Larry D. Lauer

In the last several posts I have been discussing the consequences of state budget problems.  After spending some time listening to debate in Austin last week, I concluded that the way the Texas Tuition Equalization Grant (TEG) originally was enacted is a great example of bi-partisan statesmanship.

Enacted more than 30 years ago this grant was based on a fundamental American idea…a strong dual system of higher education. Early colleges were all private, and when the the public system evolved the concept of preserving a strong dual system became basic to our democracy.

Preserving that dual system is what the TEG is all about. It originally was seen as bi-partisan and non-political. This was so because it both stengthened a diverse group of large and small private colleges while it was designed to save the taxpayer money.

The basic idea was: If a modest grant enabled a student with financial need to fill a space in a private college, and if that grant was less in amount than it would cost the taxpayer if that student enrolled in a public university, then such a grant would actually save the taxpayer and the state money.

As explained in a previous post, today the TEG actually saves Texas taxpayers around $4,000 for each student that chooses the grant over enrollment in a public university.

However, this 30-year benefit to the taxpayer can actually fall victim to the partsian ideology that is polarizing our legislature today. Maybe one day we will return to the time when bi-partisan statesmanship was possible, and America will be made whole again.

Read Full Post »

Is bipartisanship possible in this day of polarized communication? These are indeed challenging times for those in the world of professional political strategic communication.

It seems that being a Democrat means that you believe in strong government, a growing middle class, worker welfare, help for the disadvantaged, and some regulation of big business.  It seems that being a Republican means you are pro-business, support a strong military, favor free enterprise, believe in little or no regulation, and think that less government is better.

In my way of thinking, bipartisanship does not begin with political ideology, but rather with the desire to solve social and economic problems. It accepts some  compromise in order to move forward, and acknowledges that every step forward will require adjustments along the way. It also accepts that some decisions could very well be temporary  and are likely to be significantly altered later on.

In my international travels I often encounter what I refer to as “the idea of America as seen from abroad.” It comes through to me this way: America stands for individual freedom, but not the right to infringe on someone else’s.  It imagines a government that will defend the US, regulate corporate greed, take care of those who can’t make it on their own…but is not a huge wasteful bureaucracy.

The reality in the US today is that the professional political communication strategist specializes in advancing either the Democratic Party’s ideology, the Republican Party’s ideology, or a bipartisan problem- solving strategy.  The latter exercise begins with brainstorming the major issues, putting them in priority order, developing a practical strategic and tactical plan for taking steps forward, and then evaluating and adjusting from there.

Some call this bipartisan approach to problem-solving “statesmanship.” I could not agree more, and it is missing all to often in our political discourse today. I hope and pray we will all come to our senses very soon.

Read Full Post »

It looks like I will be spending a lot of time in Austin this spring. As with most states, Texas is facing a major budget deficit. The word is that everything is fair game to be cut, including education. I work for a private institution, but even so, a state-funded financial aid program helps over 1,300 college-age Texan attend TCU.

How does one develop a communication strategy for this kind of situation?  Do you sound an alarm about how devastating a worst case scenario can be for these students and your institution? Or, is there a better approach?

I have faced financial crises on many levels in the past.  Sometimes it was a potential enrollment drop. Other times it was an anticipated institutional budget short-fall. More recently is was concerns about the potential impact of a declining economy on endowments.

Each time, even though each situation had its differences, what they all had in common was that the primary strategic message had to be: This institution is ready and able to manage the situation successfully, and it will be transparent about developments as the situation unfolds.

It is also critically important to demonstrate through these times that the institution’s leadership is talented and self-confident about staying the course. In other words, positive brand messaging becomes more important than ever.

In the case of what I will face in Austin, each student that enrolls in a public institution costs the taxpayer more than $7,500. With the Texas Tuition Equalization Grant (TEG), the taxpayer pays only $3,500 to help a student attend a private institution…saving more than $4,000 with each enrollment. Plus, it gives these students a choice, and helps maintain more financially-diverse student bodies in the private sector. In total, this program enables 30,400 Texas families with financial need to attend more than 35 private colleges, many with available spaces. This is a true win-win situation.

Because this program actually saves money for Texans, we will press ahead, asserting that we are confident that the state will continue to fund this program adequately. And along with this message, will be one that TCU’s leadership and best academic talent stands ready to be part of the solution.

