious, geographic, and cultural identities and to embrace, fight, and die for an Iraqi national identity.

We know from the study of groups that people are the masters of their personal identities. We call this freedom. Only I can choose to change who I am. If you try to change who I am, I will fight you directly, or I will comply and fight you in passive/aggressive ways.

We can train a proud Marine in thirteen weeks and they fight heroically. We spend years training Iraqi soldiers and police and they run away or refuse to fight. We cannot understand why. They are not cowards. They just care more about their sect, tribe, clan, and family than they do about Iraq. They have chosen their identities. That is their human right.

This leads to the deeper, underlying failure of the Bush administration in Iraq: the failure to see reality as it is and the failure of imagination. Iraq is the wrong war. The right strategy in the wrong war is doomed to failure. The right war against terrorism is the war for energy independence.

The nation(s) that makes the quantum leap from a petroleum based life to energy sources that will rescue our planet from global warming, will lead the world to a renaissance of relationships with our natural world, with people in other nations, and with our own lives and aspirations. A national vision of renewal and energy independence would engage our citizens in the several Manhattan Projects needed to deal with the overwhelming number of issues that face our nation.

With energy independence, we can eliminate the biospheric threat of global warming and the strategic probability of wars over diminishing oil supplies. We can abandon our dependence on the Middle East and let people there choose the lives they want for themselves. Without the United States to blame for their problems, they will be more likely to see their leaders as the source of their problems and outrage. And we can renew our country in the process.

Energy independence is the right war for our planet and against terrorism and is the calling for our generation—not the war in Iraq as President Bush asserts.

VOTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

2006-10-15T12:27:00.000-05:00

The climate crisis is a true planetary emergency, wrote Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth."

Reality is:

Our planet:

Record temperatures,
Powerful hurricanes,
Melting glaciers and ice-caps, and much more.

Our relationships:

Conflict in the oil producing Middle East,
Terrorist threats to oil production,
China’s burgeoning demand for oil,
Record gas prices until election time, and much more.

We and our machines are altering nature. Global warming is real. It isn’t coming; it is here. Anyone who says it isn’t is intellectually dishonest, and their motives must be challenged. When we change the atmosphere, the global transformation we talk about is now biospheric. Nature is no longer an independent force; people are the most powerful force, and we are destroying our home.

We place our freedom at risk as we destroy our home. Americans are energy pigs. We consume a quarter of the world’s oil supply and import more than 60% of what we consume. Every gallon of gasoline we buy pays a terrorist to kill us and puts 5.6 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

We consume our biomass like crazed addicts. We do not understand or seem to care that we are interconnected to all of life—our waste is needed by billions of people just like us. We endanger everyone on this planet and future generations for all time. The United States is in danger of moving from being the beacon of hope in the world to being the villain of the planet as we destroy our home. As we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we give up our freedoms and deplete our treasury to protect ourselves. We diminish ourselves as a culture and as people.

Our way of life is not sustainable on a planet of finite resources and a sensitive and varnish thin atmosphere. We approach the limits of what we can do to ourselves and survive. Is the legacy we want to leave for those who come after us?

Despite the evidence, most political leaders continue to deny our peril. History will judge our politicians and the rest of us harshest for the fundamental failure to see reality as it is, our failure to adapt to the world around us, and our failure of imagination if we do not change.

We elect our politicians at all levels. They mirror us. Our leaders do not ask more of us. We don’t want to give more of ourselves. We are responsible. Our political leaders carry a heavy burden into the judgment of history. So do the adults of our society.

It is time for us to be one with the rest of the world and to live within the limits of nature as together we meet this moral, ethical, and spiritual challenge. We need to “leapfrog” our crises and visualize a new and vital way of living together on this planet. We share a universal responsibility to do so and to do so soon.

The core question is: “Can we react and adapt to what we now know is true fast enough to minimize the damage to life?

As we prepare to vote on November 7, 2006, I hope we ask our leaders what they want for our nation, our grandchildren, and our world. I hope George W. Bush is our last “petro president.” All future candidates, whatever the political party, need to be renewal candidates who are pro-environment AND pro-business AND pro-humanity.

We fight the wrong war in Iraq; the right war is the war for energy independence.

Make your vote count.

The First Day of College

2006-08-25T09:19:00.000-05:00

(The photo at left is Melanie Heuerman and her daughter Natalie Nyquist.)

Forty-one years ago my dad helped me carry my dictionary, box of clothes, and graduation-gift typewriter into the sparse basement dormitory room: two bunk beds, two desks, and two closets with curtains covering the doorways. A lounge had a television with a few local channels and a pay phone for calls home.

We shook hands and my dad, who didn’t have the opportunity to go to college, left. My college days at the University of Minnesota, Morris branch, began (Morris, Minnesota is a town of approximately 5,000 people in western Minnesota). I didn’t have a car; when I wanted to go home for a weekend, I would get on the highway and hitch a ride.

Yesterday we moved Natalie, my step-daughter, into her dormitory room at the same small liberal arts college in Minnesota. When Natalie began to think about college a couple of years ago, my intuition told me she should consider Morris. She visited and it fit her—small, intimate, academically excellent—she will blossom in this nurturing environment where people care about students and learning.

The campus—still recognizable—had changed in significant ways in 41 years: more buildings, more dorms, and a state-of-the-art fitness center. Two giant wind-mills furnish much of the power for the campus. As I could in 1965, Natalie can walk anywhere on campus within five minutes. I felt like I was in a time warp. Memories flooded back to consciousness.

We carried her graduation-gift laptop computer into the room ready for wireless and high speed cable internet. Student volunteers helped and made the job fast and easy. We carried her new television (with DVD/VHS capability) into the room wired for cable television with HBO. An iPod replaces the stereo of days past. A cell phone with built-in camera is a necessity.

