Election 2016: Can a candidate win without using “voter anger?” – a conversation with Sue Savary, candidate for Congress

Pretend, for the moment, that this year’s electioneering could look different than it does.  Imagine that the candidates’ bellowing, and the media hype, about “voter anger” were to be replaced with other messages.  For example:  Perhaps  there could be more meaningful and detailed discussions about policy positions and growth proposals?  Would not that make for more informed voting decisions?  I think most people would answer that last question with a big “YES!”

But, the reality is that “voter anger” – whatever that really means – has been a dominate political theme for most of the last year, and will continue in that way for the rest of 2016.

Leaving aside the presidential aspirants, there must be other candidates – perhaps candidates for Congress – whose message is not dominated by references to voter anger.  Change can be done constructively and without rancor, whether from one side of the political spectrum or the other.  There must be some candidates out there who are brave enough to appeal to voters’ intelligence instead of simply seeking to amplify emotions.

And so I finally wade into the mission of analyzing the issues and candidates of this year’s election by starting locally.  Can I find a local candidate for Congress with a message of constructive change that has little or nothing to do with voter anger?

I found one.

This one is a Democrat.  (Maybe there’s a Republican for another time.)  She is a Democrat who has no trouble embracing ideas that are comfortable for Republicans and other conservatives as well, too.  And she does this in the spirit that “all things are possible;” anger is not needed, nor would it be helpful.

Dr. Suzanne Savary is a Democratic candidate for Congress in the 48^th Congressional District in California.  That area is coastal Orange County – from Seal Beach at its northern end, to Laguna Beach at its southern reach, and a few miles inland.  Its wealth and income levels are above mean and median.  The District is currently represented by 14-term Republican Dana Rohrabacher, who was first voted into Congress in the election of 1988.  The District has a decades’ long record of a Republican voting majority – although it interrupted consistency with a vote for Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election – and Rohrabacher will stand for re-election.  With the additional advantage of incumbency, it would be no surprise if Rohrabacher were confident of victory.

In fact, Savary and Rohrabacher faced off in the last election in 2014.  Rohrabacher, of course, won handily.  So, why would Savary want to try again?

As it turned out, she had several good answers to that question.

2014 was Savary’s first – and, until now, only – try for elective office.  Now, in 2016, that has to count for something in an election year in which voters seem to place a premium on candidates whose careers have been something other than politics.  She seems happy to look at 2014 as a novice’s learning experience, with lessons, and a certain amount of legacy campaign organization, that can help produce a better campaign the second time around.  Also, 2016 could see a larger turnout of Democratic voters than was the case in the last election.

Savary positions herself as the Democrat candidate who is proud of her political affiliation, and at the same time is equally sincere in promoting a pro-business theme.  She sees that as a way of accelerating local economic and employment growth while maintaining a commitment to addressing root causes of income and wealth inequities, including constrained employment and educational opportunities.  She emphasizes small and medium sized businesses as those providing the best fit in the Congressional District’s cities.

There is nothing particularly novel about that message.  It sounds somewhat Clinton-esque, in the sense of the Bill Clinton administrations of the 1990s, although Savary did not try to make that connection.  Instead, she draws on her extensive experience in management consulting and on her time on the faculty of the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business, where she taught on the subject of management and communications.

And so, there will be a Democratic candidate in the 48^th Congressional District who can make a very convincing case that she can best represent the business development needs of the local cities to the nation’s government in Washington, D.C.  Rohrabacher can disagree with Savary on that, but he could find himself forced into a defensive position because of Savary’s business background and credibility.  She has the ability to occupy space that is traditionally Republican turf.

Savary is challenging the established order of things, but without the need to appeal to voter anger.  She speaks instead in positive and optimistic terms about the boundlessness of America’s future, both locally and nationally.  In her words, now is the “time to accomplish bold things.”  She is eager to present herself to the electorate by saying that “bold things” ought to include policies to stimulate business formation, job creation, empowerment of women and families, enhancement of educational opportunities, rethinking foreign policy, additional space exploration – a full spectrum of things, from the work-a-day needs of employees and business owners, to the wide-open visions of developing and using new technologies.

California’s June 7 primary election will be Savary’s electoral gateway to competing against Congressman Rohrabacher in the November contest.  California runs a jungle primary – only the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advance to November.  She will compete against other Democrats; Rohrabacher is unlikely to face any Republican challengers.

California’s 48CD has a largely conservative and Republican population.  But Savary, as a Democrat, probably has a style that is too conservative for the more liberal type of Democrats who are turning out in relatively large numbers in other parts of the country in voting for Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential nominating process.  Should Democratic voters in the 48^th follow in that same pattern it could hurt her chances to advance beyond the primary election.

If, however, Savary is one of the two finishers who walk out of the June 7 jungle, then her business-aware approach is likely to serve her well in November.

