In Attacking Governor Dalrymple, North Dakota Women’s Network Does The Cause Of Women Harm

WM11SATPLENARY03HIRES

“Twice in the past few months, Gov. Jack Dalrymple has failed to follow state law when making appointments to commissions,” writes Renee Stromme and Linda Wurtz of the North Dakota Women’s Network in the Grand Forks Herald. “State statute mandates that appointments should be gender balanced. In September, Dalrymple’s appointments to the Outdoor Heritage Fund failed to meet that requirement in that only two of the 12 appointees were women. Again this week when announcing the newly formed appointments to the Property Tax Task Force, only one woman was in the mix of the 14 appointees. There is no question that there are qualified and interested women available to serve on these committees.”

I wasn’t a fan of the make-up of Dalrymple’s Property Tax Task Force, and the existence of the Outdoor Heritage Fund is a legislative mistake those concerned with property rights and efficient use of tax dollars will one day regret, but this argument from Stromme and Wurtz is downright insulting.

It may well be the case that there were females eager to serve on one or both of these commissions. Whether or not those women were qualified to serve on the commissions is a matter of subjective opinion. We don’t know which, if any, women made it known they wished to serve. And the only opinion of their qualifications that matters is Governor Dalrymlpe’s.

And therein lays the rub with laws that mandate an arbitrary mix of genders or races is appointments. Or hiring. Or admissions. If the outcome of the appointments/hiring/admissions don’t hit some arbitrary mix of genders/races, is it really fair to say that sexism is at play? Which isn’t to say that sexism doesn’t exist. I’m quite sure it does. But it doesn’t exist every time outcomes for women aren’t exactly equal to outcomes for men.

Otherwise, where’s the outrage about gender discrimination on our college campuses, where enrollment and graduation rates for men have been on the decline for years?

Maybe Governor Dalrymple just didn’t like the qualifications of any would-be female members of these conditions (assuming there were any). Does that make him a sexist? I’m a consistently outspoken critic of Dalrymple and his policies, as anyone who reads this blog knows, but he’s no sexist and the insinuation that he is because his commission appointments don’t meet some threshold put in place by certain professional victims discredits those making it.

And it discredits the worthy cause of equal treatment for all regardless of things like race or gender.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man who was educated at prestigious institutions like Yale, has railed against affirmative action (which is, essentially, what Stromme and Wurtz want for females) because throughout his career people have assumed that his accomplishments weren’t as substantive because he had a racial advantage.

“Many asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated,” Thomas told ABC News in an interview.

In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas suggests that affirmative action is worse than the full-on bigotry or racists.

“At least southerners were up front about their bigotry: You knew exactly where they were coming from,” he wrote. “Not so the paternalistic big-city whites who offered you a helping hand so long as you were careful to agree with them, but slapped you down if you started acting as if you didn’t know your place.”

I am the father to two daughters, and I am enraged even at the possibility that they might one day be passed over for something they deserve because of their gender. But what would be equally enraging is for them to be perceived as unworthy of their accomplishments because of the assumption that they got a leg up thanks to laws or political pressure.

I don’t want my girls to ever feel like they’re entitled to something because of their gender or skin color – I don’t ever want them to see themselves as victims – nor do I want whatever they accomplish in live to be diminished by the perception of an unlevel playing field.

A perception created self righteous condemnations, and expectations of equal outcomes, from groups like the North Dakota Women’s Network.

A truly level playing field, a true meritocracy, does not produce equal outcomes. That groups like the North Dakota Women’s Network – that women like Stromme and Wurtz – want equal outcomes (or outcomes that meet some arbitrary standard) is evidence that a meritocracy and a level playing field isn’t what they want.

avatar

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Camburn

    Also the father of 2 girls, I agree 100% with your assessment.

  • devilschild

    If this were a real issue I would think the qualified women would have came forward and spoken for themselves. As a woman…that is what I would have done. I don’t need a mouth piece to do it for me.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Right. It is hard to judge whether or not the governor made sexist choices when we have no idea which women were considered for the jobs, or which applied.

      Our concern with these commissions is what sort of job they’ll do in producing public policy, not their gender makeup.