A refrigerator, groceries, and futon follow into the coed dorm (Thank God, Matt, Natalie’s brother, was there to put the futon together). A modern cafeteria replaced the lunch-room of the past. Her mom traded cars with her; Natalie will drive the sporty Pontiac Grand Prix and Melanie will take over the Ford Taurus.

Two weeks earlier:

I noticed the tension begin to rise as moving day approached. An emotional young woman, Natalie began to cling to her mother. “I love you” began to fill the air more often than usual.

Melanie got quiet and cranky. The “I can’t wait for Natalie to be gone” comments turned into “I will really miss her when she is gone.” I began to feel irritated with Natalie too. I then realized that what I felt was the anticipated loss of her energy that fills our home. I will miss her too—a lot. She is one of my children, and I love her.

I’ve had this experience before: I drove my oldest child, Becky, to San Diego when, at 19, she moved West. The sense of loss was deep. I helped my second daughter, Cari, move into her dormitory room at the University of Minnesota. I looked into her empty bedroom every day for months. I cried as my son Michael drove his new Nissan Pathfinder out of our driveway on his way to be a ski-bum in Mammoth, California months after graduation from high school. I know the feeling of loss. Jokes about renting their bedrooms cover the male sense of loss.

Natalie worked two jobs her senior year in high school, banked her money, and was an A student. Natalie is gifted in science and language. She didn’t have to study much in high school to do well and is nervous about her study habits in college. She already has 20 credits from her high school advanced placement courses. Like her mother, she is a hard worker. She will be a star in college.

I took Natalie to lunch to give her my advice. I told her that her generation would have the job of saving the planet for future generations. Her goal, right now, is to major in marine biology and Spanish. I told her that I believed her core purpose in college was to learn all she could about whatever she discovered she loved to learn about.

If she still wanted to be a marine biologist as time went by, there would be lots of jobs in that field for people who worked hard and did well in college. She has a dream of doing graduate work in Australia, and I encouraged her to begin to make that dream a reality from her first day at college.

Natalie is a beautiful young woman. He eyes talk; an angry glare from her sends shock waves through my emotional network. A tearful, plaintive look tugs at my heart. Natalie is also mature about relationships and emotions beyond her years. She is creative. I hope she surrounds herself with bright people who help her be her best self. And I hope she requires the men in her life to treat her with the respect she deserves.

Natalie wonders how she will say goodbye to her mother—her anchor, as she says. Melanie is the “go-to” person for her children: she sacrifices for them, she is always there for them, and she always helps them grow as people.

Melanie wants her children to follow their own paths in life (not her unlived life—she will live that for herself) and she frees them to do so even as she grieves that their relationships will never be the same after the kids leave. Melanie will take care of herself after the children are gone; that is her job. Their job is to find their own way in life with the foundation she gave them. Letting go is necessary for parent and child alike as relationships change. Natalie will say goodbye to her mother and the parting will be bittersweet. They will say goodbye to a stage in their relationship—not to their love for one another.

Back to yesterday…

It was a good day. Melanie and I feel good about this college. Now it was time to say goodbye. Melanie, Natalie, and I, walked to the car. Tears rolled down Natalie’s cheeks and then Melanie’s. I hugged Natalie and told her she would have a great time. I went to the car to give mother and daughter time alone. They embraced for a long time—a mother freeing her daughter to go and live her life.

And a good life it will be.

The Fargo/Moorhead Red Hawks

2006-08-16T14:39:00.000-05:00

For two years, I believe they were 1960 and ’61; my dad was president of the Class C Northern League, St. Cloud (Minnesota) Rox--an affiliate of the San Francisco Giants and later the Chicago Cubs.

Dad took me to most games. I remember Lou Brock, Matty Alou, and Orlando Cepada. I met Willie Kirkland. They became major league stars.

One week the batboy for the visiting team was on vacation. I got to fill in. The thing that I still remember is that I shined Joe Torres’s shoes (he played for Eau Clair, WI, Braves) and he paid me $5.00. That was a lot of money. I can still remember his dark beard. Today he is the manager of the New York Yankees.

More than 45 years later…

I moved from the mountains of Colorado to the wind-swept plains of Fargo, North Dakota early in 2002.

I saw an ad in the local newspaper for the upcoming season of the Fargo/Moorhead Red Hawks, a Northern League team—now an independent league.

The advertisement brought back the memories of my childhood.

I decided to go to a game and see what minor league baseball was about.

I liked it.

Five years and about 150 games later:

I normally leave home at 6:00 P.M. and pull into the parking lot across from Newman Field 16 minutes later. I pay my $2.00 for parking and pull into a parking spot right in front of the driveway so I can get a fast exit after the game.

Not that a fast exit is needed in Fargo; this is an old habit from 30 years of going to Minnesota Vikings games and trying to get out fast to beat the traffic jams outside of Metropolitan stadium and later the Hubert H.Humphrey Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis.

I walk across the street and enter along the right-field side of the park. I climb the steps to the concession area and buy my regular hot dog for $1.50 (Cloverdale meats—they are great), diet coke for another $1.50, and popcorn for $2.00. I add lots of mustard and some onions to my hot dog and walk to my seat behind the Red Hawks dugout. Some of the regular season-ticket holders are already seated in front of me with their backpacks filled with radios, cameras, jackets, cell phones, baseball gloves, food from home, and memorabilia to be signed by players.

I sit down and eat my hot dog careful and try not drip mustard onto my white T-shirt. I’m successful about half the time. I wolf down my popcorn in a few minutes and nurse my diet Coke for most of the evening.

At 6:35 P.M. I put my earphones on and turn the radio on for the pre-game show with Scott Miller. I like Miller, in his first season as play-by-play radio announcer. He has a relaxed voice (“My, oh my” is a favorite exclamation point to a home run) and asks thoughtful questions of those he interviews. I listen to him interview Red Hawks manager Doug Simunic—the winningest manager in Northern League history with more than 700 victories. Simunic is a winner (see photo above).