21st Century Directions for Public Higher Ed – a conversation with Eloy Oakley, President, Long Beach City College

(Note:  Public higher education as delivered by community colleges is nation-wide.  Those institutions develop economic opportunities for the individual, and benefits for the community, wherever they operate.  The following column, though based on experiences at one such institution, is offered in support of all U.S. community colleges.)

“The economy is unforgiving of those workers who do not have a post-secondary credential.”  With that brief but powerful statement Eloy Oakley, Superintendent-President of Long Beach City College (LBCC) in Long Beach, California, set the tone for our recent sit-down discussion about the mission of community college public higher education, and the environment in which it finds itself.

Our conversation focused on LBCC, one of 113 community colleges in California with total enrollment of over 2 million students.  Millions more are enrolled in similar colleges throughout the nation.  The influence that these institutions have on opportunity creation and development for most – perhaps all – of America’s population is enormous.

We spoke primarily about LBCC – its history, successes, current and future challenges, its growth initiatives, and its needs for support.  Much of this applies to American community colleges in general.

The mission of Long Beach City College is all about “opportunity,” according to Oakley.  That was his immediate answer as the question was posed to him, and it is the theme of his story about the accomplishments of today’s public higher education systems in America, as well as the challenges and changes that they face. 

It is a compelling story, full of optimism and promise for the future, but also one that has critical near-term and long-term needs that might not be met.  These needs are not frivolous, transitory or difficult to justify – they exist because to a large degree the legal, governing and regulatory structures that created these institutions were created long ago and have had little, if any, change over time. 

While the governing framework has remained static, the needs of the communities and students served by these institutions have changed dramatically, in unanticipated ways.  In addition, public funding has suffered in the last several years, as state government has cut spending – largely in response to the recession brought on by the financial crisis of 2008.  As the largest part of those budgets, public education (including community colleges) has borne the brunt of the cutbacks.  Budget cuts mean fewer available course offerings:  from the 2008/09 academic year to the 2013/14 year, total course sections provided in the California community colleges declined from 425,625 to 352,516, or by 17%.  Fewer course offerings cause some potential students to be turned away; for those who are students, it means more months or years are needed to finish the chosen educational program.

The current budget year has seen increased funding for California’s community colleges. However, according to a July 21, 2015 budget memo to the Board of Governors of California Community Colleges, "Even with this good budget news, it is important to remember that the colleges have not yet fully recovered from the economic downturn.  We have not yet been funded to completely restore student access, and college operational budgets are still approximately $750 million behind where we were before the recession, accounting for inflation."

Native to Southern California, Eloy Oakley is the product of a combination of life-style heritage and personal choices that serve him well in leading Long Beach City College in these years of the early 21^st Century.  He is self-described as the product of a blue-collar, working-class, Hispanic family and community environment.  His father was a long-time employee of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard; as a youth, Oakley might have been more interested in football than in academics.  He graduated from a local Catholic high school with no certain direction for the next steps in his life.

First in his family to attend college, but that did not happen until after a four-year volunteer stint in the U.S. Army, plus another year of odd-job employment.   Golden West College, a community college in the nearby city of Huntington Beach, was the setting for his initial experience with post-secondary, higher education.  This turned out to be a fateful decision, as a series of educational and social experiences set him on a path of educational attainment and professional positions that prepared him for his selection to be leader of Long Beach City College. 

He owes his career, he said, to community college.

Clearly, as LBCC president, he feels that he is part of something bigger than himself – to make the advantages of post-secondary education available to all in the community who need it and want it.  It is all for “opportunity” he says.  Post-secondary credentialing and higher education expand the scope of opportunity for the worker in today’s and tomorrow’s economy.

Consider some background on how the nation is doing on this effort.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has a membership of 34 developed and mostly-rich countries.  A recent OECD analysis, as reported by The Economist (January 23^rd 2016), indicates that the United States could benefit from doing a better job in post-secondary (or “tertiary”) education.

According to the OECD, in 2013 about 45% of the American population aged 25 to 34 had some tertiary education.  While a notable improvement from 1970, when the corresponding figure was only about 30%, other nations posted greater improvements during the same years:  Japan went from 15% to just short of 60%; Britain improved from just under 20% to almost 50%; France and Spain both came in close to (but just under) America’s 2013 mark, but they had much higher hills to climb, starting with 1970 figures of around 10%.

Why is this important?  Because it is all about the opportunities of employability.

As a rule, employment undertaken by a person while aged from the mid-twenties to the early thirties sets the stage for the nature of that person’s workforce participation – and, therefore, earnings – for the remainder of that person’s working life.  We know this  – more education means greater earning power.  It does not have to be only education that leads to degree attainment; other types of education and attainment can work well, too.

Here is what this means for the future:  Around half of the country’s demographically-young workforce – a cohort that will be our annual earnings backbone for decades to come – could have been better-prepared to earn more.  The same thing applies to each new generation as it matures into this age group until there are positive changes in the availability of post-secondary education.  The implications for future earnings-based taxation to support public programs – education, health, public safety, national defense, Social Security, and so on – are obvious and disappointing.