      • ec99

        It’s pretty clear that Dalrymple’s choices for this commission had more to do with finding people who are all in favor of the property tax status quo, rather than issues of gender. When I saw Gershman’s name on the list, he who spends taxpayer money like water, no matter what the source of revenue is, it was clear what the governor’s agenda was.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Dalrymple’s choices for this commission had more to do with finding people who are all in favor of the property tax status quo, rather than issues of gender.

          I agree, and as much as I disagree with the governor’s motives, that’s his prerogative.

      • AV

        “It is hard to judge whether or not the governor made sexist choices …” — Rob

        But it is easy to tell when women are (paraphrasing Rob) “doing harm to the cause of women?” Perhaps you could write a book: “How to Advance Women’s Causes.” You could ask some of your conservative, white, male friends to help?

  • Roy_Bean

    When the issue of cosmetic surgery was raised by democrats in the last election I don’t remember any outrage expressed by the North Dakota Women’s Network. Please remind me if my memory has failed.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Also something the ND Women’s Network never expresses outrage about: The overwhelming number of women hired in the area of social services. The female advantage in college admissions and graduations. Etc, etc.

      • SusanBeehler

        It is their “prerogative”.

  • ec99

    Merit has become a thing of the past. UND is changing its standards for all scholarships, regardless of the original terms of the bequest. Now, all students must qualify for financial aide, no matter what their gpa is.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Is that true?

      Can you link me to this news?

  • tomorrowclear

    Your position on this issue, like nearly everyone else’s, is determined by whether you or someone in your innermost circle is affected by it. If the day should come, God forbid, where your daughters are denied opportunities on the basis of their gender, your position will change. As it does for nearly everyone who maintains your position but then comes face-to-face with discrimination.

    If we were to reach a point where Christians were consistently disappearing from positions in the public and private sectors, there certainly would be no hesitation from your compatriots to complain of discrimination, even if there were no incriminating statements from those making the hiring/appointment decisions indicating they will not hire/appoint Christians. You know this and I know this. It would not surprise me if one of them will attempt to argue that this is happening right now, even in the absence of incriminating statements of intent.

    If it someday comes to pass that your daughters are denied opportunities and access, your position that the state should not intervene through policies that enforce greater gender diversity and gender composition will change, just as it changes for everyone else who holds your position but then faces apparent discrimination themselves or through those in their innermost circle.

    • ec99

      Whenever the State enters the arena in issues such as this, merit goes out the window, and is replaced with quotas and set asides. Nevermind the market recognizes ability no matter what the gender. The CEOs of Pepsi, Avon, Yahoo, HP, and numerous other companies are women. And the government did not mandate that.

      • tomorrowclear

        If the market “recognized ability” and CEO positions were assigned according to ability, education, intelligence and those who would work for the least amount of money, we would have a glut of CEOs of American companies from places like East and Southeast Asia. Instead, we still have mostly old white meat with more proven failure retreads than you see on the NFL coaching market every year after the season ends.

        Women make up something like 3% of the total number of CEOs for Fortune 500 companies. If you think that is because most women in the corporate power structure aren’t qualified to be CEOs, I have some beautiful ocean-side real estate in New Mexico to sell you.

        • ec99

          If your saying there’s an ole boy’s network, sure, no doubt. But numbers don’t reveal what the priorities are of men and women. How many of the latter don’t become CEOs because they want to take time off for kids? How many put in 60-80 hours a week? You are seeing a conspiracy where none exists.

          • tomorrowclear

            That is certainly a factor and you are correct that women are generally less willing to make those sort of familial compromises. However, when we enter the arena of Fortune 500 companies, we are entering entirely different territory. To have only 3% is simply ridiculous and indicative of bias. You already have many females who have demonstrated a willingness to make said sacrifices, yet cannot break through to the very highest level.

          • ec99

            To attribute it only to bias is to overlook other factors. How many women apply and are turned down? Most CEOs don’t enjoy the comfort of their corner office, but are off travelling the world 9 months each year. Especially now that their markets are China, India, South America.

          • ec99

            Add the CEO of GM to the women’s column.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Wow. You’re kind of racist.

