Moline, IL... State Rep. Rich Morthland (R-Cordova) joined a group of Illinois House republicans today in sending a letter to Governor Quinn thanking him for the recent response to the severe drought conditions across the state, along with a request that the Governor's administration put in place a system that will provide lawmakers with regular updates and developments that might help those in need.

"As a farmer, I am well aware of the devastating economic impact caused by these extreme weather conditions. The drought is not only going to hurt farmers, ethanol producers and our livestock producers; it will also lead to higher food prices for families," Morthland said. "I look forward to helping distribute any updates or new financial assistance opportunities to my constituents who may qualify for the programs."

CHICAGO - July 17, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn today took action on the following bill:

Bill No.: SB 2574

An Act Concerning: Public Aid

Deletes obsolete language regarding Medicaid reimbursement and repeals two sections of the Illinois Public Aid Code pertaining to the provision of mental health services.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

 

###


WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, are applauding a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that drug companies' "pay-for-delay" settlements violate antitrust law.

 

"The court made the right decision," Kohl said. "The Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is a big step toward ending an unfair and abusive business practice that keeps generic drugs off the shelves and costs consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars.

"This backroom deal making is at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, so the Third Circuit decision is good news for Americans who need affordable medicine and taxpayers who pay for prescription drugs in the Medicare and Medicaid programs," Grassley said.

In a class-action lawsuit challenging an agreement between Merck and Co.'s Schering-Plough unit and a generic drug company that delayed a competing version of the potassium supplement K-Dur 20, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "reverse payment is prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade."

 

Last year, Kohl and Grassley introduced the Preserve Access to Affordable Generic Drugs Act (S. 27), which would deter "pay-for-delay" deals in which brand name drug companies settle patent disputes by paying generic drug manufacturers in exchange for the promise of delaying the release of the generic version into the market. Under the legislation, these anti-consumer pay-off agreements would be presumed illegal and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be provided the authority to stop the agreements.

 

The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the bill would accelerate the availability of lower-priced generic drugs and generate $4.785 billion in budget savings over a 10-year period. Additionally, CBO estimates that earlier entry of generic drugs affected by the bill would reduce total drug expenditures in the U.S. by roughly $11 billion over the decade.

LAWRENCE, KS (07/17/2012)(readMedia)-- More than 4,200 undergraduate students at the University of Kansas earned honor roll distinction for the spring 2012 semester. The students, from KU's Lawrence campus and the schools of allied health and nursing in Kansas City, Kan., represent 92 of 105 Kansas counties, 42 other states and the District of Columbia, and 31 other countries.

The honor roll comprises undergraduates who meet requirements in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and in the schools of allied health; architecture, design and planning; business; education; engineering; journalism; music; nursing; pharmacy; and social welfare.

Area honorees are as follows:

Lindsay Formanek, of Victor. Formanek is a graduate of H.L.V. Jr-Sr High School and is a Prof 1 in pharmacy. She was named to the School of Pharmacy 2012 Spring Honor Roll.

Paula Samuelson, of Davenport. Samuelson is a graduate of (not specified) and is a senior in occupational studies and occupational therapy. She was named to the School of Allied Health 2012 Spring Honor Roll.

Honor roll criteria vary among the university's academic units. Some schools honor the top 10 percent of students enrolled, some establish a minimum grade-point average, and others raise the minimum GPA for each year students are in school. Students must complete a minimum number of credit hours to be considered for the honor roll.

Braley will talk with farmers about the drought's effect on agriculture in eastern Iowa 

Washington, DC - On Thursday, July 19, 2012, Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) will host an emergency telephone town hall with Iowa farmers to discuss the Iowa drought, its impact on Iowa agriculture, disaster relief, and this year's Farm Bill. Braley will be joined by Juan Garcia, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency.

Braley has hosted 12 listening sessions on the Food, Farm and Job Bill across eastern Iowa this summer. The listening sessions have taken Braley to Grinnell, Independence, Manchester, Marengo, Marshalltown, Peosta, St. Ansgar, Strawberry Point, Toledo, and Vinton.  Also, Braley joined USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack at listening session events in Maquoketa and Cedar Rapids last month.

Braley and Garcia will be available to answer Iowans' questions and comments live over the phone. The event is open to the public. Iowans interested in participating should use the following instructions.

