DES MOINES – Iowa leaders have taken over an investigation into the state’s first publicly reported case of cheating on the standardized tests that determine the overall performance of schools.

Officials with the Davenport Community School District recently turned over to the state materials from their investigation of irregular erasures and unusual jumps in tests scores at Madison Elementary School.

The district found high erasure rates on the answer sheets of students in grades 3-5 in reading and math but not science, which is not counted towards the school’s performance under No Child Left Behind. The federal law requires schools to meet yearly targets or face sanctions.

Madison Elementary School exams were widely tampered with to boost scores.

The average rate of erasures at the school hovered at 7.6 percent, compared to the 1.25 percent average of other Davenport schools, according to Arthur Tate, district superintendent.  District officials found the tampering increased Madison’s reading scores, for example, from 63 percent passing to 92 percent, according to emails between the district and state obtained by Iowa Watchdog.

Despite its efforts, the district has yet to find who tampered with the exams.

After sifting through hundreds of emails, Iowa Watchdog weeded out the noise to provide readers with the top highlights, whether they be crazy quotes or add light to the cheating scandal.

1. “I don’t know why you would need to send any evidence to us,” Iowa Department of Education staffer Tom Deeter said to Tate in a March 29 email.

2. “You are the perfect ‘community schools’ model and are having incredible results,” Tate told Madison principal Sara Gott, who took the position almost two years ago. It’s unclear whether the email was sent prior to officials uncovering the cheating. Tate complimented Gott’s throughout the emails, calling her an example for the rest of the district.

3. “We looked at 100 percent of the reading scores. We didn’t do all of the math scores. It wasn’t an issue,” Tate said in a recent interview with Iowa Watchdog. He previously told Jason Glass, director of the Iowa Department of Education, in an April email that there was “obvious tampering” with math.

4. “It’s not possible for us to gain the kind of investigatory oversight in the state to uncover irregularities on the scale that we need to … The State of Iowa is going to have to assert its responsibility to allow us to ensure data quality over the assessment system in order for this to be corrected,” Glass said regarding how the state handles test oversight. It’s one of the only, if not only, in the nation to leave testing oversight up to school districts instead of the state.

5. “We are making steady and rapid progress on reaching a resolution on what the department’s role is going to be at this time,” Glass said in an interview Wednesday. The state has no policies that lays out procedures for such investigations.

6.  “The principal has obtained a lawyer and the legal dance has started with our attorney,” Tate said in an April email to Glass. Gott has not been removed from her position during the investigation nor has she been publicly accused of tampering with tests.

7. “We do have sufficient safeguards. We felt pretty good that we did. We were very trusting … I don’t see the need now for policy changes. I had a good group to say what are we supposed to be doing and we feel pretty good about it,” Tate said in an interview with Iowa Watchdog regarding what changes the district plans to make to avoid future cheating.

8. “My heart cannot believe that any teacher in the building would do something like this. My heart led me to sending my daughters to Madison when the rest of the world told me it was a mistake,” Madison parents Ann and Bruce Berger wrote in an April email to Tate and Gott.

9. “Continue to stand up for the need to change for the sake of our students and their families. Continue to explain the reasons for the requirements. Advise me about things that need to be altered to better the chances for improved achievement,” Tate wrote in a November email to Gott.

10. “Please ask anyone you tell to keep this confidential,” Tate wrote in an April email to Glass. Throughout the investigation and email exchanges, Tate repeatedly asked to keep the matter under wraps.

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Top 10 quotes from Davenport schools cheating scandal appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES – Officials with the Iowa Department of Education say they won’t release information collected in an investigation of a cheating scandal involving Davenport third-through fifth-graders at Madison Elementary School.

They declined to do so at the advice of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who said that material contained was protected under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act, which keeps some student information confidential. Iowa Watchdog, however, requested emails that did not disclose confidential information.

Madison test scores come under scrutiny, district investigates.

Additionally, Davenport Superintendent Arthur Tate said his district’s investigation focused on using erasure trends to look for possible cheating, in which wrong answers were erased and changed to the right one, Tate said in an interview with Iowa Watchdog. That information would not protected under law if identifying information wasn’t attached to it, according to Iowa law.