        • JoeMN

          An armchair quarterback couldn’t have said it better.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Your position on this issue, like nearly everyone else’s, is determined by whether you or someone in your innermost circle is affected by it. If the day should come, God forbid, where your daughters are denied opportunities on the basis of their gender, your position will change. As it does for nearly everyone who maintains your position but then comes face-to-face with discrimination.

      No, that’s simply not true. If my daughters were ever discriminated against, I would not suddenly support some arbitrary legal standard for female hiring/appointments/admissions. I would encourage my daughters to seek hire/admission/appointment elsewhere, where narrow minds aren’t in charge, while actively speaking out against the specific case of discrimination.

      I don’t condone discrimination. Which is why I don’t support policies that encourage discrimination to solve a different sort of discrimination.

      • tomorrowclear

        You would do what is best for your daughters in the face of institutional discrimination, which is what women have faced. They cannot simply just “turn somewhere else.” That is why we sought these remedies in the first place.

        This reminds me a bit of a right-winger I encountered one time who sounded many of the same notes as one hears here. Then one day his kid became very, very sick and our blessed private insurance companies denied coverage. Suddenly, he saw the light and believed that the state should mandate that insurance companies cannot deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, this is usually what it takes to make some see the light. Now kudos to him. What sort of father would he be if he put some sort of quest for philosophical purity above the life of his child? And what sort of father would you be if you did the same if your daughters faced their freedoms being limited by a group of entities based upon their irrational prejudices? No, I am sure that when push comes to shove, you will value the freedom and dignity of your daughters more than a similar quest for philosophical purity.

        • ec99

          Apples and oranges.

        • kevindf

          How much of your income and assets are you willing to give up to pay for the treatment of others with “preexisting conditions?”

          • tomorrowclear

            4%

            I am willing to concede more than that, but I think 4% of my annual income is a worthy investment.

            You’ll forgive me, but most of what separates me from you is how I was raised. My father’s side of the family was of the Church of the Brethren, which holds the New Testament as its only creed and puts the Sermon on the Mount as the paramount expression of Christian ethics. I have a duty to you just as you have a duty to me, and in a modern, complex world, the assertions you folks make that private charity will be sufficient to care for the least among us is a patently silly argument. Most of you know that, but you run it up the flag pole so that you can stop just short of having to say, “Let ‘em die, then.” Some of you will take that next step, but most of you are wise enough to stop just short.

            I make no bones about it. Your freedom and my freedom is maximized when we have the greatest liberty to choose our careers, be healthy, have the least irrational obstacles put before us by monolithic entities, have quality infrastructures and public amenities. There’s a reason people in the Scandinavian countries are the happiest people on Earth, and it flows from their cultural assumptions about their obligations to each other. I would be more than happy to pay more in taxes to provide medical care to everyone, have sound highways and roads, better parks, new schools and so on.Communities that do these things almost invariably have higher standards of living because people want to live there. Consequently, the “freedom” of residents in those places goes up, not down.

          • ec99

            The Scandinavian countries all adopted a socialist model because the conservatives emigrated to North Dakota.

          • tomorrowclear

            Historically incorrect. GO back and read what sorts of political ideals and ideologies were held by first and second generation immigrants from Scandinavian countries. We still see some vestiges of it in ND today.

            One of the ironies of ND is that for all its political conservatism and “rugged individualism” rhetoric, it’s probably the most collectivistic (and I mean that as a compliment) culture in which I’ve ever lived. That too is a remnant of the cultural values of those Scandinavian immigrants of yesteryear. They don’t live their lives in a way that is reflected in their politics.

          • ec99

            The fact is most Scandinavians came here to farm and, while neighbors helped each other, in the days before the federal government made them millionaires through subsidies, they had to be ruggedly individualistic. That subsequent generations got used to DC pork is not relevant.

          • tomorrowclear

            They were the antithesis of “rugged individualists.” They came together in true collectivist spirit, both through public apparatuses and through cooperatives, to help each other. It was a beautiful thing and we still see vestiges of it today, both through the State Bank and Elevator and through the persistence of cooperatives. “Rugged individualists” would not support such things.

          • JoeMN

            It was a beautiful thing and we still see vestiges of it today, both through the State Bank and Elevator
            _______
            What makes them more beautiful than private banks and elevators.