Call-In Information: 

When: Thursday, July 19, 2012

Time: 7:00 PM Central Time

Phone Number: 877-229-8493, Code: 110428#

# # #

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

FDA Whistleblower Spying

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

I rise today to speak about a federal agency that has forgotten that it works for the American public.

This is an agency that has gotten too big for its britches.

Some of its officials have forgotten who pays their salaries.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to work to protect the American people.

Except lately, the only thing the FDA bureaucrats seem to have any interest in protecting is themselves.

According to whistleblowers and published reports in the Washington Post and New York Times, the agency in charge of safeguarding American public safety has trampled on the privacy of its employees.

The FDA mounted an aggressive campaign against employees who dared to question its actions and created what the New York Times termed an "enemies list" of people it considered dangerous.

The FDA has been spying on this "enemies list."

The FDA has been spying on the personal emails of these employees and everyone they contacted.

That includes their protected communications with Congress.

We would not have known the extent of the spying if internal FDA documents about it had not been released on the Internet, apparently by accident.

We would not have known how the FDA intentionally targeted and capture confidential, personal emails between the whistleblowers, their lawyers, and Congress.

In these internal documents that FDA never wanted the public to see, it refers to the whistleblowers as "collaborators."

FDA refers to congressional staff as "ancillary actors."

FDA refers to the newspaper reporters as "media outlet actors."

These memos make the FDA sound more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country.

At the beginning of Commissioner Hamburg's term she said whistleblowers exposed critical issues within FDA.

She vowed to create a culture that values whistleblowers.

In fact, in 2009, she said, and I quote, "I think whistleblowers serve an important role."

I wanted to believe Commissioner Hamburg when she testified before the Senate during her confirmation.

I wanted to believe her when she said she would protect whistleblowers at the FDA.

However, the facts now appear very different.

In this case the FDA invaded the privacy of multiple whistleblowers.

It hacked into their private e-mail accounts and used sophisticated keystroke logging software to monitor their every move online.

When an FDA supervisor was placed under oath in the course of an equal employment opportunity complaint, he testified that the FDA was conducting "routine security monitoring."

That is false.

This monitoring was anything but routine.

It was targeted specifically at five whistleblowers.

It intentionally captured their private emails to attorneys, Congress, and the Office of Special Counsel.

The internal documents show that this was a unique, highly sophisticated, and highly specialized operation.

According to the Office of Inspector General, the FDA had no evidence of any criminal wrong-doing by the whistleblowers.

This massive campaign of spying was not just an invasion of privacy; it was specifically designed to intercept communications that are protected by law.

The Office of Special Counsel is an agency created by Congress to receive whistleblower complaints and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

The law protects communications with the Special Counsel as a way to encourage whistleblowers to report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or threats to public safety without fear of retaliation.

The FDA knew that contacts between whistleblowers and the Office of Special Counsel are privileged and confidential.

But, the James Bond wanna-be's at the FDA just didn't care.

In the end, the self-appointed spies turned out to be more like the bumbling Maxwell Smart.

Along with their own internal memos about the spying, the fruits of their labor were also accidentally posted on the Internet.

It's tens of thousands of pages of emails and pictures of the whistleblowers' computer screens, containing some of the very same information that the FDA bureaucrats were so keen to keep secret.

When I started asking questions about this, FDA officials seemed to suffer from a sudden bout of collective amnesia.

It took them more than six months to answer my letter from last January.

When I pushed for a reply during those six months, FDA told my staff that that the response would take time to make sure it was accurate and complete.

When I finally got the response on Friday, it doesn't even answer the simplest of questions, such as who authorized this targeted spy ring.

Worse than that, it is misleading in its denials about intentionally intercepting communications with Congress.

When I asked them why they couldn't just answer some simple questions, they told my staff that the response was under review by the "appropriate officials in the Administration."

The non-answers and double-speak would have fit right into a George Orwell novel.

Of course, when my staff dug deeper and asked if the response was being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, FDA responded, no.

FDA refused to identify who within the Administration was holding up the FDA's response to my letter.

FDA refused to say how long it had been sitting on that person's desk or why it had to be approved by political officials outside the FDA.

Who is this shadowy figure conducting some secret review of FDA's response to my questions?