Davenport officials turned over all of their materials to the state, but Tate said the investigation is ongoing. The state required the district to turn over their investigative materials earlier this month.

Staci Hupp, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Education, said Miller advised the agency against releasing any information, blanketing it all as confidential, according to email accounts.

Miller represents state agencies when it comes to freedom of information issues, but is also charged with being a cheerleader and main enforcer when it comes to implementing transparency laws.

Miller’s office did not provide written documentation of the advice it provided to the Iowa Department of Education, Hupp said.

“On your question about redacting: It’s not an option in this case because, even though only some of the documents are FERPA protected, all of the documents are considered personnel records,” Hupp wrote in an email response.

Geoff Greenwood, spokesman with the Iowa Attorney General’s office, said they were looking further examining the confidentiality of the non-student information.

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Iowa withholds student cheating documents appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES – Good intentions aren’t the only driving force behind Iowa’s education reform efforts.

State education agencies, special interest groups and for-profit education companies have spent thousands in 2012 and 2013 to hire lobbyists and pad the campaign coffers of lawmakers who sit on key committees. Many of these groups receive most, if not all, taxpayer funding, an Iowa Watchdog review of campaign and lobbyist records show.

SPECIAL INTERESTS: Public agencies and private for-profit companies are seeking a say in education reform by giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers and lobbyists.

Companies and government groups alike spent roughly $3 million in 2012 to hire lobbyists to represent their interests in the reform efforts, legislative records show.

That figure includes $404,348 from government agencies and groups that rely heavily on taxpayer dollars for funding.

Examples include the Iowa Board of Regents, which spent $150,000; the Iowa State Education Association, which paid $103,000; and the Iowa Department of Education, which spent nearly $65,000 to push reforms.

Even Gov. Terry Branstad’s office chipped in for lobbying, according to records.

Among the biggest spenders in the reform debate are for-profit education companies and other private businesses that continue to push for looser regulations and more opportunities to create in-roads for expansion, according to the review.

Private companies and an education fundraising group, including BridgePoint Education, Wellmark, Deere Company and StudentsFirst, contributed a combined $301,000 in 2012. Political action committees BridgePoint Education and Educational Opportunities also gave money, according to state disclosure statements. Educational Opportunities is backed by the Iowa Advocates for Choice in Education.

The money has continued to flow into the reform conversation, despite ongoing disagreements among the Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House that have stalled efforts, records show.

Each group – public or private – carries its own interests in the reform talks, whether it’s better pay and more support for teachers or the expansion of full- and part-time virtual schools. And more money typically means more access to lawmakers for groups to promote their interests.

Iowa follows a national trend in private companies throwing money into states that are overhauling education. It provides them with a breeding ground to further expand their business in new states, sunlight experts say.

Take for example K12 Inc. and Connections Academy. Both companies approached rural districts and used the state’s open enrollment laws to open two full-time virtual schools, with millions in state dollars being shipped out of state to companies with questionable records.

At least one of the companies told a superintendent that it came to Iowa because of  the reform movement here.

Vivica Novak’s group, the Center for Responsive Politics, has seen an up-tick in spending from such groups since 2010, she said.

“It is often the case that the financial ties are not as obvious,” Novak said.

Then there’s for-profit education companies like BridgePoint Education. The education company provides online degrees for college students and owns the controversial Ashford University in Clinton.

Since 2010, BridgePoint has contributed $25,150 to lawmakers and spent an additional $130,348 for lobbyists in efforts to loosen regulations and expand its presence, according to state documents. One legislator includes Sen. Herman Quirmbach, chair of the Senate Education Committeee.

BridgePoint Education and Ashford University have come under fire in recent years, prompting federal lawmakers to demand investigations. Many of the schools secure tuition dollars and have high dropout rates.

Both BridgePoint and Educational Opportunities PACs contributed to high-ranking Iowa lawmakers in the past year, including Sen. Tod Bowman D-Maquoketa; Sen. Amy Sinclair R-Allerton and Rep. Cecil Dolecheck R-Mount Ayr, state records show.

The vast majority – 37 of 41 – of the candidates who received donations from Educational Opportunities in 2012 were Republicans. Just four were Democrats.