I’m a good judge of talent, and I admire Simunic’s ability to put a winning team together year after year. He can spot talent and he can pick players who get along together. He manages aggressively and goes for the big inning. He makes the tough decisions needed to be a consistent winner, and he is compassionate towards his players often helping them find another place to play if he cannot keep them. He is a purist when it comes to baseball and has little time for the nonsense of marketing and promotion gimmicks. Doug’s philosophy can be summed up with: “mix it up, stir it up, throw it out and see what happens.” That’s about as good a description of how to live life and play baseball as I have heard.

Local talent sings the National Anthem and at 7:05 P.M. the first pitch is thrown. The legendary Maury Wills, in town for this series, joins Scott Miller to add the color commentary. I enjoy listening to Maury: he is wise, mature, experienced, and his insights add meaning to the actions on the field. A Maury Wills museum is below the stadium concourse. The locals fawn over Maury and he loves the attention. He exudes humility and gratitude for the game of baseball.

Somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 fans attend the games. The fans are respectful and rarely boo umpires or opposing players and applaud the local athletes even when they stink-up the field, which is rare.

A few hundred people, I would guess, are real baseball fans. The rest come to eat, socialize, and enjoy an evening outside (winters are long in Fargo). The ball park and Red Hawks staff serve as good babysitters for work-weary parents who want to relax. Kids come and go as they pester parents for money for food. I stand up and sit down over and over again. Around the 7th inning, the parents are broke and the kids—filled up with fat and sugar—are cranky.

The Red Hawks usually win the game. This year they have strong pitching and good hitters. Some kids are just out of college; others got cut from major league organizations. Many still have their dream of being a major leaguer alive inspired by Chris Coste, catcher for the Philadelphia Phillies. Coste, a Fargo native, played 4 years for the Red Hawks and 10 years in the minor leagues before going to the big leagues. A few know their future is past and play only for the love of the game. They all play hard.

The Red Hawks won the first half championship and are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. They are in first place so far in the second half despite losing their first 6 games of the second half. They lost their star 1st baseman to an organization recently. They then went on to win 4 in a row.

My mind wanders as I watch and listen. I am not a fanatical fan: mostly I enjoy the totality of the event and the solitude behind my headphones. They give me privacy as much as anything. People nearby think I am engrossed in the game when often my mind is far, far away thinking about something far removed from baseball or reflecting on something I feel strongly about. Occasionally Hawkeye—the team red hawk mascot—startles me to attention. I keep a close eye on left-handed batters; they can send screaming line-drive foul-balls into my section.

By the 7th inning, boredom sets in unless the game is close, and I head for the exit often pausing for ½ an inning to watch from the concourse as I make my way to the exit. Usually by 9:30 P.M. I am on my way home. The game usually ends before I arrive.

I am in bed by 10:30 P.M.

Iraq---What Would You Do?

2006-08-11T11:49:00.000-05:00

I wrote this and posted it on my internet site (www.amorenaturalway.com) on November 19, 2005.

Representative John Murtha, decorated Viet Nam veteran, and the leading "hawk" of the Democratic Party, yesterday tearfully called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at the “earliest practicable date.”

Murtha believes our troops have done all they can do in Iraq, have become an occupying force, and now incite more violence by their presence than they stop. In response
he was vehemently attacked by Republicans, who instead of governing went into campaign mode. Some accused Murtha of cowardice. Republicans, led by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, went on the attack and scapegoated Murtha as they supported their President. Hastert proclaimed, “We will not retreat.”

In the days before the Iraq war began I wrote:

"With crisis comes the potential for greater inhumanity, if we cling to old thinking, and the potential for great innovation, if we replace the models that created the problems of today with those that will address them effectively.

Will courage and creativity lead to a modern day relationship renaissance or will fear, resistance, and selfishness result in more fragmentation, malignancy, and regression?"

I wondered if we would lead the world or if we would disappoint ourselves by our conduct in this war?

What is the reality since the war began? Have we grown as a nation and people or have we regressed under great stress?

I had lunch with a minister friend. He pounded the table in anguish as he asked, “How could we have fallen for this war?”

Scott Peck wrote that the test of our goodness is how we behave under stress. How have we done? We will each have our own opinion on this question. The important thing, I believe, is that we reflect on our performance and not use the tactics of our enemies to justify our own bad behavior.

It seems relatively simple in concept, if not in implementation.

If hell exists, it is Iraq.

We need to leave Iraq.

I think a continuation of the "complete victory" path is immoral as our leaders have not provided the military what it needs for a complete victory. Our sacred duty, learned in Viet Nam, it to not put our troops in harm’s way unnecessarily. The Bush administration conducted the war “on the cheap” and politics were a part of it from day one as Bush used terrorism to define his Presidency. To continue on a path without strategy or direction is to perpetuate death, destruction, and to postpone the inevitable outcome.

We do not support our troops when we do not give them the manpower or resources to do their job. We do not support our troops when from stubbornness we support a failed strategy and leaders who have squandered their credibility. We support our troops by seeing reality as it is and acting accordingly. Of course people will disagree on what reality is. Alcoholics live in a world of “sincere delusion” believing they are not alcoholics even as they die of liver failure. We need to compare outcomes against goals, costs against benefits, and strategy against denial and wishful thinking. How is this war working for us as a nation, for Iraq, and for the world community?

If Speaker Hastert wants to support our troops AND wants "complete victory" then he should send enough people to Iraq to disarm the country, restore order and services for the citizens, and commit to staying for decades to rebuild the country.