            Profit is a beautiful thing

          • Janne Myrdal

            haha. Funny BUT NOT TRUE

          • kevindf

            Healthcare is more than 20% of the economy, so 4% isn’t close to enough.

          • tomorrowclear

            Brilliant logic. Yes, if health care costs (mostly attributable to a grossly inefficient private bureaucracy, I might add) are 20% of the economy, it must mean that each of us would have to provide 20% of each of our incomes to ensure universal health coverage. That is positively brilliant.

            When I see posts like this, bereft of any logic whatsoever, I begin to understand the first or second-most recurrent theme on this website, “Education is overrated, we don’t need no stinkin’ college education.” The sad thing is, there were probably 100 others who thought your logic made perfect sense when first reading it.

          • Janne Myrdal

            Sadly your assumption that Scandinavian countries have great health care for all is not fact. I will not share personal stories here, but be assured I know/feel to many sad stories of lack of care, as in none, for the elderly and for waiting lists for the nations young and finest to the point where it was to late to do the surgeries necessary. It is amazing to me the “stories” of how Scandinavia is so regulated and wonderful. Actually, I just read a story in a national magazine, ( not sure if it was Economist or other) that actually shows Norway is more capitalist than USA at the moment and frankly has no visual war on Christmas or other personal views. However, their health care is not a paradise as so often believed by many.

          • SusanBeehler

            America’s healthcare is no paradise either.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Pretty words, but I’m willing to get a lot of money that if we saw your personal IRS returns your charitable giving would be next to nil.

            You preach charity, but with other people’s wealth.

            And Scandinavian socialism works because Scandinavian are relatively small, largely homogenous populations in a climate not kind to homelessness.

          • Thresherman

            Let us not forget that Norway’s socialism is funded through oil revenues.

          • tomorrowclear

            I certainly give, but yes, I suppose I could give more. I claim no charitable deductions on my tax forms and I never will. I believe that defeats the purpose of charity. Charity is not and has never been sufficient to care for the least among us and that is why we need and have a duty to provide a safety net.

          • JoeMN

            No, by doing so you are simply allotting government more, and private charity less of your disposable income.

            Government does crowd out charitable giving, despite those disingenuous studies thrown out by Mr Toms

            This is because higher income tax rates naturally reduces the amount of overall disposable income available for charitable purposes.
            More government also drowns out private sector growth

            The long term answer to this poverty is an expanding economy.

          • JoeMN

            It’s not the 4 percent of YOUR income that concerns me
            Rather it’s your “generosity” with 4 percent of everyone else’s income.

          • tomorrowclear

            I’m guessing you probably parse out which allocation of tax dollars constitute “legalized theft,” don’t you? For instance, when if I take issue with 4% of my income being redistributed to the Pentagon and their government employees in uniform and out, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you do not consider that to be legalized theft, do you?

          • JoeMN

            I’m guessing you are one of those that when local budget cuts are suggested, you go straight to the heart of police and fire budget

          • tomorrowclear

            Nope, I favor increases for those departments.

            And if we could transfer all those squandered Pentagon dollars on things that are actually useful to Americans, like rebuilding infrastructure and transferring government employees from the military to those areas, I would be in full support of the spending.

          • JoeMN

            More federal dollars flowing into infrastructure simply frees up state budgets for more frills.
            Didn’t the last stimulus bill teach you anything ?

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          So in your example, your conservative friend stopped being a conservative when he decided he and his family were victims.

          I’ll admit, the victimhood message from the left is a siren song. It’s easy to blame other people for your own poor choices. It’s easy to blame “the system” for your lack of preparation.

          It takes principal, and integrity, to hold yourself responsible.

          Gender discrimination is nowhere near as prevalent as the victim mongers would have us believe. It’s rare, and if my daughters did encounter it, they’d move on and succeed somewhere else.

          Because, I hope, they won’t limit themselves by playing the victim.

          • tomorrowclear

            Interesting that out of one side of your mouth you seem to claim that we cannot know the intentions of people, then out of the other side you claim gender discrimination is rare.