Why was there all of the sudden interest in exerting political control over the correspondence of this supposedly independent Federal agency?

We need answers and we need them now.

I have been demanding answers for six months.

For the past six months FDA has been telling me to be patient.

FDA has been telling me that they have "a good story to tell."

Apparently, though, there's someone in the Obama Administration who didn't want them to say anything for as long as possible.

I finally got Commissioner Hamburg on the phone in June.

Commissioner Hamburg personally assured me that the FDA was going to fully cooperate with my investigation.

Yet - the FDA has provided me with nothing but misleading and incomplete responses.

The FDA has failed to measure up to Commissioner Hamburg's pledge of cooperation.

The FDA buried its head in the sand in hopes that I will lose interest and go away.

That's not going to happen.

I don't care who is in charge of the executive branch, Republican or Democrat, I will not stop demanding answers.

When government bureaucrats obstruct and intercept my communications with protected whistleblowers, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats stonewall for months on end, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats try and muddy the waters and mislead, I will not stop.

I will get to the bottom of it.

I will continue to press the FDA until we know who authorized spying on whistleblowers.

Someone within the FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with my office and with several other Members of Congress.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with Congressman Van Hollen's office.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with staff at the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with the Office of Special Counsel.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was approving drugs and treatments that it shouldn't.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was caving to pressure from the companies that were applying for FDA approval.

They have a right to express those concerns without fear of retaliation.

But after doing so, two of them were fired.

Two more were forced to leave FDA.

And five of them were subjected to an intense spying campaign.

Senior FDA officials may have broken the law.

They authorized the capturing of personal email passwords through keystroke logging software.

That potentially allowed them to log in to the whistleblowers' personal email accounts and access emails that were never even accessed from a work computer.

Without a subpoena or warrant, that would be a criminal violation.

After six months, FDA finally denied that occurred.

However, that denial was based on the word of one unnamed information technology employee involved in the monitoring.

We need a more thorough investigation than that.

I have asked the FDA to make that person and several other witnesses available for interviews with my staff.

We will see how cooperative FDA plans to be now.

I will continue to press the FDA to open every window and every door.

Eventually enough sunlight on this agency will cleanse it.

FDA gets paid to protect the public, not keep us in the dark.

Secret monitoring programs, spying on Congress, and retaliating against whistleblowers?this is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at the FDA.

I know there are hard-working and principled rank and file employees at FDA who care very much about their mission to protect the American public from harm.

Unfortunately, all too often those rank and file employees are unfairly tarnished by others such as those involved in this spy ring.

This is a sad commentary on President Obama's promise to the American people that this would be the most transparent Administration in history.

The American people can't lose faith in the FDA.

Unfortunately, after this debacle, I think that I have.

FDA has a lot of work to do to restore the public's trust.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has asked for a complete accounting of how the Department of Justice is responding to an incident last month in Louisiana where a senior civil rights lawyer for the department reportedly threatened a journalist about getting "on the Department of Justice's bad side" if the reporter quoted the lawyer.  The alleged incident occurred at a meeting advertised as a public event to address concerns about employment practices of the local fire department.

 

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley asked if the Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and if not, why not.  Grassley also asked for details about the Justice Department's "special rules" for statements reportedly cited by the department lawyer at the meeting.  And, he asked for the justification and an explanation of the threat reportedly leveled by the department official if the reporter didn't comply with orders about not quoting her.

 

Grassley said reports of the incident in New Iberia, Louisiana, including a complaint by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, are troubling and, if accurate, "confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration."  Grassley referred to two memoranda issued by President Obama purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government" and to comments from White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as recently as July 1, that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."

 

Click here for Grassley's July 17 letter to Holder.  Below is the text of the letter of inquiry.

 

July 17, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.                           