I think the "leave immediately" option is also immoral as we created this mess and thousands of people who trusted us would die, and we would dishonor those, from all nations, who died fighting for what they believed was a just cause. To "cut and run" would bring shame upon our history. This is not what Representative Murtha suggested as portrayed by the Republicans. He called for “an earliest practical date” withdrawal. We need to give the good people in Iraq a chance to stand on their own--as small as the probability of success might be.

It is a time for tough love. We need to serve formal notice to the Iraq government that after a specified and reasonable time, we must leave. We must do so because they must stand on their own if they are to endure as a free nation.

Between now and then we will do all we can to defend, train, and equip the Iraq government. When that time, not too far in the distant future, arrives, they will be on their own.

Then the silent majority in Iraq will be called to face their own deepest desires for freedom or control, peace or terror, and their own courage and cowardice. They can and should choose their own fate. They can stay and comply, they can stay and fight, or they can leave. They get to choose for themselves.

As much as we want to, we cannot control the outcome of the wrong war, with the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, entered into by gross incompetence at best and lies and deceit at worst and led by leaders who, despite their talk of commitment, lacked the commitment to provide the military with the resources to win a total victory.

I believe it probable that the final outcome, unless we completely subjugate Iraq (then we will have replaced Saddam with ourselves), will be chaos, civil war, and a step back in time for the frightened people of Iraq, the United States and democracy in the Middle East. It seems improbably that a "right" outcome can emerge from so many mistakes in judgment. I hope I am wrong.

The national humiliation will not be the perception of a military defeat. The national humiliation will be that, scared and angry, we squandered our values, national character, and moral authority (and our treasury) in the world fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong way and thus making our true enemy stronger (Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda).

It appears that the final debate has begun. It will be heated. The American people will decide at the ballot box. We have much to think about. I hope we do it thoughtfully.

It is now nine months later…

Iraq appears to be in civil war. We send more American troops to try to secure Baghdad. We train a Marine to fight in 13 weeks and they do so heroically. Iraqis have had several years and still cannot defend themselves. Loyal to their own tribal identities, they appear unable to forge a shared sense of purpose. I think it will be impossible to forge a democracy in Iraq: people do not give up identities by force. The war in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists complicates things in the region. Yesterday the British foiled a plot to blow up as many as 10 flights to the United States. We are scared again.

National elections loom on the horizon; what will the American people say at the ballot box?

What would you do?

Israel---What Would You Do?

2006-08-06T17:29:00.000-05:00

I watch the Israelis fight the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon this August of 2006. I fear for the future of Israel as their fanatical enemies (governments and terrorist movements) grow stronger, bolder, and more deadly. Israel’s understandable bombing campaign in response to the kidnapping of their soldiers has the unintended consequence of recruiting more members for the cowardly Hezbollah who hide amid innocent people.

Israel is surrounded by people who want to eradicate the nation of Israel. Perhaps some have legitimate historical issues; however, I will not listen to any community or tribe that straps bombs on young people and sends them to blow up innocent people.

Madness pervades the Middle East. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote:

There is nothing that you can’t do to someone
in the Middle East today, and there is no leader
or movement—no Nelson Mandela and no million
-mom march—coming out of this region, or into
this region, to put a stop to the madness.

Many of the people in this region appear to be insane: driven mad by crazy crackpots in control who spur human development and the growth of successful nations in an interconnected world. They prefer a primitive culture of male dominance and extreme and contrived fundamentalism (a form of mental illness) that uses religion to control and manipulate.

People in these nations cannot rebel and express their outrage against those who control them. Instead they believe the lies and blame and scapegoat the West. They think they are normal; they are not. People who blow themselves up and kill innocent people so they can be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins, are not normal—they are nuts.

How does the world negotiate with such people?

What would it be like if we lived in a neighborhood like that?

How would I behave if all my neighbors wanted to destroy my home and kill me and my family because we had a certain heritage? Would I leave the home of my ancestors? Would I try, over and over again, to forge relationships even when my neighbors sabotage my life? What would I do as I watched them build terrible weapons that could destroy my little spot and my loved ones and me in a moment? Would I fight a holding-action? Would I try to appease my enemies? Would I destroy them before they could destroy me?

And what about my friends in neighborhoods across town: could I count on them to help me, would they pretend to not see what was happening, would they betray me for a false sense of security?

What do we the people of the world think of this evil and madness in the Middle East? Many of us don’t want to think about it at all.

Rollo May defined a pseudoinnocent as someone who is naïve, who has blinders on, and who does not see real dangers (Authentic innocence preserves childlike attitudes into maturity without sacrificing the reality of one’s perception of evil). Pseudoinnocents cling to childhood assumptions about the nature of the world. They do not see real dangers. When faced with tough issues they cower into this innocence and make powerlessness, weakness, and helplessness virtues. Evil, like Hezbollah, uses creativity to kill. The pseudoinnocents among us denies evil and colludes with it. They close their eyes to reality to try to make it go away.

Many people and many nations in our world are pseudoinnocent. Grand strategies to transform the Mideast seem out of touch with the reality of the region.

Good mental health requires that we see reality as it is. Villains and injustice exist. We are surrounded by evil—at home and abroad—in more insidious ways than ever before. Much savagery has become institutionalized in the Middle East and elsewhere in our world and accepted as normal.

We need to see the Middle East accurately—Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan—and develop bold strategies to deal with what we see (obviously we didn’t do that in Iraq; we were dumb and reckless). If we do not, we collude with evil. The world cannot allow nuclear weapons in a region immersed in madness.

Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker (his upcoming film is "Suicide Killers"), on how we can end the madness of suicide bombing and terrorism in general:

Stop being politically correct and stop believing
that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism
today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody
was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s.
We had to defeat him in order to make peace one
day with the German people.