Lesson learned: In any time of financial concern, be as transparent as you can, but also enhance the communication of your positive brand identity, and make sure that what ultimately comes though is that your institution has the talent and strength to continue moving a head.

Read Full Post »

This week I attended a meeting of higher education leaders hosted by our state senator. These leaders were from institutions  in her district, and I must admit she presented a meaningful topic agenda. She was there to listen, and I applaud her for taking the initiative.

The Texas legislature will be off and running again this coming spring. But once we all meet in Austin, political polarization will likely combine with serious state budget problems to produce the same kind of bickering that has been paralyzing Washington.

For higher education, the overall situation quickly becomes circular and contradictory: 

We will begin with a budget deficit, and so there will be loud calls to cut spending.  But, simultaneously there will also be those legislators arguing to expand college access to more people. Then, with the same breath they will insist that we keep tuition low.  And there will also be assertions that university’s are managed poorly, and so there will be new calls for more regulations and reports. 

For the institution all this adds administrative work and people, and tuition goes up again. So in this very bad economy, where one in ten is out of work, it will be very likely that public universities will have an even greater percertage tuition increase than privates.

We simply must find new ways to address these problems. I suggest that thoughtful, experienced professionals from the legislature, government, education agencies, and universities be invited to meet together in a nonpartisan atmosphere away from the Capitol. It should be a retreat-like location where a “getting down to business” tone can be created. And to get the ball rolling, the initial charge should be to only talk about doable solutions, even if they are partial.  Perfect solutions will not be possible, from either party.

Any plan will require fine tuning along the way, and so all participants should be asked to acknowledge that reality publicly. First, it should be acknowledged that each insitution wants to keep prices as low as possible, deliver high quality, be accessible to more people, and manage everything more efficiently. So, needed improvements must be put in priority order and then matched with available resources. Simple action steps are added at the conclusion, including realistic timeframes for results.

Whether we are talking about communicating an institution’s brand identity, dealing with sensitive issues, handling crises, or finding legislative solutions, the most valuable talent to have in our profession is to be able to see complex problems in more simple terms, as well as to be able to articulate clear and comprehensible steps forward.

In politics, we call this talent statesmanship, and we definitely need a good dose of  it now.  Putting good sense back in our legislative processes simply must be our top national and state priority.  We simply can’t continue the nonsense any longer.

Read Full Post »

Some years ago a travel agent I was having dinner with in Rome told me: “You know, Larry, all my European friends love the idea of America, but so often they just don’t understand the behavior of your government.  It can seem contradictory to them, and it often makes them angry.”

This comment came echoing back to me this week in Washington as I was meeting with some very talented and energized folks who are deeply concerned about how to get the world to better understand this powerful “idea of America.” After all, everyday extremists and terrorists grab the headlines and set the daily news agenda. Even failing suicide bombers succeed in making news and speading fear. And to make the situation worse, everyone else winds up sounding defensive about what happened.

Are not compelling human stories about freedom and independence an effective form of counter-insurgency? Cannot those stories be told powerfully enough to blow past the headlines directly into the everyday lives of millions of people all over the world? Could not countless Americans be involved through people-to-people exchanges, or new and social media?

In pondering all this I remembered my graduate student days at American Unversity when a government agency known as the United States Information Agency (USIA) was in full force. It was charged to communicate the larger story of the American people and their values, a story that would go far beyond official foreign policy. Based mostly on people-to-people communication, I thought this agency was very effective.

But the USIA I knew was eliminated by the Clinton admnistration and replaced by a smaller strategic communication activity inside the state department… losing independence, not to mention important credibility with the rest of the world.

The people I met with this week have formed a taskforce of think-tank fellows, university professors, legislative staffers, legislators, and current and former civil servants. They are working on best strategic communication practices in this new media age. They are also considering organizational alternatives, which  include  a new government agency, a quasi-govermental organization, a public private nonprofit, a private foundation.

But we have no time to waste. Extremests and terrorists are already winning the war to dominate the public agenda. The United States therefore should quickly re-establish a highly visible strategic communication and public diplomacy organizaton. Then we must find and hire the best and most creative professionals in the land to run it. When you think about it, do we have a choice?

Read Full Post »