Attorney General                       

U.S. Department of Justice                       

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                          

Washington, DC 20530                         

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

 

I write to express my concern about reports of an incident at a June 12, 2012 public meeting in New Iberia, Louisiana involving Rachel Hranitzky, a Senior Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division.[1] It is my understanding that a formal complaint about the incident has been sent to the Department of Justice.  I also understand that letters requesting information have been sent to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez by Senator David Vitter, Congressman Jeff Landry and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

 

The June 22, 2012 letter from the Reporters Committee summarized the reports on the incident as follows:

 

It is our understanding that on [June 12, 2012], Ms. Hranitzky arrived at the meeting and immediately asked if any journalists were present. When a Daily Iberian reporter attending the meeting responded in the affirmative, she informed him that he could neither record the meeting nor quote her statements. According to other attendees, the meeting had been advertised as a public meeting intended to address concerns with the city fire department's hiring and promotion process.  However, citing 'special rules' of the Department of Justice for agency attorneys, Ms. Hranitzky instructed that her statements be neither recorded nor quoted. When the reporter questioned this instruction on the basis that Ms. Hranitzky was speaking at a public meeting, she apparently threatened him with the possibility that the DOJ could call his editors and publisher, and warned that he would not 'want to get on the Department of Justice's bad side.' Furthermore, it is our understanding that Ms. Hranitzky demanded the reporter leave the meeting, although?after making his objection known but agreeing not to quote her?he was ultimately allowed to remain.

 

According to one report on the incident, Ms. Hranitzky "'grew belligerent and threatening'" while speaking with the reporter.[2] After the meeting, she apparently told the reporter that she had been quoted in the past and gotten in trouble with the DOJ.[3] More specifically, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that the DOJ "'keeps a short leash on how their attorneys are quoted and she could get in big trouble if she were quoted in a newspaper.'"[4]

 

As you are well aware, on his first full day in office, President Obama declared openness and transparency to be touchstones of his administration, and ordered agencies to make it easier for the public to get information about the government.  Specifically, he issued two memoranda written in grand language and purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government."[5] As recently as July 1, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told a television audience that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."[6]

 

The reports about the incident in New Iberia and the existence of a DOJ policy or "special rules" which were the cause of the incident, are troubling.  If accurate, the reports further confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration.

Transparency and open government must be more than just pleasant sounding words found in memos and sound bites in television interviews.  They are essential to the functioning of a democratic government.  Moreover, if the reports about the incident and the existence of a DOJ policy or DOJ "special rules" are accurate, it would amount to a raw abuse of power and a complete disregard for the First Amendment and state open meetings laws.

I am seriously concerned about the reports regarding the incident in New Iberia.  Accordingly, please respond to the following questions and requests for information:

1.            Is the DOJ, or the DOJ Inspector General, conducting an investigation of the incident in New Iberia?

 

2.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  If the investigation is being conducted by members of the Civil Rights Division, explain how they do not have a conflict of interest.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

3.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation when it is completed.

 

4.            Set forth in detail the DOJ's version of the events that took place at the public meeting in New Iberia.

 

5.            If the reports are accurate and Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that he could not quote anything she said at the public meeting, provide a citation to the legal authority justifying that statement.  If there is no legal authority supporting the statement, expressly acknowledge that fact.

 

6.            Does the DOJ have a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings?  If there is a written policy or written rules, provide a copy.  If there is an unwritten policy or unwritten rules, describe the policy or rules in detail.

 

7.            If the DOJ has a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings, identify: (a) when that policy or those rules were initiated, (b) who is the author of the policy or rules and (c) the rationale or justification for the adoption of the policy or rules.  Also, identify the legal authority supporting the existence of such a policy or such rules given the protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment.  If such analysis was previously conducted and is set forth in a document, provide a copy of that document.

 

8.            According to the reports, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that unless he complied with her orders about not quoting her, the DOJ might contact his editors or publisher and he would not want to get on the DOJ's "bad side."  Have DOJ employees been instructed to use or had it suggested to them that they could use the DOJ "bad side" statement or any other similar threat tactic when dealing with members of the media?  If so, set forth in detail (a) the circumstances under which the instructions or suggestions were made and (b) the justification for such an instruction or suggestion being given.

 

9.            Has the DOJ previously disciplined or reprimanded its employees, in any manner, whether officially or unofficially, if the statements they make at public meetings are quoted by the media?  If so, please explain in detail the circumstances under which such discipline has occurred and/or could occur.