We need to see life as it is and make wise moral judgments. It is wrong not to. If we do not use our power for good, a vacuum is created and is filled by those who will use their power to destroy. We use our power to carry out the moral judgments that support and sustain life and spirit--that lead ourselves and others to freedom. Consciousness cannot rest passively. Consciousness must be asserted.

All people of the world need to see reality as it is and stand together against evil in all its forms. If the international community will not secure southern Lebanon, Israel may have to go door to door to disarm Lebanon to protect their nation. The United States should stand with its friends and against evil.

We should also begin a mega-Manhattan Project and become energy independent (at least from the Middle East) and quit funding the madmen.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons and continues to be led by a mad-man, Israel will have an even more difficult decision to make.

What would you do?

Interim Means Caretaking

2006-08-01T13:09:00.000-05:00

The local newspaper (The Fargo Forum) had an editorial today that called for an 18 month to two year interim chancellor of the North Dakota University System (See "Sabotage the Leader").

My suggestions based on 30 years of leadership and organizational experience:

1. Interim leaders are caretakers. People do not follow caretakers, no matter how qualified. Meaningful change cannot happen during the interim period. The passive-resistors who sabotaged Robert Potts will hold the real power during an interim period. Perhaps this is what the local newspaper wants, as it has a hidden agenda to support the local university president--right or wrong.

2. The North Dakota Board of Higher Education should make the interim period as short as possible; North Dakota higher education cannot afford to stand still for two years. Get busy and go out and find a strong leader to come to North Dakota and lead this dysfunctional system. I generally support promoting from within; however, in this case the new leader should come from the outside as a change-agent is needed.

3. Before hiring a leader, the Board must clarify roles and responsibilities, as Potts called for. Nothing is more important. I believe a chancellor with the power to hire and fire college and university presidents is required. Absent clear roles and responsibilities, no competent leader will come to North Dakota in light of the recent fiasco.

4. If the Board cannot show more leadership than it has so far, it should be replaced.

5. The local newspaper should limit itself to straight reporting of the facts on this story as its editorials show a lack in organizational and leadership insight.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D., a former U.S. Secret Service agent and senior executive at the Star Tribune Newspaper, is a writer and consultant. He holds a doctorate in leadership and organizational change from Union Institute and University in Cincinnati.

Chicago Police Torture Suspects

2006-07-29T11:50:00.000-05:00

Prosecutors in Chicago recently reported that Chicago police officers beat, kicked, shocked, or otherwise tortured scores of black suspects in the 1970s and 1980s to try to extract confessions from them.

I was a Secret Service agent in Chicago from late 1969 until early 1972. I served on the counterfeit squad and worked with Chicago police officers and detectives often—although only when necessary because of their lack of ethics. A few stories:

I was the weekend duty agent. I got a call late on a Saturday night. The police had arrested a black man for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. I got out of bed, drove to the precinct, and got ready to interview the suspect. His right arm hung limply when he came into the interview room. He said, “Mister, I don’t know who you are, but I’m going with you.” He had been beaten by officers. I told him I could help him out if he told me who gave him the counterfeit money, otherwise I would have to leave him there. He wouldn’t tell me, so I left him with the police.

I never saw, but was told, that the Chicago police played a game called “Guess Who?” with suspects to get them to talk. The suspect would sit in a chair and the office would circle behind him and hit the suspect over the head with a Chicago telephone book and say, “guess who?” I heard other stories of cops hanging suspects out the windows by their ankles to get them to talk.

I had an arrest warrant for a man who sold counterfeit money. An informant told me his location. I invited a Chicago police detective to come with us to make the arrest. I wanted an officer along because we might have to break into the apartment, and I wanted a local police presence. I told the detective not to search in the apartment until I first tried to get consent for a search. Otherwise anything we found would be illegal and not admissible in court.

We went to the apartment, knocked on the door, and pushed our way in when the door began to open. The suspect’s girlfriend was behind the door. The suspect was not there. We would have to wait for him to return.

The Chicago detective began to search the apartment. I made him stop. I talked to the young woman and got her consent for a search. We didn’t find any counterfeit money, but we did find a lot of nude photos of the suspect. He was a real ladies man and liked tattoos—one photo showed one on the end of his penis.

We waited for hours. Finally about midnight we heard someone coming down the hall. I was in front of the door. When I heard the key turn in the lock, I pulled the door open from the inside. The startled man jumped. Two agents rushed past me and put the man against the wall and searched him. Suddenly an agent said, “Oh, God.” He searched the man and found a long rubber dildo hanging out the front of his pants. The suspect said he was going to surprise his girlfriend.

We took the defendant off to jail. The Chicago cop stole everything of value in the apartment. My boss took the photo of the tattooed penis—“cocktail conversation”—he said as he put the photo in his pocket.

Street corner justice goes on in every community every day. A lot of good is accomplished when police use good judgment, however, we see in the atrocities in Iraq and in these stories of police behavior what a slippery slope we can go down when we break the rules. The behavior of those in authority can become more evil than the behavior of those they fight when they go down that slippery slope.

I fear I often sound naïve in my idealistic vision for how people with power should behave. I stick with the idealistic, because I’ve been down the slippery slopes and know where they lead.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U.S. Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and has been a writer, coach, and consultant since 1994.

I invite you to visit www.amorenaturalway.com to view my photographs and explore my Pamphlets.

Contact me for information about speaking, coaching, and workshops.

Sabotage the Leader

2006-07-24T13:35:00.000-05:00

By all accounts, Robert Potts, chancellor of the North Dakota University System, is a good person and a terrific leader.

Potts is out of a job.

Trouble began almost 1 ½ years ago when politically connected North Dakota State University president Joseph Chapman and the presidents of two smaller state colleges came to a legislative session with their own agendas rather than supporting the North Dakota University System as a whole.