Another vocal group in Iowa’s reform debate has been StudentsFirst, a group headed by Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the District of Columbia school district. The organization poured more than $317,000 into Iowa’s 2012 legislative races, making it the single largest contributor. It also paid for advertising and email campaigns in the state.

The group supports teacher evaluations that tie student performance to teacher performance.

Current education reforms in the Iowa legislature call for teacher evaluations as a means of determining compensation and promotion. The complete implementation of the new salary and leadership structure is estimated to put a $160 million dent in the state budget. But that’s only if Senate and House leaders can reach a compromise.

“The public will know who is benefiting from the legislation being put forward,” Novak said.

Contact Tushar Rae at tusharrae@gmail.com.

The post Special interests drive Iowa education reforms appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES – Family members and close friends of Iowa‘s Congressional Delegation benefit from their relative’s position, whether it be through securing special one-time funding for an alma mater or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay a lawmaker’s son for working on his campaign, a review federal records shows.

Take for example U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and his son Robin Grassley. The younger Grassley received $926,000 in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2011, years in which his Republican father served on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat, secured $45.5 million in earmarks from 2008 to 2010 that largely funded programs and projects at his alma mater Iowa State University, according to Legistorm, a non-profit group aimed to increase transparency in government. The money was awarded to the school while his wife, Ruth Harkin, served on the Iowa Board of Regents, which oversees the university.

CASH CROP: Farm subsidies equal big money for relatives of Iowa’s members of Congress.

Then there’s U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican who paid his son Jeff King and daughter-in-law Lindsay King nearly $185,000 to help run his 2008 and 2010 campaigns, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan nonprofit. His other son, David King, took over the family construction company, King Construction, which has secured at least $1 million in federal contracts, according to the Center for Effective Government.

“It was probably more than that,” Steve King said in an interview with Iowa Watchdog. “His business associates and friends know more than I know.”

“All of the contracts we have done have been done on the low bid. We have left the taxpayers with millions of dollars, because the low bid leaves money on the table,” he added.

An investigation by Iowa Watchdog of the state’s six Congressional delegates uncovered multiple instances in which family members of the elected officials collected hundreds of thousands of campaign or taxpayer dollars. The money was used to pay for campaign services, provide farm subsidies and give special interest groups millions of dollars to pay for pet projects.

Records showed family members of Congress have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies. Example: Rep. Tom Latham, a Republican, received $314,000 in subsidies over a 16-year span, during which he served on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. His sons, brothers and other relatives also received tens of thousands in farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm subsidies.

And it’s all legal under federal ethics laws. The lack of reporting requirements or limitations leaves it an area ripe for abuse, some experts said.

Specifically, the Iowa Watchdog investigation found:

• DCI Group, which employed Grassley’s daughters Wendy Speckerman and Michele Clarke, has donated nearly $78,000 to either Grassley or his political action committee, the Hawkeye PAC, according to OpenSecrets.org. DCI Group is also listed as a client of The Grassley Group, a company established to help others achieve their mission and visions, the website said. Clarke is listed as its executive director and Speckerman was listed under finance, advocacy and office operations. The group also employs lobbyists at the national level, according to the website.
• Latham directed $39.3 million in earmarks from 2008 to 2010 to Iowa State University, his alma mater, according to LegiStorm. His daughter, Jill Latham, also earned $90,570 from working in the U.S. House between 2001 to 2004. She worked briefly for former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, before going to work at the Concordia Group LLC, owned by Nick Ryan, whose political action committee the America Future Fund gave Latham’s campaign $3,500 from 2011-12, according to OpenSecrets.org.
• Harkin owns shares in ConocoPhillip, where his wife Ruth Harkin served as director, a position she has since left. At least one of the company’s lobbyists has ties to Senate. Robert Jones was the former counsel for the Senate Appropriations Committee, which Harkin sits on, documents from OpenSecrets.org show.
• Rep. Bruce Braley’s campaign committee, Braley for Congress, reimbursed Braley $12,205 during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. He also paid Around the Corner Productions, owned by his nephew Eric Braley $163 for campaign work, according to report by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“Transparency leads to accountability and journalism and other elements of public life play important roles in providing sunshine,” Jill Kozeny, Grassley’s communications director, wrote in an email. “Senator Grassley would not seek to put public disclosure requirements on private citizens, including the children or other family members of Congress, who neither seek public office nor hold a public trust where accountability is essential.

