Important Issue for Veterans' Education Benefits

The Oklahoma State Accrediting Agency

Okay, this is not my normal post. Please take the time to read it and share with anyone who might be interested in veterans' education. Especially share it with your state legislator!

I served as a veteran representative on the board of the State Accrediting Agency for over 20 years. This is a small state agency that is 100% federally funded. The function of the SAA is as follows:

"The Oklahoma State Accrediting Agency (SAA) is the approval authority in the State of Oklahoma of programs of education and training for those enrolled in school and job training programs under the G.I. Bill."

Beyond this, the SAA functions to ensure that the education funding provided to veterans is only available for use at high quality educational entities.

Currently there is, in effect, an attempt at a hostile takeover of the SAA by another state agency. If successful, this takeover has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the delivery of education benefits of our veterans.

Please read the following for a detailed explanation prepared by the Director of the SAA. Please share this link with others.

Thank you,

jcamey

******************************************************************************

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED LEGISLATION (SB 232)

The purpose of this message is to ask your support of legislation (HB 1992) regarding the Oklahoma State Accrediting Agency (SAA) and to advise you of conflicting legislation (SB 232) that could be detrimental to Oklahoma's veterans using educational benefits.

For 64 years, through sunset legislation, SAA has served as the state education approving agency for veterans to use their Gl Bill@ Benefits. Last week, the Honorable John Paul Jordan introduced HB 1992 to recreate the SAA until 2021. Please consider the following SAA facts:

• SAA is an education approving agency that has operated independently with an education and veteran member board since 1953.
• SAA's mission is to promote and safeguard quality education and training and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the administration of the education Gl Bill@.
• SAA is 100 percent funded by federal dollars through a reimbursement contract.
• SAA's actions result in education payment benefits of almost $45 million annually to Oklahoma's veterans and beneficiaries institutions through the Gl Bill@.
• SAA has annually received the highest rating by Education VA for successful operations. It has never received less than the highest rating.
• SAA is governed by a five-member board. Three board members are from the education sector including the Oklahoma Department of Education, Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, and the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education and two are honorably discharged veterans.
• SAA oversees almost 300 education and training facilities including public and private higher education, state technology centers, private vocational schools, and on-the-job training and apprenticeships.
• SAA is part of a national organization that includes 55 State Approving Agencies that have oversight of education and training facilities to ensure quality education and training for veterans and beneficiaries.

It is important to note that there is conflicting legislation to HB 1992 that will negatively impact veterans utilizing Gl Bill@ benefits. SB 232 was introduced to move the SAA to the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs (ODVA). While the two agencies serve veterans, SAA is responsible for enforcing federal education laws and approving educational and training facilities in Oklahoma. ODVA has jurisdiction over health benefits and nursing facilities. Concerns are noted below:

• Over 11,000 Veterans use their educational benefits in Oklahoma. If SAA is unable to perform its functions independently and effectively, veterans may be harmed.
• It is uncertain the benefits that would be gained; however, removal from its current education focused governing status could be detrimental and highly disruptive — thus, negatively impacting veterans and beneficiaries.
• SAA currently navigates complex education policy issues at the local, state, federal, and national levels. If unable to function independently, it cannot function effectively — thus, negatively impacting veterans and beneficiaries by delaying payments.

Confusing information about SAA has been circulated regarding cost savings and other factors related to the proposed change. Therefore, information and arguments for keeping the agencies separate, but closely related include the following:

• No cost savings will be realized by consolidating SAA with ODVA. SAA pays its way through a reimbursable contract with the Education Department of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
• SAA is scheduled to move to the Veterans Building when construction is complete and will rent space in the same building as ODVA. Cohabitating together, but functioning independently serves veterans more effectively.
• SAA works daily with ODVA in the operations areas (payroll, purchasing, and travel). This does not negatively impact veterans, but serves the state efficiently.
• SAA funds allocated through the federal contract with the. Education Services United States Department of Veterans Affairs cannot be used for any other state function — only the work negotiated in the contract with Education Services.

SAA is committed to working with ODVA to ensure excellent service to Oklahoma veterans. Working together, but operating independently is the best way to serve Oklahoma's veterans.

Thank you for your consideration. We need your support to reauthorize the SAA (HB 1992) and to eliminate SB 232.

My cell number is (405) 642-4448 and email address is gwekke@odva.state.ok.us if you have questions or need additional information.

What is Your Authority?

What is Your Authority?

(I voted for Gary Johnson!)

The aftermath of President Trump’s election is nothing short of amazing. 

My Facebook and Twitter feeds are full of hate for the new administration and every action that has been taken. They are also overrun by an equal number of posts or replies in defense of the President.  A lot of them are a combination of amusing and disappointing. They are amusing because of the extreme and outrageous things they say. They are disappointing because I know these people. Some of them I know well. They are colleagues and, in some cases, relatives. Many of them are very well educated and hold advanced academic and/or professional degrees. The fact that they are seemingly unable to think critically before posting is disconcerting and, I suppose, testament to the heightened emotions that seem to be ruling the day. 

There is, however, one category of social media post that I find particularly troubling. These posts are those in which the individual calls into question the Christianity of anyone who voted for or happens to support actions by President Trump. 

 Here are just a few examples that I grabbed: (Spelling, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation are as posted.) 

     “if you call yourself a Christian, how can you support this latest Trump cruelty?”

     “I'm more disappointed with America and people who call themselves Christians that they would support a man like trump.”

     “Amen, Amen! These same modern day 'Christians' would be the same crowd of people crying 'Crucify Him, crucify Him - give us Barabas!'”

     “#GOPGOTTAGO This is intolerable. Stop the pretense of being "Christian".Trump & Bannon have to go. The sooner the better.” 

