BYU, is it enough?

My family and I are brand new to Utah. We moved to Orem from Alaska to be near our daughter at Brigham Young University, and because our younger children all want to go to BYU. We love this school and everything it stands for. As new residents, we barely know a handful of people here in Orem. On the other hand, I have no doubts that two well established, prominent men such as Dr. Ned Hill and Dr. Steve Albrecht have a lot of friends and supporters here, so I’m bracing myself for a negative response to this, nevertheless, I feel like someone has to say it: BYU needs to discipline Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht for their indiscretion.

To my knowledge, I have never met Ned Hill or Steve Albrecht. Dr. Albrecht was one of the authors of my accounting textbooks, and I read his book, Money Wise, when I was in my young 20’s and really enjoyed it. To me, they both seem to be outstanding men who I know I would very much enjoy knowing. Nevertheless, by all appearances, BYU seems oblivious to how egregious it was for Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht to use University resources to send a political advocacy email, and how these kinds of things may be perceived by people outside of Utah, and outside of our faith.

Here is where I am coming from.

I personally know two state workers in Alaska who were forced to resign over similar circumstances. They were the nicest of people, but one used her work computer’s hard drive to store non-work files, and the other used a photocopier to make non-work-related copies. I know that kind of thing happens in offices all the time, but when dealing with the public’s trust, you need to be on a strait and narrow path, you know, the one with few on it. The path with everyone on it leads to destruction, and BYU of all schools should understand this.

Likewise, the Anchorage Daily News recently reported the story of Randy Ruedrich, a prominent Republican and an Alaska state worker who used state resources to send political advocacy emails. In the end, he was forced to resign, pay a $12,000 fine and admit to wrong doing.

In other words, those of us who are not from this area are accustomed to seeing these kinds of issues dealt with in a manner far different from the actions BYU has taken. I am concerned that BYU doesn’t see this infraction in the same light as others may, and that this disparity may lead BYU to further embarrassment.

To be clear, I definitely do NOT feel Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht should be asked to resign.

However, the lack of any disciplinary action communicates that, in the University’s opinion, nothing too wrong has happened, and that isn’t how many people who aren’t from this area and don’t personally know these two men see this.

There is buzz on the Internet about how BYU’s political neutrality tilts to the right.  If BYU professors have controversial yet legal theories which cast doubt on a Republican administration, they are pressured to retire, but if they break actual laws to promote a Republican, they don’t even get slapped on the wrist. That is utter nonsense and the kind of blatant manipulation the Church often suffers, — but unfortunately a lot of people can’t see that, and they certainly can’t see that BYU is doing anything that indicates it actually disapproves of the political advocacy emails.

It’s not enough to keep publicizing a position of political neutrality when there is a well publicized action out there undercutting the effectiveness of that message, “… for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words” (Alma 39:11).

After all, it was Texan Alan Gluth who brought the matter of Hill and Albrecht’s email to the attention of BYU; BYU didn’t catch it on its own. And rest assured Mr. Gluth is not the only Texan who sees it as an ethics violation — most Texans would, as would most people in Alaska, Massachusetts, and the rest of the country, including those sitting in IRS offices.

Speaking of Alan Gluth, he was being generous when he wrote that Hill and Albrecht’s e-mail was probably sent innocently. Everyone knows (or at least hopes) that part of their job is to know ethics. And with annual reminders over the pulpit that church resources are not to be used for political purposes, it is too much of a stretch to believe that Hill and Albrecht missed that message. In other words, most of us believe they knew better.

Look at it this way: if the NCAA oversaw business schools as it does athletic programs, you know BYU would be disciplined for these violations. Shouldn’t BYU’s standards be at least as high as the NCAAs?

As a father of six teenagers, I am well aware of the sacrifices people make to send their children to BYU. As a young LDS missionary and many times since, I have observed first hand the great sacrifices made by many destitute yet faithful people to contribute funds to the Church. What a slap in the face it would be then if the careless actions of two comparatively affluent men jeopardized the University’s tax exempt status, and the University didn’t take substantive measures address it.

No one wants to see two really great guys disciplined, including me, but it’s not just about them. Their misstep cast a shadow on Mitt Romney, the LDS Church, BYU, and because of the name of our business school, maybe even the poor Marriott Corporation.

As you know, BYU’s media coverage has been unusually controversial lately, and more importantly, the controversy hasn’t been about athletics or students, it has been about BYU professors!  Same sex marriage opinions, World Trade Center theories, billion dollar law suits and now the newly alleged national covert political network of Mormons probably has people wondering about us. Why leave them wondering why BYU hasn’t disciplined Hill and Albrecht when it is generally the practice to do so in cases such as this? 