That’s something Bill Allison, editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, disputes.

It’s hard to track abuse and how widespread it is due to the lack of reporting requirements, Allison said. The one thing that’s for sure is Iowa isn’t alone in the benefits its members of Congress provide their family.

“There are no disclosure requirements,” Allison said. “Having family members represent special interests give them a huge advantage when it comes to access to lawmakers. The name of the game is access.

It has come up at times. It’s not something members of Congress have been eager to do. But, because of the lack of disclosure, it’s just ripe for abuse.”

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Lawmakers’ families bring home big perks appeared first on Watchdog.org.

A Polk County judge Friday agreed to review the tape of a closed-door meeting held by the Des Moines School Board in regards to former Superintendent Nancy Sebring’s controversial departure.

Graham Gillette, a former school board member, brought a lawsuit against the district last year requesting that a judge review the tape from the meeting, which he alleges was illegally closed to provide the board the chance to deal with the political fallout of the resignation.

District Court Judge Karen Romano said in her ruling Friday afternoon the board’s statements regarding the meeting are inconsistent and demonstrate “a credible concern regarding the reason the Board held a closed session.”

The district must provide the court with the unredacted minutes, transcript and audio recording by May 10.

Judge rules in favor of former board member, demands Des Moines school district hand over materials from closed session.

“The statements made by (Des Moines Public School) officials following the May 10 meeting and those made three weeks later when the real reasons behind Dr. Sebrings’ resignation became known were misleading,” Gillette said. “These statements called into question the propriety of the May 10 meeting and the Board’s conduct.  The Court’s decision to grant an in camera review is a victory for open government.”

(In full disclosure, Gillette is a periodic contributor to Iowa Watchdog).

Sebring left the district about a year ago after district officials found she was using district computers to send racy emails to her lover. Both Sebring and the man were married to other people.

The board closed the meeting “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered,” which is allowed under Iowa’s Open Meeting laws.

Sebring requested the board close the May 2012 meeting “to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation,” according to board documents.

Board members came out of the meeting, which lasted less than an hour, to announce Sebring’s abrupt resignation. Then Board President Teree-Caldwell Johnson attributed her departure to Sebring’s need for additional time to prepare for her daughter’s wedding and a new job leading the Omaha School District. She later resigned from that position as well.

Caldwell-Johnson went on to say that Sebring’s performance was never discussed and it was unclear whether holding an open session would have caused anyone harm.

Three weeks later, however, media outlets accessed emails between Sebring and her lover, some of which were sent during working hours. Additional emails showed board members had found Sebring’s emails and confronted her. At that time, she offered her resignation. It was sent via email the night before the closed board meeting.

Caldwell-Johnson said she misled the public earlier because she knew it would come out in media reports eventually.

Romano said in her ruling if board members understood the emails in question would be released to the public, then it’s unclear whether it had sufficient reasoning to close the meeting to protect the reputation of the individuals discussed during the closed session.

“If the stated purpose for holding a closed session is true, then a member of the Board may have made untrue statements to the press following the meeting. Conversely, if the statements made to the press are true, then the stated purpose for closing the meeting may be untrue, and may be an unlawful reason to close the session,” Romano wrote.

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Court orders Des Moines board to turn over closed-session tape appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES – A bill to limit the use of Iowa welfare dollars at strip clubs, bars and casinos stalled Wednesday when members of the Iowa House approved an amended version they then returned to the Iowa Senate.

With the Legislative session winding down, House members spent more than four hours debating the bill, which sets the budget for the Iowa Department of Human Services, among other things. Lawmakers attached the measure to limit the use of welfare dollars to the appropriations bill after both senators and house members failed to pass bills out of committee.

Representatives didn’t once bring up the new federal requirements during their debate, despite Iowa’s inability to comply with them. If the state fails to take action by Jan. 1, it risks losing $6.6 million in federal funds for the program which would have to be offset by either state dollars or program cuts, according to the new requirements.

NOT YET: Iowa lawmakers have yet to pass legislation putting the state in compliance with new federal rules regarding welfare spending.

When asked how the state would offset the potential loss of funds, one lawmaker said it wouldn’t happen.