We could have done better.  We must do better going forward.  Institutions of public higher education, especially community colleges, are well-positioned to improve the record by better-preparing our future workforces to have the opportunity for greatest possible earnings.  Community colleges are numerous, dispersed and structured to be affordable.

What stands in our way?

In California, public higher education is governed by the Master Plan for Higher Education.  This Plan was released in 1960 at the behest of Governor Pat Brown (father of the state’s current Governor Jerry Brown).  An incredibly successful and durable framework, it unfortunately was not designed to be able to adjust to the significant changes that have occurred in California since that time, according to President Oakley.  To put it another way, the needs of the students who enroll, and will enroll, in California’s institutions of public higher education have changed dramatically during the past half century.  The same is true about the needs of the communities served by those institutions.

According to Oakley, LBCC enrolls about 32,000 students, roughly 80% of whom are identified as minorities.  By comparison, in the decade following the drafting of the Master Plan, the student population was about 10% minority.  The demographic change happened gradually, but inexorably.  Oakley explained that only in the last decade or so has LBCC been able to successfully focus on adjusting itself to significantly-changed student needs, such as providing for full-time and part-time work schedules, differences in English language proficiency, and others.

Public education means public funding, always a sensitive subject.  This is true especially now as the emphasis for evaluating the priorities for spreading the available tax revenues tends to place a lower sense of value on expenditures that seem as if they will produce a pay-off, or a type of “return on investment,” that is some years in the future.

He continued by making a good case for “rethinking how community colleges are funded” and how they should be held accountable.  (With 113 California community colleges, this is no small task.)  86% of LBCC’s general fund, he said, comes from the state.  That amounts to less than $6,000 per student.  He compared that to the state’s funding for the University of California, which amounts to about $13,000 per student.  His point being that public funding is the least for those students whose preparation for higher education is generally most in want of assistance, and greatest for those whose preparation for higher education is least in need of assistance.  So, the funding algorithm is topsy-turvy.

Good point.

Accountability is a major issue for President Oakley.  He would like to see public regulation shifted from the state government level to a local level, similar to the local accountability that has been put in place for K through 12 education.  He volunteered that LBCC must do better in some key student measurements, such as shortening the time a student spends in completing an Associate’s Degree or in transferring to a Bachelor’s Degree-granting institution.  Currently, slightly less than half of the students with those intents accomplish such a goal in six years or less; Oakley would like to see that bar moved to four years.

On the subject of accountability – the California Community Colleges organization maintains an on-line “Student Success Scorecard.”  A comprehensive variety of student achievement information for all of California’s community colleges is summarized, by college, and made available for all to see.

Oakley gave the impression that he views the availability of the Student Success Scorecard as one of the good first steps in improving accountability regulations, methodologies and measurements.  A quick look at it reveals that it is broken down college-by-college, thus providing transparent accountability.

Furthermore, he said, the California education code is so big and cumbersome that it makes it “difficult to do anything different without changing the law.”

That sounded like he would try out some new and innovative things in public higher education if his power to do so were not constrained or prevented by the code.  With a Master Plan that has been static, while for decades the environment served by that Plan has been in constant change, the opportunities for innovation must be enormous.

Long Beach City College is a success.  In national rankings, it is among the top 25 colleges in granting Associates degrees to Hispanic and Asia-Pacific students.  Thanks largely to some recent voter-approved bond funds, the physical plant is up-to-date and supportive of the educational goals.  With progress on the time-to-transfer and time-to-degree measurements, Oakley believes that it can be “as good as any top-notch college in the nation.”

President Oakley freely gave great credit to several support programs that have made significant contributions to Long Beach City College in particular, and by extensions to public community college higher education at large.

America’s College Promise – an initiative for two years of tuition-free community college for “responsible students,” launched by the Obama Administration in January 2015 – “affirms what we have been doing in the community,” Oakley said.  He was making a link to the Long BeachCollege Promise, a similar program started in 2008.  It is funded by private donations, and is a partnership among LBCC, the Long Beach Unified School District, California State University Long Beach, and the City of Long Beach and is described as a model for fulfillment of the College Promise concept nation-wide.

He is a huge fan of community support for Long Beach City College.  This is accomplished in a variety of ways; among them, the Long BeachCity College Foundation (which counts this writer among its members) is a constant fund-raiser for the College – it is the primary fund-raiser for the Long Beach College Promise -- and provides important linkages to the residents and businesses of the area served by LBCC.  The Foundation provides grants, scholarships, support to the College Promise and to numerous other programs at LBCC.

Long Beach City College is not unique in having a support structure.  Any community college can have something similar, and probably most already do.  Fund-raising activities for higher education tend to benefit mostly the colleges and universities whose names are not qualified with the words “community” or “city.”  Community colleges, with a mission of pure education, are just as worthy as their more prestigious cousins.

It is all about economic opportunity for people as individuals, and also for the community and the entire country.