 

10.        The reports on the incident in New Iberia referenced a DOJ policy or "special rules" related to employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  Even if no official policy or rules exist, is the DOJ investigating whether any practices exist or whether orders have been given to DOJ employees by their supervisors about the employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  Also, if the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

11.        If a DOJ employee speaks at a public meeting in his or her official capacity, is the reporting on or recording of the employee's statements subject to state open meetings laws, such as the one that exists in Louisiana?  If not, explain why you maintain that the statements are not subject to open meetings laws.  Also, if not, identify what laws or rules, the DOJ is subject to or follows in connection with the recording of a public meeting at which a DOJ employee speaks in his or her official capacity.  If your answer includes a reference to internal DOJ rules, provide a copy.

 

12.        Was the meeting in New Iberia subject to Louisiana's open meetings law?  If you maintain that it was not, explain your response in detail.

 

13.        Since the publication of the reports on the incident in New Iberia, have DOJ employees been given any instructions or training on how they are to interact with individuals, including members of the media, attending public meetings?  If so, and if those instructions or that training was in written format, provide a copy.  If so, and if the instructions or training was not in written format, describe it in detail.  If there have not been any instructions or training given, explain why that is so.

 

14.        Since 2007, has the DOJ received any complaints, whether informal or formal, regarding statements or conduct by its employees at a public meeting, proceeding or event similar to Ms. Hranitzky's reported statements and conduct in  New Iberia?  If so, identify each such incident in detail.  For each such incident, provide a copy of the written complaint or report that the DOJ received and a copy of any written response by the DOJ.

 

15.        Provide copies of all written responses by the DOJ to any inquiries, letters or complaints about the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

16.        Provide copies of the notices or advertisements for the meeting in New Iberia.

 

17.        Provide copies of any public statements or comments made by the DOJ on the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

18.        Identify the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia, including the case name(s) and docket number(s).

 

19.        Provide a copy of the ruling or consent decree issued in the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

20.        Provide copies of any written statements or comments issued by the DOJ regarding the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

21.        Provide copies of any written DOJ policy, directive or guidance regarding DOJ employees speaking with members of the media.

 

I ask that you provide written answers and documents by August 17, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

Cc: Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

 



[1] Matthew Beaton, "'DOJ practice' slammed by politicos, group," The Daily Iberian  (July 8, 2012) (available at http://www.iberianet.com/news/doj-practice-slammed-by-politicos-group/article_32a8d028-c8b7-11e1-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html).

[2] Matthew Volkov, "Civil Rights Division Lawyer Under Fire for Threatening Reporter at Public Hearing,"  Mainjustice.Com (July 9, 2012) (available at http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/07/09/civil-rights-division-lawyer-under-fire-for-threatening-reporter-at-public-hearing/print/).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Freedom of Information Act (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/freedom-information-act); Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Transparency and Open Government (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government).

[6] Josh Feldman, "Candy Crowley Calls Out President Obama For Executive Privilege Hypocrisy On Fast & Furious," Mediaite.com (July 1, 2012) (available at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-crowley-calls-out-president-obama-for-executive-privilege-hypocrisy-on-fast-furious/).

Des Moines, July 17, 2012 ?Judge John Miller, senior judge serving the Iowa Court of Appeals, recently received the Iowa Judges Association Award of Merit at the Judges Association meeting. The award is given annually to recognize a judge who has made extraordinary contributions to the Iowa Judges Association and who has been a role model to new judges.

"Our Iowa judiciary is staffed with skilled, hardworking judges of high integrity who are dedicated to fulfilling their constitutional and statutory duties, and constantly strive to improve the judiciary," Judge Miller said. "I am honored and humbled to receive this award of merit from my peers for my contribution to our efforts."

The Award of Merit is given, as stated on the plaque itself, in recognition of the judge's dedication, skill, distinguished service, and extraordinary efforts for the betterment of the Iowa judiciary.

"The attributes stated on the award are exemplified by Judge Miller through his many years of outstanding service to the public as a trial judge, appellate judge, and senior judge," Fifth District Court Judge Robert Hutchison, Des Moines, said.

Judge Miller, Burlington, retired from the Iowa Court of Appeals in 2009 after more than 30 years in the judiciary. Prior to his judgeship, he was a part-time judicial hospitalization referee while in private practice from 1975-1980. Judge Miller served more than 18 years as a district court judge, 14 months of which he spent as Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District.   He served on the Iowa Court of Appeals from 1999-2009. He received both his undergraduate and bachelor degree from the University of Iowa, completing his undergraduate study in 1969 and graduating from law school, with distinction, in 1975.