“I’m not sure what you are asking,” Republican Rep. Linda Miller, who chairs the House Human Resources Committee told Iowa Watchdog. “We are going to pass the legislation.”

Iowa is among 19 states with legislation pending regarding the new rules requiring them to adopt measures that prevent the misuse dollars doled out to families through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

States must begin to track transactions on the debit cards issued to welfare recipients to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars at strip clubs, casinos, bars and liquor stores.

Similar measures in another at least three states, including New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, failed to gain legislative approval. Another 13 states already have enacted laws. Of those, only five carry penalties for failing to comply with the restrictions, according to figures from the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Iowa’s proposed plan lacks teeth and fails to address the state’s alleged lack of access to the information, according to state documents. It also doesn’t include consequences for those who violate it. The bill, however, makes the misuse of welfare dollars a fraudulent act. Roger Munns, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services, did not respond to questions regarding what criminal charges, if any, a recipient would face if they were found in violation of the law.

NCSL is a “bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation’s 50 states, its commonwealths and territories,” and “provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues,” according to its website.

Iowa’s proposed legislation provides a vague plan to comply with the federal regulations even though officials say they currently can’t access the transaction information under federal privacy laws, according to Munns. 

The state contracts with Xerox at no cost to manage the program. Officials don’t track transactions, meaning there is no oversight of the roughly $100 million in state and federal taxpayer dollars that Iowa hands over to Xerox each year, according to Munns. Additionally, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller told Iowa Watchdog in letter last month that it’s not the state’s job to oversee the program and, therefore, the transactions are not public information.

None of those issues are addressed in the legislation. Miller, a ranking Republican, said it’s the department’s job — not lawmakers — to flesh out the details.

“Administrative rules will hammer out how it works,” Miller said. “DHS will get guidance from … the Feds on how to implement.”

Others, however, disagree.

Republican Sen. Brad Zaun, of Des Moines, said he has requested a meeting with Charles Palmer, head of the Iowa Department of Human Services, after learning of the state’s lax oversight of the program through Iowa Watchdog reports. Zaun said it he had just assumed the department was monitoring and overseeing the program to ensure dollars are spent appropriately.

He declined to comment Wednesday, saying he wasn’t prepared to discuss the issue.

The legislation before state lawmakers, although vague, allows Iowa officials to begin the rule-making process once they receive guidance from the federal government, Munns said.

“Pending federal rules will inform states about what actions are required or are optional,” Munns wrote in an email. “We anticipate the rules will permit states to make unlawful the use of a FIP (Family Investment Program) card to be a condition of eligibility. The proposed legislation also authorizes the department to take additional measure as may be required by the pending federal regulations.”

Iowa Watchdog requested in January a month’s worth of transactions, including the date, location and amount. The state has refused to provide the information, which they say they don’t have and isn’t public information.

Watchdog.org received transaction information in other states including Kansas, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. A review of the data in those states showed multiple transactions at strip clubs, bars, casinos and liquor stores. Investigations in other states turned up similar findings, prompting the federal legislation.

In Iowa, the matter now will go before a conference committee before the Senate votes on the amendments to the bill. It’s unclear when the matter will come up for a final vote.

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Iowa lawmakers stall on measure to track welfare spending appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES — When it comes to transparency in government, Iowa agencies face few consequences if they break the state’s open records and meetings laws, some state officials say.

Under state law, the only way for Iowans to remedy potential violations is to take taxpayer-funded agencies to court, which is a slow and costly process.  County attorneys and the Iowa attorney general also can bring civil charges, but that rarely happens, according to state documents and interviews.

Iowans only other option is to lodge a complaint with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. However, Miller is also charged with representing Iowa’s agencies in open records and meetings disputes, creating a potential conflict of interest.

ACCOUNTABILITY: Attorney general in Iowa faces conflict of interest over dueling roles.

This comes at a time when fewer individuals are relying on financially-struggling, short-staffed media outlets to take public entities to task and, instead, choose to file their own lawsuits, said Ruth Cooperrider, Iowa ombudsman.

When asked how many open records and meetings cases Miller has taken to court, Geoff Greenwood, spokesman for Miller’s office, could not provide any examples. He did, however, list a handful of cases where the state successfully intervened. Those instances, however, were resolved without legal action.