Seeing how similar matters have been handled by other organizations, what would YOU think if you were looking at BYU from the outside?  Would you wonder if perhaps BYU has a culture of casual ethics which created a climate where Hill and Albrecht thought it would be okay to use tax exempt resources for political advocacy, and now that lax atmosphere is letting these risky and inappropriate acts off easy?

In another story, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the LDS church is taking “corrective action” against a church employee for using Church resources to forward a pro-Romney article. This wasn’t a person of tremendous influence using Church resources to endorse a candidate, he didn’t try to organize Latter-day Saints into a nationwide political force, he didn’t even write the article! He just forwarded it, and the Church is taking action.

BYU, why aren’t you doing the same?

Pertinent Links:

LDS Offcials distance Church from Romney, Deseret News, Tuesday October 24, 2006 by Stephen Speckman.

Call to back Romney raises a legal red flag, Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Thomas Burr

LDS Church acts against employee who used his church e-mail account, Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Thomas Burr

The Governor of AncMatSu, Alaskette

(From Blog907.net)

 

The great philosopher, Anonymous, once said, “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.” If we who live in the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough aren’t careful, we could easily harm Alaska overall by thinking only of ourselves.

The Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday that Sarah Palin will seek the Republican nomination for governor of Alaska in 2006.

There is an old saying about not biting the hand that feeds you.

A person who plans to pursue politics as a profession pretty much needs the backing of one of the two major political parties to pull it off. Although there are 57 political parties in America at last count, of the 50 state governors in place today, 22 are Democrats and 28 are Republicans. For those of us who weren’t math majors, that’s all 50 states.

So unless you are willing to gain fortune and name recognition by dressing in speed-os and pretending to wrestle grown men (like Jesse Ventura did), you really had better be in good standing with either the Republican or the Democratic parties.

That being the case, I admire Sarah Palin for her courage to publicly stand against the ethical abuses of Republican Party of Alaska Chairman Randy Ruedrich, and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes. [Stay tuned for a blog entry on how the Republican Party of Alaska has lost its soul -- and my membership.]

I like Sarah a lot. But I don’t know that I would vote for her.

Sarah Palin supports moving the legislature to Anchorage from Juneau — at least part time. While that probably draws applause in Anchorage and the Matsu Borough, “AncMatSu,” it draws groans from the rest of Alaska. There is something a large number of the residents of AncMatSu just doesn’t get yet.

In a poignant scene in the movie, Gandhi, Gandhi tells India’s political heavyweights that they gather and make passionate speeches, but the speeches are for themselves; the whole of India is largely unaffected. Gandhi then points out that India isn’t the concentration of people in New Delhi or Bombay, it is a huge, wondrous, vast country and all its inhabitants.

Likewise, Alaska is not the concentration of people in Anchorage or the Matsu Valley.

A Tlingit Elder once told me, “Anchorage is not Alaska. Anchorage is a nest of lower 48ers who come to Alaska but want to make it look, smell and feel like where they came from.”

That is probably true. If Anchorage is all you have seen of Alaska, then chances are you have seen more of McDonalds, Fred Meyer, Costco, Walmart, Taco Bell, Nordstrom’s, REI, ski resorts and hotel chains than you have the things that Alaska is famous for. Like most Anchoragans, even most of the Alaska souvenirs that you can buy in Anchorage are imports.

Anchorage is 1,956 sq. miles (Portage to Eklutna). The Matsu Borough is 25,000 square miles. Combined, that puts the size of AncMatSu at 26,956 square miles. Alaska is 656,425 square miles in size, meaning AncMatSu is just 4 percent of Alaska. Four percent!

The problem is, this 4 percent area plainly wants to dominate the political machines of the state so as to further benefit this more populated Alaskette, even if it comes at the expense of sparsely populated Alaska.

About 331,000 of Alaska’s 655,435 people, or 50.5 percent of the people of Alaska, live in the 4 percent area of AncMatSu, Alaskette. I am one of them. I live over 10 miles out of downtown Eagle River, next to the Eagle River Nature Center. My nearest neighbor, if we don’t count the near daily moose and occasional bears we see out our windows, is acres from me. And like many AncMatSuians, while my freezer may be full of fish, my cupboards are bursting with oversized packages from Sam’s Club and Costco. And yes, my trash contains an occasional sack from McDonalds or Taco Bell.

The great philosopher, Anonymous, once said, “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.” If we who live in the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough aren’t careful, we could easily harm Alaska overall by thinking only of ourselves.

Politically speaking, the majority in AncMatSu is so powerful that if it doesn’t want something to happen, no matter how good it is for someplace else in the state, it just isn’t going to happen. However, for AncMatSu to tell Bethel how their area should be run is exactly akin to Los Angeles telling Anchorage how it should be run. Communities outside AncMatSu are different groups of people with starkly different needs, and we shouldn’t be able to bully anyone in Alaska just because we are bigger than they are.