Anyone has the right to the political or social policy position they choose and they have the right to shout it loudly on their social media platform of choice or on the street corner. They do not, however, have the right to accuse others regarding their faith.

In some of the cases the individuals are professed non-believers. In others, they have a history of being anti-religious. As a result, I challenge their (or anyone else's) authority to question the Christianity of any individual. That is a relationship between the individual, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God. If you happen to disagree with this, I have just one question. 

What is your authority?

The Electoral College as a Football Game

Imagine a college football game between two in-state rivals.

(In Oklahoma, it would be Bedlam between OSU and OU.)

One team, fill in name of your choice, played a great game.

They ran up over 700 total yards.

They dominated the line of scrimmage on both offense and defense.

They scored a safety and 6 field goals.

To top it off, officials and the media had picked, and clearly favored, this team to win.

The other team, pick a name, did not play very well at all.

They were not able to stop the other team on defense. In fact, it was only through luck that they were able to keep them from scoring a touchdown. The defense was clearly not very good.

On offense, they were even worse. They punted on almost every possession. They fumbled 3 times. They gained less than 150 yards. In fact, they had exactly three lucky plays

They ran back a punt for a touchdown.

They had one long run from scrimmage that went for a touchdown.

They recovered a fumble near the other team’s goal line and ran it in for a touchdown.

But…THEY WON THE GAME 21 - 20!!!

The first team played better. They scored more times. They gained many more yards. They had the edge in turnovers. They held the opposing offense to low yards gained.

It doesn’t seem fair that they did not win; however, no one complained after the game was over. They were disappointed but they didn’t riot or try to have the outcome changed.

Why?

Because, they knew the rules before the game started.

Should the rules be changed so this never happens again?

What do you think?

Playing with Fire

 

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled "An Electoral College Coup: The Clinton campaign now suggests the election was rigged," explores attempts by supporters of Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid to persuade electors to abandon their duty and vote for Ms. Clinton. This would, indeed, amount to a coup and the fallout would be disastrous.

Consider the following.

Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans.

All cabinet appointees and Supreme Court nominees must be ratified by the Senate. In the face of a coup, it is unlikely that any appointee or nominee put forward would receive approval. The United States would be without senior leadership for the foreseeable future and the Court would remain split with at least one vacancy.

All budget bills must originate in the House of Representatives. There is little reason to expect that the House, believing the Presidency is held illegitimately, would fund any function of government beyond the minimum required services.

The United States would be leaderless and essentially unfunded while political factions battled in court for at least two years.

Anyone believing this is a good thing is genuinely an enemy of the country. 

They are playing with fire. 

Rubicon Redux 

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.” Frank Herbert

 I had occasion recently to visit with a friend about a blog post (available here) I shared some years ago. In that post I posed a question about what Julius Caesar, Cortez, MacArthur, and Rosa Parks had in common. They each made a bold decision and took action from which there was no return. Were they afraid of what would happen? Perhaps they were. We cannot know with certainty. If they were, they acted in spite of their fears. They each crossed their Rubicon.

Following that visit, I have been reflecting on the impact of fear on how we live and believe that, at a personal level, few things are more insidiously damaging to one’s life than fear. Our fears hold us back. They prevent us from acting boldly. They are the Rubicon we will not cross. Great writers have addressed this topic better than I can. I share some of their thoughts here, with observations of my own.

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.” H. P. Lovecraft

Fear of the outcome, the unknowns, of our actions, the impact on others, and what others might think of us, prevents us from acting boldly.

“Fear keeps us focused on the past or worried about the future.” Thích Nhất Hạnh

What we have is safe. The other side is unknown. However, choosing to be happy with the status quo forecloses opportunity.

"Opportunities are like sunrises. If you wait too long, you miss them." William Arthur Ward

There is often a price to be paid for letting fear dominate. In most cases, opportunities are NOT like sunrises. They are available for only a brief period of time. Once a window of opportunity closes, it cannot be opened again.

Frank Herbert, in “Dune” addressed the topic. “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.”

And from my favorite Stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, “It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”

The good news is; we are in control if we choose to be. 

Again from Marcus Aurelius, “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” 

One never knows when the opportunity to cross their Rubicon will arise. 

Be bold. 

Don’t let fear alter the course of your life forever.

Better Return on Our Tax Dollar Investment

 I received the following post in my Facebook timeline recently. The full release by Congressman Cole can be found at: https://cole.house.gov/media-center/weekly-columns/funding-fight-cure.

One of the most important investments Congress makes with our tax dollars is the funding of university grants to support basic scientific research or the search for treatments or cures of diseases or cancers. Unfortunately, these grants turn out to be give aways rather than investments. Although society does ultimately gain some benefit from the funded research, the greatest return on these investments enures to the benefit of the researcher, their university, and ultimately, big pharma.

How does this happen?

In 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act was passed as a form of economic stimulus. In a nutshell, this act allows universities to claim ownership of inventions or scientific discoveries that result from federally funded research. The net effect of this is to incentivize universities and their researchers to jealously guard their research in anticipation of the financial and professional rewards that will result from patenting their discoveries. The payoff comes when these patents are sold or licensed to industry. 

How about a solution that would lead to more rapid advances in science and a better return to society?

My proposal:

All the fruits of federally funded research should simply go into the public domain and be unpatentable. Big pharma would be free to use the research to commercialize the findings; however, the drugs would essentially be generic from day one. The cost of the basic research and initial trials being already borne by the taxpayer, our ROI would come in the form of more drugs and treatments for more diseases and cancers at lower cost as more producers are allowed to compete. 

Bayh-Dole was essentially a wealth transfer from taxpayers to universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Congress should act more like venture capitalists and less like a non-profit charity. Bayh-Dole should be repealed or modified.