“I cannot speak in regards to the decisions regarding whether the attorney general’s office investigates,” Cooperrider said. “They have just elected not to investigate them. I don’t know if it’s a resource issue or conflict of interest issue.”

Iowa isn’t alone when it comes to conflicts of interest involving attorney generals. How the state opts to handle it, though, differs.

For instance, Greenwood said the state no longer attaches a criminal penalty to those who break transparency laws; they can only be sued in civil court. Previously, officials who ignored the law faced misdemeanor charges.

“If they are found to violate the law, they have to pay the city,” said John McCormally, assistant attorney general. “We are unusual in that regard.”

Kenneth Bunting, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said a majority of attorney generals across the nation have the authority to opine on government matters, but very few have any real enforcement powers.

One exception is Texas, where the attorney general’s opinions carry the weight of law unless an appellate court overturns the decision. However, the law doesn’t deter agencies from blatant disregard for open government rules, Bunting said.

“Unfortunately, I’m aware of more cases where AG’s have had to defend state agencies or local governments, even when they were claiming an unsupportable position,” Bunting said.

“The strength of the attorney general’s influence in open government matters is more often than not the strength of the individual who is the leader of the open government section or an ombudsman,” he added.

Cooperrider said her office rarely refers complaints to the attorney general’s office.  The last time Miller received a case from the ombudsman’s office was 2011, according to officials in his office.

Iowa lawmakers created the ombudsman’s office nearly two decades ago in an effort to increase transparency. It receives a majority of complaints – some of which are referred by Miller’s office – but lacks the ability to force compliance among public entities.

Additionally, Miller recently ruled that the ombudsman’s office lacked authority to access information from closed door meetings, further eroding their ability to investigate cases and seek resolutions, Cooperrider said.

Legislators last year added another layer to the state’s enforcement efforts. They created the Iowa Public Information Board, which has the authority to enforce the laws without the court, the only problem is funding. Lawmakers are now debating funding levels for the board, with proposals ranging from $100,000 in the Iowa House to $450,000 in the Iowa Senate.

Last year the ombudsman’s office received more than 300 cases and had a staff of 15 full-time employees.

Members of both houses have formed a joint committee to iron out the details of the appropriations bill that includes funding levels for the new agency. In order for the board to succeed and meet the demand, it needs more than $100,000, said Bill Monroe, chair of the public information board.

“A vast majority of cases either fall away or are resolved,” said McCormally. “A lot of the activity we get isn’t complaints. Some of these agencies don’t know they have done things wrong, mostly because of the fact that they didn’t know how to do things right. That’s one of the problems in the state. They simply haven’t been trained.”

Contact Sheena Dooley at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Weak transparency laws leave Iowans in the dark appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES – At least one Iowa lawmaker wants answers from state leaders regarding lax oversight of a $100-million program aimed at providing the poor with the essentials.

Rep. Brad Zaun, R-Polk, will seek answers next week when he meets with Charles Palmer, director of the Department of Human Services. Specifically, Zaun wants to know where transactions are taking place and what safeguards are in place to ensure the money is handled properly, he said Friday in an interview  with Iowa Watchdog.

“I am very surprised,” Zaun said. “I just assumed that this was always being checked out. Taxpayer dollars need to be accounted for to make sure there aren’t abuses going on.”

Iowa lawmaker wants answers to oversight of state welfare program.

Iowa Watchdog requested in January a month’s worth of transactions from the debit-like cards that most welfare recipients receive under the program. It asked for location, time, date, and amount for transactions. Personal identifying information was excluded from the request.

Officials at the Iowa Department of Human Services, which oversees the program, denied the request, saying that federal banking laws prevented even them from accessing the requested information. A lawyer representing Iowa Watchdog challenged that claim, saying the federal laws the state relied on only applied to federal agencies.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller offered a response last week on behalf of the Department of Human Services that said state workers were not required under law to collect or track the requested information and, therefore, it was not a function of government and subject to open record laws.

Basically, the state hands millions of dollars over to Xerox, a third-party it contracts with to administer the program. There is no oversight of the money once it leaves the state’s hands, according to Roger Munns, spokesman of the Department of Human Services.