Because of the tremendous population distribution disparity in this state, if the right thing for Alaska is to ever get done, it is going to take a lot of us who live in AncMatSu to put the interests of the state as a whole ahead of our personal or local interests. We need to acknowledge that we are our brothers’ keeper.

Economically speaking, Juneau is to Southeast Alaska as Anchorage is to Southcentral Alaska. And just as Anchorage is the transportation hub for most of Alaska, Juneau is the transportation hub for Southeast Alaska. Juneau, and all of Southeast Alaska, needs to keep the center of state government to keep that area economically sound.

Which brings me to the real reason to move the capital.

For all the academic and philosophical arguments for moving the capital, the practical reality is that AncMatSu gets plenty from the Alaska’s political system, even though the capital is in far away Juneau.

The truth is, AncMatSu land and business owners stand to benefit immeasurably more by a capital move than the typical Alaskan citizen would. Capital move proponents are pirates, flying the innocent flag of government access over a vessel full of drooling businessmen dreaming of the treasures they might loot from their brothers to the southeast. Moving the capital will without question devastate economies in Southeast Alaska.

Does it make sense to harm a large part of Alaska in order to benefit a part of Alaska that is already doing better than any other part of the state?

Only greed could make a person answer yes.

While moving legislative sessions from Juneau to Anchorage might be good for the concentration of people who live in AncMatSu, Alaskette, it absolutely would be bad for Alaska. The issue should be dropped once and for all and our attentions put to more worthwhile efforts.

India is not just New Delhi and Bombay. Alaska is not just Anchorage and the Matsu. Government is not just for the urbanites.

Sarah had the courage to put the interests of Alaska ahead of those of her political party. However, until Sarah does it again and puts the interests of all Alaska ahead of her local AncMatsu constituents, I’ll be holding out, hoping for a gubernatorial candidate for ALL Alaska.

On the other hand, I’d be thrilled if the Republican ethical champion, Sarah Palin, reconsidered her position on moving the legislature.

Alaska Day

(From Blog907.net)

This article published in The Alaska Star on Thursday, October 13, 2005.

(Faxed to Dan Fagan Friday, 07 October 2005 @ 2:41pm)

Dear Dan Fagan,

I enjoyed listening to your show yesterday (Thursday, October 6, 2005). I agree; Paul the intern is a “solid guy.”

I listened with keen interest to the anecdote about the woman who is eligible for health services at the Native hospital but doesn’t take advantage of them because she doesn’t want to be a part of the entitlement mentality. I had my three high school aged children in the car with me as I listened, and I turned up the radio and made them listen as well as you and your guest applauded her for her principles, and thrashed the evils of the entitlement culture. I agree how un-conservative that thinking is. I was glad my children were hearing this.

But then we were all thrown for a loop as we listened to your guest turn around and refer to the Permanent Fund Dividend as “your” dividend check, and then the two of you campaigned for the PFD with indignation. My children literally started laughing as they discussed how can you believe the entitlement mindset is bad, and then hold your hand out and demand “your” PFD check?

For quite a bit of the show, you and your guests criticized Ben Stevens about money he has received putting to Ben the question, “What did you do for the money?” That is a GREAT question! Let’s put it to all Alaskans: what did YOU do for the PFD money? Fill out a 1 page application online?!

It is easy to rationalize and say the PFD is different, I know, because as an Alaska Native myself, having worked in Native organizations for most of my career, I have heard those arguments again and again. Every entitlement thinks it is different, and there are always plenty of really legit reasons for an entitlement — that is how the entitlement gets established in the first place!

But no matter the justification, if we really feel it is our right to be handed money, and that we are entitled to it even though we didn’t work to earn it, then we are without question a major part of the entitlement culture of Alaska, whether or not we like to admit it. A spade doesn’t have to be a liberal to be called a spade, does it?

You know what a true blue Reagan Republican would do with the Permanent Fund earnings? Not give away money like blanket welfare for all Alaska residents, but use it to bring tax relief to actual working people. Take property owners for instance. Where is the politician who will stand up and say the money will be used for villages, boroughs, municipalities … for local governments to provide relief from high property taxes as a benefit for actual Alaskans living and working in Alaska? The trickle down effect of course would be that renters, businesses and even visitors would benefit as well. Or where is the politician who will champion setting aside a huge savings account for disaster relief when that rainy day hits an Alaskan community as Katrina hit the lower 48? And don’t even get me started on people who want to increase property taxes or establish statewide sales or income taxes but not touch the dividend.

Sadly, most Alaskans, including we conservatives, would rather debate political principles than sacrifice for them. That is what makes the woman who declines to take advantage of her Native health benefits special, and a noteworthy example for us all.

At any rate, good show. By the way, if you think Paul the intern is solid in the studio, you should see him on the basketball court! Wow.

Cheers,

Tom Pittman
Eagle River, Alaska