Chancellor Potts told the presidents to “cease and desist” their support of a bill that would give their schools more money. He threatened to hold them accountable if they didn’t. If three company presidents tried to undercut the corporate CEO in the business world, they would be out of a job—right now. The first problem in this drama is that the leader did not have the authority to lead, which left the door wide open for passive-aggressive political intrigue.

Chapman then stopped communicating with Potts (more grounds for dismissal) but not with the governor and members of the state Board of Higher Education. Chapman told Governor John Hoven that he was unhappy. Hoven told Chapman he would have to meet Potts halfway. Going to the governor in an effort to undercut Potts is blatant political behavior that might also lead to dismissal in the corporate world.

Governor Hoven also met with two board members to discuss getting Potts and Chapman to work together. Why didn’t the governor get together with Potts and Chapman and put the issues on the table for discussion or see that some other appropriate person did so? That would have been leadership.

Two other board members said Hoven told them he was dissatisfied with Potts. Did Governor Hoven ever talk to Potts and express his dissatisfaction? Apparently not as Potts said he had no indication that Hoven was unhappy with him, and he is disappointed in how Hoven handled the situation. Should the chancellor of the state university system be able to expect directness from the governor of the state?

Meanwhile board members behaved in equally passive/aggressive ways. They, or some of them, criticized Potts informally. Board members with different allegiances did not talk to one another. Chapman told another college president that a board member planned to suggest to Potts that he resign. Chapman acknowledged that he had conversations with board members that “led him to believe” Potts would be asked to resign. Someone leaked the rumor that Potts would be asked to resign by the board to the local newspaper. Board members denied the rumors. Potts was not asked to resign. The board gave him a vote of confidence.

Potts, the only leader in this drama, then asked the board for authority to enforce policies and reporting lines equally across all the institutions in the university system. Absent that authority he would resign. This was an act of courage and leadership. Potts refused to “play the game” by the dysfunctional rules. He refused to be set up to fail. He brought the issue to the light of day. He did the right thing. The board lacked the backbone to grant his request. I am sure Potts expected that outcome.

Potts, a man of integrity, resigned.

Some suggestions based on my 30 years experience as a leader and consultant:

1. Joseph Chapman cannot be trusted. He should resign or be fired for his lack of loyalty, sabotage of Potts, and lack of professionalism. (he won’t, but he should),

2. The board and appropriate other people should conduct a facilitated “after action review” and ask, “What happened and what can we learn from it?” If the military can use an AAR to learn, so can this board.

3. The state Board of Higher Education and the governor should get some training on how to deal directly and privately with conflict and differences—not behind people’s backs and through the newspaper.

4. Between now and when a new chancellor is hired, the board, with state-wide input and involvement, should develop a vision for the North Dakota University System and a strategy to move toward that vision. Structure the system in the way that best drives the strategy. Do not restructure as a quick-fix to make conflict go away (the reason most reorganizations happen). If you do, you will be back in a similar situation in the future.

5. Train the board on the role of boards of directors (from stories in the local newspaper many boards in the region could use this training).

6. Follow Chancellor Potts’s advice and make roles and responsibilities clear to the next chancellor, the board, and the presidents of the colleges and universities.

7. The board should not lead day-to-day operations or micro-manage the chancellor. Hire a strong chancellor and provide that person with a clear vision to move toward and clear values to live by.

8. The board get out of the way and let the chancellor lead, and

9. Hold yourselves accountable to do what you say you will do.

Ernest Becker wrote: “If everyone lives the same lies about the same things, there is no one to call them liars. They establish their own sanity and call themselves normal.”

We live in a dark time in our world. Good people find it increasingly difficult to do good work, as Chancellor Potts discovered. They stand surrounded by too many lies, too many villains, too much selfishness, and too many cowards who do not care enough to be courageous. Often the good leaders get set up to fail and play the scapegoat for others.

The actors in this drama played by the unwritten rules they learned in this system. For them this behavior seems “normal.” Political players play the game this way every day throughout government and education. Dirty politics may be normal but they are also immature and destructive. The rules need to change; they do not work well for the citizens of North Dakota. Changing those unwritten rules will take real leadership and great maturity.

In the end it is always about leadership.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U.S. Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and has been a writer, coach, and consultant since 1994.

I invite you to visit www.amorenaturalway.com to view my photographs and explore my Pamphlets.

Contact me for information about speaking, coaching, and workshops.

TURTLE BURNING

2006-07-22T09:17:00.000-05:00

A Hawley, Minnesota man doused a large female snapping turtle with gasoline while another man held it still. He ignited a trail behind the turtle, which was engulfed in flames. The men put out the fire and then torched the turtle again. They did an evil dance around the turtle, laughing and yelling “what are you going to do about it,” as the turtle tries to escape.

This dastardly behavior, which demonstrated their personal sense of powerlessness, was captured on video by a third man who shouted encouragement to his friends. The video was posted on the internet and the men (two juveniles and an adult) were arrested. The fate of the turtle is unknown.

The story has aroused the ire and condemnation of viewers and animal rights advocates from around the world. Nearly 1,700 people signed an online petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/635254072) urging Hawley prosecutor Kevin Miller to pursue the most serious penalty for the crime.

You can see the video at: http://www.peta.org/Automation/AlertItem.asp?id=1958

I am sickened by the disconnection of the souls of these men from life around them. They displayed a distorted sense of masculinity.

Masculinity today is disconnection. We raise little boys to be disconnected from others, themselves, and the natural world. We socialize them through emotional injury and violence. We pull them away from their own expressiveness, from their emotions, from sensitivity to others

We created these men—parents, coaches, schools, and male models. We teach young boys a false masculinity based on power and control. We teach them that manhood is sexual, athletic, and material prowess. We model for them that being a man is power, cruelty, and arrogance. We reward boys and men for being this way. Pay attention to the men around you—notice their behavior. What do they model for the young men around them? Don’t many seem primitive?