During his career, Judge Miller was a member of the Judicial Administration Committee of The Iowa State Bar Association for nearly 22 years, and co-chaired its ad hoc judicial plebiscite committee. He was an active member of the Iowa Judges Association, as he served on a majority of its committees and spent three separate terms on its board of directors, holding each one of its offices, including its presidency in 1998-99.

# # #

Expert Offers Tips for Creating Championship Teams

Great coaches take into consideration an athlete's talent and heart when they're building a team, but they consider group dynamics, too, says entrepreneur J. Allan McCarthy.

"It's not just a matter of getting the fastest, strongest and smartest players on your side," says McCarthy, an international scaling expert and author of Beyond Genius, Innovation & Luck: The 'Rocket Science' of Building High-Performance Corporations (www.mccarthyandaffiliates.com).

"If you're building a championship team, you're gauging how the individual athletes fit together; how their personalities, talents, drive and abilities will mesh to meet the team's goals. It's exactly what you need to do to build a winning corporate team. As Michael Jordan, put it, 'Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.' "

In the 2011 film Moneyball, Coach Billy Beane picks his players based on analysis and evidence, says McCarthy, who has worked with hundreds of companies. He doesn't ever just "go with his gut."

McCarthy provides key points for building a successful, effective team:

· Lead with a team, not a group: A team of leaders behaves very differently than a group of leaders. Many companies don't know the difference. "It comes down to clear goals, interdependencies and rules of engagement," McCarthy says, Every corporation claims to hire only the best and the brightest but it is evident that getting the best and brightest to function as a team can be a challenge.

· Know your goals: McCarthy cites Bill Gates - "Teams should be able to act with the same unity of purpose and focus as a well-motivated individual." Many big-name CEOs like to say their talent runs free with innovative ideas. "It makes for compelling literature," McCarthy says. But would that work on the football field? Corporations need their personnel to think out-of-the-box but also act in a prescriptive culture - to work within a system in order to achieve common objectives.

· Not everyone can be the coach - or the quarterback: The problem with executives is that they all want to lead and none want to follow, McCarthy says. A team made up of executives is like a group of thoroughbred stallions confined to a small space called an organization -- plenty of kicking, biting and discord. Thoroughbreds don't naturally work well as a team. Better to define responsibilities that build a "foxhole mentality," wherein one person has the gun, the other the bullets, McCarthy says. It's in the best interests of both for each to succeed.

· The strongest teams are adept at resolving conflict: Hiring the best and the brightest should create a diverse, competent group ? but inevitably these stallions generate friction that can sabotage company progress. So, sensitize team members to the early warning signs: know-it-all attitudes, multi-tasking during team meetings, exhibiting dominant behavior, not responding in a timely fashion or engaging in avoidance. Agree, as a team, on how to mutually manage and minimize counterproductive behaviors as they surface.

· Create individual and team agreements: Here is where the "rubber meets the road" - it's the final stage of planning who will do what for team objectives, as well as a collective agreement on team rules and interdependencies. Ask individuals to openly commit to what they will do, and how the team is to function. The public declaration stresses employee obligation and collaborative management.

"We live in a 21st-century economy where speed and efficiency is a top priority, and that often means a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality," McCarthy says. "But you get the team that you plan for, not necessarily what you pay for. If time is money, then I'd invest it in creating and building a championship team."

About J. Allan McCarthy

J. Allan McCarthy, principal of J.A. McCarthy & Affiliates, has more than 20 years of experience across 15 industries and more than 200 companies. He is a scaling expert who helps organizations determine how to best align strategy, structure and workforce capabilities. He earned his master's of management from Golden Gate University, a Stanford University AEA MBA refresher, and has worked with many international companies, including Cisco Systems, Raychem Corporation, SAP Inc., Redback Networks, BEA Systems and Ericsson.