            Your babble about “poor choices” is simply the childish refrain you folks use to excuse forsaking other Americans who find themselves in dire situations. Yes, it’s all due to their “bad choices,” isn’t it? Like the person I mentioned whose child made the poor decision to be born with a serious medical condition. Foolish creature. Wait, are you saying her parents made a poor choice in giving birth to her? No, of course not, then you’d be calling for…

  • grammie

    I read this and I can say I got angry right away. I wanted to say to them Stay home,Clean your house, cook a good meal, mentor a child, read a book to homeless children, donate time to a soup kitchen ,pray for the unborn, look around and make a real difference in this state and communities and local schools leave an impression of compassion, giving and real caring of what is important. But I would more than likely get in trouble,after all what could be more important to these women than spending time and money to sue the governor because not enough women are being appointed to positions that more than likely they are not qualified to do anyway.

    • SusanBeehler

      I read your post and wondered what are you doing reading and posting on this blog, don’t you have an afghan to crochet or something? “more than likely they are not qualified” based on your ability to cook a good meal, read a story, or what? “These women” are your fellow neighbors and part of your community, where does it say anything about a lawsuit against the governor, women have been writing letters to the editor even before they had the right to vote, get a clue, grammie!

      • Thresherman

        Once again we have a liberal woman condemning and insulting another woman’s lifestyle choice and opinion because it doesn’t meet what liberals feel women should be doing. As for reading and posting on this blog, I have to wonder why you keep at it as nearly every post you make illustrates that you are an extremely prejudiced and shallow thinker, this one included. Here you did not make a single valid point in opposition and instead simply insulted this woman for her beliefs and choices. And you know what Susan, telling people to get out and actually do something that actually makes impact on someone instead of spending your time setting up a whinefest isn’t half bad advice, not that you are smart enough to know it though.

        • SusanBeehler

          Are you grammie? I mirrored her post back to her. Thresherman you are at the “whinefest” . I agree with you Grammie was insulting other women for their beliefs and choices. She also feels women should be doing, saying and thinking other things like those she listed. Is her post making any more of a valid point, is yours?

        • SusanBeehler
      • AV

        Maybe Grammie was using satire to make a point?

  • ec99

    Just out of curiosity, does the Women’s Network allow men to be members?

  • Guest

    As I have gotten older and study and reflect on what makes leaders, especially the ones I have first hand knowledge of, I conclude it is their experiences, as much as their abilities. So claiming that there were not more than 1 in 14 or 2 in 12 qualified women does not, in my opinion mean that there weren’t women with the abilities to do the job. Rather, those with the ability haven’t been given the chance to develop.

    This is a chicken egg dilemma. I am philosophically opposed to gender quotas, I find it hard to fathom that 1 in 14 is the right answer. If it were 5 out of 14 and there still were complaints, I’d have a different opinion. Everyone develops skills and abilities by doing or being asked to do things they haven’t done before. It appears that from a statistical view, the men are getting more of these chances in ND.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      But you’re making the mistake of projecting an expectation of a certain outcome on these selections. You suppose that because the governor doesn’t pick a number of women that you’re comfortable with, there must be sexism.

      Which is really shallow thinking.

      I have no doubt that the governor discriminated in these picks, but he did so in terms of picking people he felt would implement policy most to his liking. That most of these people happened to be men is irrelevant.

      • SusanBeehler

        What is your definition of sexism? 0 women being included?

      • Guest

        So no specific instance or task force is responsible, rather it is the sum total of all such decisions. And we shouldn’t expect the gov to move needle back to the center? I pointed out, just by google searching the organizations he included that there are qualified women out there.

        I think you suffer from shallow thinking.

  • NoDak for Life

    This has all the appearances of two people raising their political and personal profile while tilting at windmills, in other words slaying dragons where no dragons exist. What Renee Stromme and Linda Wurtz of the North Dakota Women’s Network should do is provide names of women who have deep knowledge on property tax issues and then we can debate qualifications over those who were appointed. They have a right to complain only if a specific woman did not get appointed who was equally or more qualified than those who were.

    There is no question that that qualified women add much to a board or commission, but putting unqualified people – men or women – on a board for gender balance is bad policy.

    • Guest

      I’ll agree, specific examples need to be discussed. The task force includes Blake Crosby representint the North Dakota League of Cities, whose Executive Director is Connie Spryncznatyk and whose President of the Board is Kimberly Nunberg. I’d assume these two people who I believe are both female, had some say in who would represent them on the task force.