Often men shame boys when they do not live up to their expectations of them—expectations often born of men's own disappointments in themselves. Just notice male behavior at the athletic fields and arenas. How many men live out their disappointed lives through their sons and ask more of little boys than they could do for themselves?

We send the message that many boys don’t have the “right stuff.” They then learn to live with the “right bluff.” How many men around you live the “right bluff” in life?

We the men and women in the lives of these three young men are responsible. Fathers taught them; mothers kept silent to male emotional violence and disconnection. Coaches and teachers collude in how we raise boys in our society. The workplace rewards disconnection. Many problems we deal with in our families, our workplaces, and in our society are symptoms of our failure to raise little boys to be connected to self, others, and the natural world.

Animal abuse is one step in the cycle of domestic violence and it does not stand-alone. Many studies show a clear connection between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. If there is an animal in a home where child, spousal, or elder abuse occurs, you will often find animal abuse and vice-versa.

Animal abuse should be taken seriously, as it is often an indicator that something else is going on in the home or with the person. Many convicted serial killers have had animal abuse in their background. The infamous Jeffrey Dahmer impaled frogs and cats on sticks as a youngster. Theodore Bundy was linked to graveyards filled with animal bones. More recently, many of the youngsters involved in school shootings have also had histories of animal abuse. Luke Woodham, age 16, who shot his mother and killed two classmates wrote in his journal he he had beat, burned, and tortured the family dog Sparkle to death.

We need a new model for men; a model that encompasses the best of the masculine AND the feminine sides of all men.

Masculinity today should be defined in terms of relationships and the capacity to connect with self, others, and the natural world—to love and to be loved. Success in life would be measured not by how much money you make but by the quality of the relationships you have. What kind of father were you? What kind of husband were you? What kind of brother were you? What kind of friend were you? How did you treat animals?

I hope the three young men in this sad story are punished fully. This is needed to get their attention. Then I hope that, somehow, someone teaches these fractured men how to be human beings that see every living things as an extension of themselves and see the truth that what we do to other living beings, we do to ourselves.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U.S. Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and has been a writer, coach, and consultant since 1994.

I invite you to visit http://www.amorenaturalway.com/ to view my photographs and explore my Pamphlets.

Contact me for information about speaking, coaching, and workshops.

Betrayal

2006-07-21T16:24:00.000-05:00

Former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, are suing Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and presidential adviser Karl Rove because they engaged in a “whispering campaign” to destroy her career.

Plame said, “I and my former colleagues trusted the government to protect us in our jobs.” The lawsuit accuses the defendants of putting the Wilson’s lives at risk as well as the lives of their children by exposing her CIA role in retaliation for an article Wilson wrote critical of the Bush administrations justification for war in Iraq.

Plame’s identity as a CIA officer was revealed in a July 14, 2003 article by columnist Robert Novak—a sour journalist called “The Prince of Darkness.” His column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

Wilson said, “We are under no illusions about how tough this fight will be. But we believe the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge accountable and responsible for their actions.”

Don’t call me for jury duty. I have an opinion. I don’t know the legalities, but I know my values I believe the defendants are guilty as charged. I might be wrong; but I doubt it. I wasn’t born yesterday. I believe they are guilty because the best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior, and the Bush administration has a history of venomous attacks on critics. They have refined the art of scapegoating to cover their arrogant incompetence. Rove is the architect of those attacks and Cheney the poster boy for the dark side and the abuse of presidential power.

I was a Secret Service agent from 1968-1972 and spent two years on the counterfeit squad in Chicago, Illinois. Some of my friends and colleagues worked undercover. They pretended to be “bad guys” so they could uncover crimes and criminals. I even went undercover once. I was excited to do it; however, my youthful college appearance didn’t quite fit the image of a potential purchaser of counterfeit money in Chicago.

If undercover agents are identified, their lives and the lives of others are put in danger. If undercover agents are “outed” by supposed “good guys” no one will want to work undercover and an effective tactic for fighting crime and corruption would be lost.

As one who once worked in the world of undercover agents, I take a harsh view of people who would reveal identities for political purposes. It is an ultimate act of betrayal.

Is such a person a traitor to our nation?

It is not a good time to be a truth-teller in our society. Arrogant incompetence is a fractal pattern at all levels of our institutions and organizations made acceptable by the Bush administration’s cronyism and righteous defensiveness. The villains protect themselves from the truth by scapegoating others. Retaliation is often swift and costly.

It is increasingly difficult for good people to do good work in the dark times in which we live. This is exactly the time for good people to speak up and express themselves at the ballot box in November. Vote for competence and integrity regardless of political party.

I suggest we turn this case over to Jack Bauer to investigate. He'll get to the truth.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U.S. Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and has been a writer, coach, and consultant since 1994.

I invite you to visit http://www.amorenaturalway.com/ to view my photographs and explore my Pamphlets.

Contact me for information about speaking, coaching, and workshops.

Judge Favors Serial Rapist

2006-07-15T11:01:00.000-05:00

A newspaper headline read: “Ruling favors rapist.” Fargo Judge Steven Marquart refused the state’s motion to commit convicted serial rapist Gero Davis Mahto to the North Dakota State Hospital because psychologists could not say that he is a “sexually dangerous person”—a legal requirement.

A serial “ritualized and systematized” rapist who demonstrates “psychopathic and anti-social” traits and abused drugs and alcohol when he committed his crimes, Mahto spent 14 years in prison where he failed sex offender treatment four times—once for each of his known victims in south Fargo. The article wasn’t clear if he eventually “passed” treatment; he should have been able to after four practice attempts. The Parole Board will release him six years early for good behavior (should rapists be released early for any reason?), and Mahto will live in Jamestown, North Dakota.