By Steve Gunn
EAGnews.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Not long ago, we received a message from a very upset public school teacher who said she wants everyone to "keep education out of politics."
That would be a lot easier if the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, would get out of the political game.
But the NEA long ago established itself as a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. It spends millions of dollars every election cycle on Democratic candidates at the federal, state and local levels. It stakes out liberal policy positions on issues ranging from immigration and foreign policy to gay marriage.
And its leaders have never been shy about taking potshots at Republicans and their loyalty to the free market system that has served our nation for centuries.
If the union is so eager to play soldier on the political battle field, how can its leaders whine when the opposition shoots back? They can attack Republicans, but when GOP forces return fire, they accuse them of "attacking teachers."
They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but somehow they pull it off.
It's obvious that the union's first priority is partisan politics. The few Republican union members who attended the recent NEA Representative Assembly in Washington, D.C. said it felt like an Obama campaign rally. They were booed and harassed when a few of them dared speak in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And if the pro-Obama atmosphere was not enough, the list of resolutions adopted at the meeting made it clear that this union is run by liberals with a very one-sided agenda.
Two Wisconsin teachers, Kristi Lacroix and Tracie Happel, tracked a number of resolutions that were introduced at the NEA Representative Assembly and addressed them in their weekly online newsletter, "Freedom from Teachers' Unions."
Below is a quick sketch of some of the issues the NEA considers worthy of its time and attention. Note that most of the items lack any connection to the improvement of K-12 public education. Who cares about that, when there's an election to be won?
The educators address everything but education
New Business Item 3: NEA shall compile a list of individuals and corporations who contribute $250,000 or more to "Super PACs" and additional activities. The list shall include companies and the products they control. The information shall be published in the NEA Today prior to March 1, 2013.
We're pretty sure they were referring to conservative Super PACs. Nothing like boycotting the companies that support your political opponents. This reminds us of the union thugs in Wisconsin who last year threatened to boycott local businesses that refused to display a pro-labor sign in their windows.
Sickening.
New Business Item 53: NEA will assist affiliates with planning for policy changes under the Affordable Care Act, augmented by cooperation with the Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare Organization, all in support of the longstanding NEA goal of establishing a universal single payer healthcare system.
The union is clearly celebrating the recent Supreme Court victory for Obamacare, and is making it clear that it's ready and willing to help push for an even more socialized health care system. A lot of kids may never learn to read, but the union is determined to get them "free" health insurance.

New Business Item 14: NEA will publicly oppose any policy of U.S. military action against Iran and will restate our belief that diplomatic and nonviolent means are preferable in resolving international political differences. Further, we will make this position known in an open letter to the President and Congress.
Amazingly, this radical motion was not adopted by the delegates. Apparently a few of them have the good sense to realize that Iran may very well employ nuclear weapons against Israel if we allow the Iranians to build them. Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got on the phone to her union friends and told them to get real about a very serious foreign policy challenge.
The delegates did approve an item officially recognizing the International Day of Peace each September 21.
A few "education" items
Lo and behold, Lacroix and Happel came across a few "new business items" that were somewhat related to education. But as you might have guessed, they were completely self-serving.
New Business Item 62: The NEA, in conjunction with state affiliates, encourages organizing efforts in non-union public charter schools and will broadly share with state and local affiliates key information ... that is relevant to any efforts by local and state affiliates attempting to organize non-union public school charter staffs.
If you can't beat the competition, convince them to join you. At least you can add more names to your dwindling membership list and gain a lot more revenue through dues deductions.

New Business Item 35: The NEA ... shall publish an article on the U.S. Conference of Mayors' endorsement of parent trigger laws, and report on the concern that parent trigger laws conflict with NEA criteria for creating charter schools.
Parent trigger laws allow citizens whose children attend failing schools to pursue a number of remedies, including the replacement of teachers or a transition to charter school status. The union defends its members, even if they're failing in the classroom. It certainly doesn't want any of them replaced with non-union charter school teachers. The status quo must be maintained and angry parents must be kept at a safe distance.
New Business Item 41: NEA will encourage its state and local affiliates to help gather any written communications received from teacher recruitment organizations and/or their operatives that discourage member empowerment and activity in the work of the Association. NEA will then support its local and state affiliates in communicating the inappropriateness of this behavior.
We think this item refers to the growing popularity of the Association of American Educators, a professional association that represents the interests of teachers without engaging in collective bargaining or other typical union activities. More and more teachers are quitting the union and joining AAE or similar groups, and the NEA wants to stop the bleeding.
Contact Steve Gunn at sgunn@edactiongroup.org or (231) 733-4202

Pages