      On the task force is Mark Johnson, executive director of the ND Association of Counties, yet the President of the board of the NDAoC is Vicki Kubat.

      Clearly there were other women who were qualified to be on the task force. Maybe women are just too smart to get themselves included in something like this.

  • Janne Myrdal

    As a leader of the largest women’s public policy group in our state, I think the Womens Network has it all wrong here. Women may have a few more challenges as we walk out the door in the morning, but heck we can handle it and we do not need to be handicapped by special treatment like they suggest. Actually what they suggest in this piece once again is that women are always victims, and I am frankly sick of this notion. There is no “war on women”, but rather a war FOR women, for their votes and their acceptance of the liberal leftist assumption that we are victims who need extra help all the time at all levels. Equal outcome is not a right, – everyone should work hard for their earnings, positions, respect or otherwise, regardless of their gender. How about the Women’s Netwrok fighting for unborn women, when we fought hard in the last legislature to support laws that protected gender abortions?? Or defending the likes of former Gov Palin as she gets attacked by MSNBC’s vile and evil comments recently? Nope, silence on both accounts, which shows the deep and disgusting double standards and sole liberal left wing agenda here. ND women are strong, true and able and we do NOT need special treatment to prove it!!

    • WOOF

      Do you get a window seat in the back of the bus ?

      • two_amber_lamps

        Oh please Yip… we all know the back of the bus is your domain since you insist on licking the windows.

        http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo306/eviegray/windowlicker.jpg

      • JoeMN

        You just can’t stand the fact that Janne is off the plantation, can you ?

        • WOOF

          Jane’s assistant cook and bottle washer in the TeaParty kitchen.

          There’s a committee of men supervising her.

      • Jl

        “Did you get a window seat in the back of the bus?” Translated: I can’t refute what Janne said.

    • SusanBeehler

      I think your definition of victim is all wrong. It is not special treatment to at least try and give a letigimate effort. Women are not victims because they speak out on issues important to them. Two women writing a letter to the editor about the lack of inclusion in state policies especially when we have a law directing women to be included is not practicing victim hood it is demonstrating the need to reassess what is being done.

  • Janne Myrdal

    Oh, and I do not think Governor Dalrymple has any “agenda against women” as he recently appointed a woman, Julie Fedorchak, to be PSC. Ratio: 1-3 And I wager to say she is the best we have had in a long time!!

    • SusanBeehler

      Maybe he is just not “aware” of his exclusions.

  • mychalkboard

    The ND Women’s Network must have been spending the last cold days trying to trump up a problem! They have chosen to ignore facts. The governor recently appointed Julie Fedorchak to one of the most important positions in our state. It wasn’t because of her gender, rather our governor chose the BEST person for the position.

    • SusanBeehler

      One right does not correct two wrongs.

  • mychalkboard

    Any allegations of impropriety of the governor by this group alleging they are in support of women’s rights, are highly suspect. The group has a history of supporting extremely liberal candidates. Here they have conveniently overlooked the recent history of our governor who appointed Julie Fedorchak to one of the most important positions in our state, namely the Public Service Commission.

    • SusanBeehler

      We usually have had a woman on the public service commission, Susan Wefald served for years

  • SusanBeehler

    Woman make up more than 50% of the population yet the governor does not even attempt to bring in more women on the issue. Your headline states speaking out causes “harm”. What would be more harmful than having less than 10% representation on these two commissions? I do not want men politicians to ever feel entitled to excluding 50% of the population just because they can. These commissions were appointed not applied for, if they were applied for the Governor did a very poor job in seeking available candidates. I can think of one woman who should not have been excluded from the property tax commission, Charlene Nelson.

    • ec99

      What difference does it make? This task force is analogous to the Warren Commission; charged with coming up with a conclusion the governor wants: property taxes are fine.

      • SusanBeehler

        It may make a difference in future appointments.
        I agree with your conclusion the commission is a farce.

  • WOOF

    Women elected Heidi Heitkamp in a state

    that went for Romney by 20 points.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    To be fair you should point out that Thomas did get the advantage of Affirmative Action when getting into college.

Top