I'm Endorsing Mike Behm For Regent Comment Count

Brian

So I'm about to break the no politics rule. I regret this, but…

1. If I'm going to run for regent that has to happen anyway.

2. I am only going to do this for Michigan regent.

3. I don't think regent is a particularly partisan position—see the lack of transparency as to how they operate and the lack of "no" votes.

4. I am not a registered anything. I don't like politics for the same reason I don't like coachspeak. I would strongly prefer regent elections to be nonpartisan, but they're not. This is life.

3cb5b7_8c03f722ad39472180da8cc8505050fa.png_srz_p_359_100_75_22_0.50_1.20_0[1]

All right, that said: when the regents' candidate forum was canceled on October 8th (it is now Friday at 4 PM, be there or be square) for scheduling issues, one guy still came into town because he was planning to do so anyway. He did a number of previously-scheduled in-person interviews, then emailed me. We got a couple beers at Ashley's, and we talked about the state of the regents, what was wrong about the current setup, and how to fix it. That guy is Mike Behm, and I'm endorsing him for regent.

This is not because he uses MGoBehm.com for his web presence. Mostly not.

Behm is a lawyer who graduated from Michigan in '89 with a BA in English with deep Michigan roots—his dad played football and ran track in the 50s. He went to the Rose Bowl in '89 as a student, and he reads the blog. I asked him to boil down his philosophy and goals into a few hundred words, and he's done so.

--------------------------------------

Q: What is the most important issue facing the University right now?

A: Affordability and accessibility. Over the past four decades, the State of Michigan has drastically reduced its financial support of the University. Thirty-five years ago, the State of Michigan covered 70% of U of M's costs, with the other 30% being paid for by tuition and endowment. Today, only 30% of the costs are covered by the State. I would like to see the State of Michigan invest in one of its most valuable assets, and increase its funding for U of M. But because of today's economic environment, I don't believe there is going to be a drastic increase of state funding. This being the case, I believe it is very important to examine the present cost structure of the University and cut and reduce unnecessary costs at all levels, including administration and operations.

Next, I would like to investigate ways to lower interest rates on student loans. Presently, banks borrow money at a rate that is nine times less than the average student loan. New legislation that has been introduced recently (Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act) that would help to lower student loan rates. If the government is not successful in reducing student loan interest rates, I would act to direct U of M's newest endowment program (Victors for Michigan) to provide low interest loans to our students.

Q: What are your thoughts regarding U of M's compliance with the open meetings act?

A: While I understand the need to protect individual's rights of privacy when it comes to limited circumstances such as some personnel issues. I am a firm believer that the Board of Regents would benefit from seriously listening to the concerns of the public. In addition to having Regents meetings where decisions are made with public comment and public interaction, I would use other ways for the Regents to gather information. For example, while the composition of the Board of Regents cannot be changed without involving the State of Michigan Constitution, I would propose forming advisory committees. I am in favor of forming small separate committees of students, faculty members, and supporters of the Athletic Department so that they can meet with and advise the Board of Regents when it comes to making important decisions.

In addition to being an attorney, I serve as Chairperson of Business Forward Michigan, an organization that helps local business leaders from Michigan advise Washington on how to create jobs and accelerate our economic recovery. The present Board of Regents seems to conduct business like politicians in Washington, in an isolated and deaf manner. Like what I do with Business Forward, I will work to help the Regents make decisions with the help of many informed and concerned voices.

--------------------------------

While the above issues are obviously more important than the athletic department, we talked about that, too, and he'd support a change at the top there.

The above language is a little stiff, I know, but in talking to him it was clear he deeply cared about the university and was basically just a guy who wanted to help out. He's not much interested in serious political office; the opportunity to help the U out was a different matter. I think you should vote for him, no matter your political affiliation.

-Brian

Comments

MI Expat NY

October 21st, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

It's "apolitical" in the common left-right/democrat-republican usage.  Sure, it's a political position.  By definition, damn near everything is when so much of our society is controlled by others making decisions for the community.  Water boards, library boards, university boards, village boards, community boards, etc.  Anyone sitting on any of these boards are technically politicians.  But, the vast majority of the positions have, or at lease should have, almost nothing to do with partisan politics.  That's why so many of those positions are maintained through non-partisan elections.  It's ridiculous that U.M. Regents aren't similarly maintained.  If there was no party affiliation allowed (and thus, ultimately required), there would be zero controversy as to the "politics" of this post.  

Brian made clear that he doesn't consider any of his stances that matter to him to be partisan.  If a couple other posters on this board could resist seeing everything through a partisan lens, this post would have gone fine.  