Zaun was surprised to learn from media reports that the state provides little to no accountability when it comes to state and federal welfare dollars. And he questioned why it hadn’t been an issue earlier, he said.

“I’m not accusing anyone of doing anything,” Zaun said. “As a legislator, I was sent to the Capitol to watch over the taxpayer money and (make) sure it’s being spent efficiently and effectively.”

Zaun was among a handful of lawmakers contacted by Iowa Watchdog regarding the issues with the Family Investment Program. None said they were aware of legislation regarding the program or new federal requirements for tracking the dollars, even though they headed the committees that advanced the proposals.

States have until Jan. 1 to enact laws that deter welfare recipients from using their benefits at strip clubs, bars, liquor stores and casinos, under a new federal law. States that fail to take such action will lose a portion of their federal funding. For Iowa that means $6.6 million a year.

However, state lawmakers largely seem unaware of the requirements, despite two bills introduced by the Department of Human Services – one in the Senate and one in the House. The identical legislation makes it a fraudulent activity to use the cards at those locations, but does nothing to address how state officials will monitor transactions to find instances of potential misuse. And it lacks any teeth when it comes to consequences.

Additionally, it provides the state agency with broad discretion in how it complies with the law. To date, officials have unveil such a plan.

“I don’t have any knowledge of these abuses happening,” Zaun said. “But I want to make sure there are the right procedures in place and make darn sure people aren’t taking advantage of the program. I’m interested to see if there is at least some accountability and procedures in place.”

Sheena Dooley can be contacted at dooley@iowawatchdog.org.

The post Iowa lawmaker wants answers on welfare program oversight appeared first on Watchdog.org.

DES MOINES — In 1973, then California Gov. Ronald Reagan said government officials derive their “ultimate authority from the people. And we have an obligation to make sure that in carrying out our responsibilities, we do so at a price they can afford.” Forty years later some in Iowa government are shirking that responsibility.

Iowa issues debit-like cards to 16,000 low-income families receiving $100 million in benefits under the Family Investment Program. These cards are intended to help poor families get the essentials. The Iowa system, however, lacks even the most rudimentary fraud-prevention controls.

LACK OF OVERSIGHT: Program for the poor faces no oversight of the $100 million it receives in state and federal funding.

After news reports surfaced in other states that such cards were used to withdraw money from ATMs at strip clubs, casinos and hookah lounges, Iowa Watchdog asked the Iowa Department of Human Services in January for a month’s worth of transactions — including dates, locations and amounts, but not any personally identifying information — such as Social Security numbers, names or addresses – made on these debit-like cards. The troubling response did not uncover misuse of the cards, but something potentially worse. The state has either not put the proper controls in place, or they are willfully withholding information from the public.

Munns went on to say, “If someone wants to use government benefits inappropriately this won’t do anything to stop them. It’s a huge waste of time, but we don’t make the rules.”

Two months later, in March, Munn’s department evidently decided it could make its own rules. In an apparent response to the Iowa Watchdog request, the Iowa Department of Human Services introduced legislation designed to bar welfare recipients from using taxpayer money they receive at strip clubs, bars and casinos, making the misuse of these funds a fraudulent act.

When asked again for the spending records of recipients, the department maintained it lacks the ability to access such information. The state contracts with Xerox to administer its welfare program. Munns predicted when speaking to Iowa Watchdog, “I’m guessing (Xerox) will tell us to go fly a kite.”

Munns claims that Iowa turns over the nearly $45 million in federal money it receives for this use and about $48 million of additional state funds each year to Xerox to administer without having any ability to see whether the recipients or Xerox are spending the money as intended. The Iowa Department of Human Services’ complete lack of oversight is shocking.

Finally, the state needs to immediately review its contract with Xerox. It is unacceptable for the state to turn over close to a $100 million annually to a private firm and blindly trust the money is being used as the taxpayers intended. If Xerox is unwilling to operate under such an agreement, state officials could cite Ronald Reagan’s adage — or they could just tell Xerox to go fly a kite.

Graham Gillette is a former staff member for state and national political candidates and has served as a senior government adviser. He lives in Des Moines where he works as a public affairs and communications consultant to corporate and nonprofit organizations. He began his career in Florida before moving to Washington, D.C. Gillette returned to Iowa in 1993.