A psychologist said Mahto is likely to commit crimes again if he uses alcohol or drugs. As a recovering alcoholic sober since 1974 (knock on wood), I believe that the odds that he will drink or use drugs are high. Where is the common sense?

Judges, lawyers, and experts often live in a linear, dualistic, and fragmented world far from the reality of common sense and community values. A left-brain thought process isolates behavior, assumption on top of assumption (some incorrect) is made, “scientific models” provide the illusion of certainty, and empathy for the victims is forgotten for the “objectivity” of law.

The psychologists say they cannot say with certainty that Mahto will rape again. Oh please—little in life can be predicted with absolute certainty. Can they say with certainty that he will not rape again? Of course they can’t. What do the probabilities say? The probability must be high that he will repeat his past behavior. When uncertain we should decide on the side of the victims, past and future, and on the side of common sense. If the psychologists want to be experts, they must be willing to take a position on what is most likely to happen, not hide behind “scientific models” and the myth of certainty.

Judge Marquart said, “If the state is unhappy with the law, it’s not the job of this court to change it.” I would have felt good had the judge committed the criminal to the state hospital and placed the burden of appeal on him. I would have felt good to see that a judge cared enough about the victims and the community to risk being overturned on appeal. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than being right. Instead the judge took the easy path and said, “Not my job.” If doing the right thing is not his job then whose is it? We need wiser discernment than this judge demonstrated.

A victim said, “It’s so wrong.” I almost can’t believe this is happening. What’s broken in him has not been fixed with 14 years in prison.” Another victim said, “I was hoping the judge would take that more seriously. The system has failed us over and over in this case.”

I believe the legal system fails women and negates their stories and experiences in cases of abuse, harassment, and physical violence small and large, time and time again.

I invite the local newspaper to investigate justice for women victims in Clay and Cass counties (Fargo/Moorhead). Talk to a cross-section of victims ranging from emotional abuse to stalking to physical assault to rape and murder and listen to their stories. Talk to the experts at the Fargo Rape and Abuse Crisis Center. Examine the education of judges on the subject of abuse. You might find a story.

We live in a country where nearly one-third of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey. More than 500,000 women are stalked each year in the United States by an intimate partner. Around the world today one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused during her lifetime.

How is “the system” working for us?

SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 POSTSCRIPT:

On September 7, 2006 Judge McCullough ordered Mahto to serve 55 weeks in prison and complete a chemical dependency treatment programe befoe he will be released.

Finally a little common sense.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U.S. Secret Service agent, senior executive at the Star Tribune newspaper, and has been a writer, coach, and consultant since 1994.

I invite you to visit http://www.amorenaturalway.com/ to view my photographs and explore my Pamphlets.

The View From Fargo

2006-07-13T19:58:00.000-05:00

Welcome to "A View From Fargo."

This blog is a compliment to my web site www.amorenaturalway.com, which contains my photo gallery and Pamphlets about life, leadership, and change.

The purpose of this blog is to share my views from Middle America on local issues with global meaning and on global issues with local impacts.

I might write on a local story that I reacted strongly to and link it to universal applications, or I might write on a national or international story and give it a local twist.

A couple of years ago one of my brothers asked me: "Did you ever think you would end up in Fargo, North Dakota?" " No," I replied, "but then I never thought I would be a Secret Service agent, Star Tribune newspaper executive, writer, or consultant either. I never thought I would have three kids, five grandkids, or three step-children. I never thought most things about my journey in life.

I spent 2001 living on the side of a mountain between Ouray and Ridgway, Colorado. Prior to that I lived in Minneapolis, Minnesota for most of my adult life. The time in Colorado fulfilled a dream and when it was finished, I packed up my jeep and trailer and headed East. I decided I would stay in Fargo for a while as I had no where I had to be. Besides there was someone in the area that I wanted to get to know better.

Initially I had the typical stereotype of Fargo: the end of the world, nothing to do, cold and lonely, and the people talk funny. I didn't know if I would like it here.

It turned out that I love it here: the air is clean, the sunsets big, crime is minimal, the people nice, and a traffic jam means it takes you five minutes longer to get to your destination. I have cable television and high speed internet. I saw Springsteen here and will go and see the Dixie Chicks in August (I like them because they talk back). Some of the best leaders I've ever met are in Fargo. I am a day from Yellowstone and just east of me is Minnesota lakes country. I also rediscovered Northern League baseball from my youth and am a big fan of the Fargo/Moorhead Red Hawks; they are winners. In a time of voluntary simplicity, I cannot ask for more.

I've now been here for four years. The first blindness of romance has worn off, and I've seen some of the dark side of Fargo: the Scandanavians are tight with a dollar, can be hard to get a reaction from, and they really make a big deal of high school graduations in this part of the world. Graduation gives everyone an excuse to fix up the house periodically as the kids grow up. When one of your kids graduate you plan on eating the left-over shredded pork for many months.

After being in Fargo for a while I told another brother about it and he said, "You sound like the Chamber of Commerce." I realized that I really liked it here. He said, "Too bad you have such cold winters." I replied, "It keeps the California 'riff-raff' out of here (he is from Carmel, California). Besides with global warming, Fargo will become the next hot real estate market.

I ended up married to the person I wanted to get to know better. That was the best thing I ever did. We live across the Red River and about 100 yards from Fargo in south Moorhead, Minnesota. Our home is along the river in a natural setting within the city. Wild turkeys are regular visitors.

Fargo is much more cosmopolitan than Moorhead, Minnesota, hence the title of this blog.

I hope this regular column will provoke, educate, entertain, and illuminate.

My first column will be posted by Monday, July, 17, 2006. Please come back and read it.

I hope you will share this site with others, visit www.amorenaturalway.com, and come back often and share your comments with me.

Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former U. S. Secret Service agent, an 18 year executive at the Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has been a writer and consultant since 1994.