Njia

October 21st, 2014 at 5:30 PM ^

And, unfortunately, wrong. Right on the points about every damn thing being being controlled by a political position and that many things - UM Regents included - should not be.

Wrong that without party affiliation, this wouldn't have happened. Someone, inevitably I'm afraid, would have figured out who donated to which parties and candidates and made it an issue. It just always seems to happen that way.

Pisses me off, but it is a function of being a tribal species.

flashOverride

October 21st, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^

Yes, obviously endorsing a candidate is inherently political. I meant the content of his endorsement post. He didn't mention the candidate's political party affiliation or spout any partisan talking points, that is what I was implying.

In other words, Brian didn't introduce partisan politics, and there was no reason for anyone else to.

jballen4eva

October 21st, 2014 at 6:40 PM ^

I really don't have a problem with people talking about policy here, since the University is a public entity, so you sort of have to.  You think the State should fund the University more?  That's policy.  You think the University should stop cutting faculty while hiring more admin?  That's policy.  You don't think someone with a probable head injury of unknown severity should play football?  Again, policy.    

We don't have to let the partisan think-nothings ruin things by prohibiting anything that might remotely be deemed politics; we can just downvote these idiots 'til the cows come home.  

UofM-StL

October 21st, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^

Don't you know that '=' is the assignment operator and '==' is the equality operator? You've just set Brian equal to leftist! And you didn't even bother storing his initial value in a temp variable! Now we have no way of knowing what Brian was before you got involved! How can you toy with people's lives like this?

STW P. Brabbs

October 22nd, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^

Manchester liberalism (and lowercase liberalism everywhere but America, really) meant free trade, extremely limited government, and the lowest taxes possible. Put another way, 'neoliberalism' is derived from 'Manchester liberalism,' which historically speaking is just 'liberalism'. In American politics, liberalism means 'leftish-type politics.' But once you throw Manchester in front, you're talking about something specific.

stephenrjking

October 21st, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^

Allow me to chime in here, in defense of the OP:

This seems to be the exception that proves the rule here. Obviously, recent athletic events have focused a highly unusual spotlight on the regents. There is an election approaching, and the regents who are elected will have a fair amount of influence on athletic decisions that are crucially important to the audience of this blog.

So this is relevant. Brian explains real-life reasons why he supports the candidate, avoiding reasons that are intensely political.

And, importantly, this blog has overall done a good job in being fair about the no politics/no religion rule. As someone who (obviously, look at my sig) sits strongly on one side of the religion spectrum, and who (I suspect) would find that a majority of people here would disagree with me on a large number of real-life issues, I enjoy this blog precisely because it is a place to discuss and occasionally argue fundamentally unserious issues without wading in the "heavy stuff" the rest of our lives deal with. And I can do it comfortably.

I would be a minority in many ideological areas here. Brian and the mods aren't perfect, but they uphold the "no pol/rel" guidelines just fine.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

STW P. Brabbs

October 22nd, 2014 at 9:31 AM ^

You don't know shit, or you'd realize that there never would have been a need for the Wolverine Liberation Army to split off from MGoBlog if Brian was a fellow traveler. But seriously, the use of the term makes you sound a bit hysterical and silly.

bigmc6000

October 22nd, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

Not really sure why everyone is so up in arms with this post but I don't really see the big deal. You waded into politics and someone pointed out 1) the party of the political and 2) his list of affiliations and then concluded that since you'd actually break your own rule of no politics that you must really agree with this guy so it's not that big of a leap to say you'd side with his political party if presented the opportunity.

Really don't get the uproar...


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Michigan Arrogance

October 21st, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

cut and reduce unnecessary costs at all levels, including administration and operations.

Good luck with that. Cutting admin staff & salary is a good way to start. IMO, he should do an AMA on MGoBlog, I'm sure many people would appreciate the open forum. Specifically, I'd ask about his thoughts on diversity in admission and privatizing the U (in the context of state funding drops over the last 20 years).

ypsituckyboy

October 21st, 2014 at 3:40 PM ^

UM already made a major move toward consolidating its operational infrastructure when it streamlined some of the HR and financial operations with the opening of the Shared Services Center. Of course, there was a massive backlash from entrenched interests at UM (namely all the employees) but we'll see it it's beneficial and effective in the long run.

pescadero

October 21st, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^

UM already made a major move toward consolidating its operational infrastructure

Yes


when it streamlined some of the HR and financial operations with the opening of the Shared Services Center.

No.

 

Nothing was streamlined.