The post Open up IA: Don’t shield welfare transactions appeared first on Watchdog.org.

One of the worst kept secrets in Iowa is that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, is considering a run for governor.

Many in Iowa’s Democratic Party see Vilsack as potentially the only one among them capable of beating Republican Gov. Terry Branstad in a 2014 match-up. Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, has the uncommon ability to raise the money needed to challenge Branstad, one of the best fundraisers Iowa has ever seen. Vilsack’s name recognition, popularity and campaign prowess give him an advantage over others in his party.

And, Vilsack knows it.

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack — could he seek another term leading the state?

Back in the heady days of January when President Barack Obama’s second inauguration was imminent, reclaiming Terrace Hill was at the top of the agenda for Iowa Democrats. Vilsack was wining and dining with a group of Iowans in Washington D.C., including outgoing Iowa Democrat Party Chair Sue Dvorsky. They were confident about the party’s future – none more so than Vilsack.

When the topic turned to Branstad, Vilsack provided a self-revealing, albeit, backhanded compliment to Congressman Bruce Braley, then the Democratic party’s likely gubernatorial candidate.

“There are only two people in Iowa who can beat Branstad, me and Braley,” Vilsack said.

Well, as is the case with most barroom boasting, those words are haunting Vilsack three months later.

A few days into President Obama’s second term, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat, announced he would not seek re-election after holding the post for more than three decades. It was a game changer for Democrats, whose focus went from ousting Branstad to maintaining their hold on Harkin’s seat.

Braley went from eyeing at run for governor to winning Harkin’s seat in the U.S. Senate. And, the party’s current golden boy, Braley, who was ready to make the gubernatorial run, quickly jumped to the senate race.  That has left Vilsack supporters looking to a reluctant cabinet secretary to come home to be the party’s hero.

Although hardly substantial, some see the purchase of a house near Booneville by Vilsack and his wife Christie, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress last year, as a sign of Vilsack planting his feet in the Iowa soil for a run.

Others think the recent website www.runtomrun2014.com that seeks people to sign an online position is proof of a sprouting organization.

Democratic strategist Jeff Link nixed that suggestion. Link maintains close ties to Vilsack and said he doesn’t relish another Iowa campaign.

“He is running a vast and complex organization as ag secretary and I am not sure he is ready to return to the stump,” Link said.

Link admits his party has problems fielding candidates for the state’s top offices. Without Braley and Vilsack, the Democrats don’t have anyone with clout needed to win either position, which gives Republicans an advantage in gaining a foothold on two top posts in 2014.

“If Democrats choose to run Vilsack and Braley – two Washington insiders – against Terry Branstad, whose life focus has been being Iowa’s governor, and Kim Reynolds, a fresh face with a proven record, we will have an excellent year,” he said.

The match-up of two former governors – Vilsack and Branstad – would draw attention because they are so similar in their appeal.  Both men carved out electoral success in Iowa based on their ability to appeal to the vast group of voters who shun partisan politics. They were both able to position themselves as the reasonable, safe candidate.

As the incumbent, Branstad owns the place, for now at least.  Vilsack will have to reinvent himself and attack Branstad for being out-of-step. Vilsack has never been comfortable or effective in the role of attack dog and that kind of partisan sniping isn’t selling well these days.

While it is unlikely Vilsack will make an announcement about the governor’s race any time soon, Vilsack’s clout buys him time few others can afford.  During the coming weeks and months, he will watch Hillary Clinton position herself for the 2016 presidential race and ponder what his political future will be.

I am betting he will decide he will take his chances and ride out his gig in the federal department of agriculture. If that happens, it gives Branstad a better shot at election and frees up money from the party to spend on other candidates.

The truth is both parties need to start grooming candidates for future races and stop going back to those like Branstad and Vilsack when times get tough.

Graham Gillette is a former staff member for state and national political candidates and has served as a senior government adviser. He lives in Des Moines where he works as a public affairs and communications consultant to corporate and nonprofit organizations. He began his career in Florida before moving to Washington, D.C. Gillette returned to Iowa in 1993.

The post Iowa new boss, same as the old boss? appeared first on Watchdog.org.