 

AST as well as the MiWorkspace IT transition are both great ideas for saving money, but their implementation is going to save zero money... while reducing services, quality of service, and employee/customer satisfaction.

 

...but someone at Accenture sure made out.

 

Dave

October 21st, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^

And I'm all for transparency in how the regents operate.  But I'm a little concerned about his position on student loans.  With respect to lowering the costs of attending UM, he is saying that a main priority will be to seek to lower student loan interest rates.  With the caveat that I haven't devoted a ton of time to this, and that my morning coffee has already worn off, I wonder if that is really helpful or just ends up kicking the can down the road. I've read a number of economists argue pretty persuasively that prevalence of student loans is one of the reasons that universities have been able to gild the lily over the last couple of decades.  (I.e., if you give everyone $100 to pay towards X, the price of X will end up increasing by $100.  Tuition is no different.)  Veronique de Rugy writes about this quite a bit.

But even if the interest rates are lower, it's still a loan that needs to be repaid based upon tuition that's spiraled out of control.  That's the primary factor that needs to be addressed, IMHO.  And I'm not sure how you do that without taking a hard look at why the university's gotten so much more expensive, and also talking about where/how to make some cuts.

Reducing the tuition would also, I believe have the impact of (over time) increasing state funding.  Right now why would the state rep for, say, Escanaba, vote to have more of the public fisc go towards a flagship university that very few of his constituents can even afford? 

I know the odds of tuition ever going down are minimal to non-existent, given the various fiefdoms that arise in a university setting.  But I honestly don't see how lowering interest rates does anything but solve some short-term problems, and do see how it could in fact exacerbate the long term issue.

Anyways, my thoughts, and I'm always interested in how I might have gotten it wrong.  And I wish Mr. Behm the best.

Dave

 

 

 

Dave

October 21st, 2014 at 5:06 PM ^

...that issue of the cost of tuition is near and dear to my heart.  I went to UM (twice) as an in-state kid and it was a great education value-wise and otherwise.  But looking at the tuition now for both undergrad and my grad program, kids who come from my circumstances -- blue collar parents, lower middle class -- are basically shut out from attending.  And that's a damn shame, given the school's (purported) emphasis on diversity. Having a school that's basically nothing but kids from well-off families isn't "diversity" just because they're not all white, it's an old Benetton ad.

Dave

Dave

October 21st, 2014 at 6:39 PM ^

...I wrote that it's a short-term answer to some problems, including the one you identify. But continuing to allow universities to prop themselves up based on "cheap" (i.e., low-interest) money is just a guarantee that tuitions will continue to increase.  I.e., if people can pay it, even if it's based on crippling loans, they will charge it.  And even though high tuition is the main problem, a low interest rate is still big money when tacked onto a high principal. 

Dave

SanDiegoWolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 7:55 PM ^

The state agrees to lower interest rates and make gradual increases to contributions to universities if they agree to lower tuition and keep it at that lower rate in the future. But that is too logical and would piss of certain entrenched institutions on both sides of the isle so it would never happen. This is why a two party system completely blows.

EGD

October 21st, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^

Obviously we are all concerned about the future of Michigan's marquee athletic programs. But I am glad Brian is endorsing a guy who sees affordability and student funding issues as the key issue facing the regents. As a kid who was able to attend UM in the '90s despite coming from a lower socio-economic background, it concerns me deeply to see access to a UM education slipping further and further away from similarly-situated students of today.

HaileyVictoria

October 21st, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

I have been an avid MGoBlog reader for several years, but have never felt compelled to comment until now.  I am a two-time Michigan graduate (undergrad and law school) who volunteered in the Athletic Department for 6+ years during my time in Ann Arbor and who comes from a family where everyone is Michigan graduate.  I had the pleassure of first meeting Mike approximately 20 years ago and getting to know him better over the years (he married one of my law school classmates) and I can unequivocally state that the Univerity of Michigan Board of Regents would be well served by his intellect, insights, integrity and his unyielding passion for the University of Michigan. GO BLUE! GO MIKE, BEAT STATE!

Ali G Bomaye

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

Why is it disappointing that a blog about the University of Michigan has an opinion on who should be in charge of the University of Michigan?

If Jim Harbaugh were a Democrat (I have no idea if this is true and no desire to find out), would endorsing him for coach be a violation of the no-politics rule?

There's a line somewhere between politics and the university, and in my opinion, MGoBlog has always stuck comfortably to the latter.  It's an unavoidable fact, though, that sometimes people will be involved with the university who have a political affiliation.  Supporting them for a nonpartisan position doesn't mean that you agree with their political ideology.