Wyoming: Reliably "right" & taken for granted

Recently the Republican-led House restored Abandoned Mine Land funds to every coal-producing state except Wyoming, a decision costing us 700 million dollars. Wyoming’s all-GOP congressional delegation was outraged. Congresswoman Lummis told Public Radio the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee refused to even take Governor Mead’s and her calls when they attempted to make their case. Imagine that? In Washington it’s that easy to take Wyoming for granted.

Wyoming’s Republican governor searches for an excuse to deny healthcare to 30,000 uninsured families, saying the feds won’t answer his letters. A pattern? The GOP legislature finds it’s critical that hunting, not healthcare, be a constitutional right, and Lummis votes to exchange Medicare for a voucher.

Causes you to wonder whether Wyoming gets anything of value in exchange for being reliably right. Is conservatism an end in itself? Does Wyoming’s conservatism add anything to people’s hopes for the future?

What does it mean for Wyoming to be “conservative?” William Buckley, the voice for conservatives before that job went to Limbaugh and Coulter, was asked to define conservatism. "Conservatism,” Buckley said, “is a paragon of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is continuing approximation."

Webster defines conservatism as a “disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions…the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.”

It’s the “disposition to preserve what is established” that defines Wyoming conservatives, conflicting with Buckley’s vision of conservatism as “a paragon of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is continuing approximation." Buckley liked words like “phenomenology.” It’s the study of “phenomena,” i.e. ways we experience things, meaning found in our experiences. It’s entirely different from clinging to the past.

Thinkers like Buckley view conservatism as pivotal in making certain that our experiences in life, not our prejudices or ill-informed notions, move us forward in a deliberative manner. Many Wyoming conservatives want to make sure there is no deliberative process much less any move forward. Whether it’s a job, a livelihood, piece of land or civil rights, they have theirs and believe both the Constitution and the Bible should be interpreted to make sure that’s as far as it goes.

That’s why Wyoming’s greatest export is neither coal nor gas but our youth. The millions we invest in educating children becomes an investment in the future of other states. Communities pretend to bemoan the loss of these young people but, in truth, it’s the inevitable result of an unwillingness to consider the “paragon of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is continuing approximation." Clinging to the past and its symbols assures that anyone with an urge to think about the opportunities of the future will find themselves elsewhere, contributing to some other community somewhere else.

It wasn’t always this way. But today, more than any other time, Wyoming is defined by an increasingly narrow political, social, religious, and economic philosophy. Conservatism has become an excuse for being unwelcoming to new ideas and innovation in education, business, the arts, medicine, healthcare, employer-employee relationships and more. More often than not, it’s the tool for holding tightly to a nostalgic sense of history and a self-serving idea of fiscal and personal responsibility, using big government strategies to impose their moral beliefs on others while avoiding a commitment to excellence in the institutions that are designed to make certain nothing changes.

There’s a choice. Wyoming could provide the environment in which aspirations of young people are fulfilled or an environment they find stifling. But doing what would keep young people in Wyoming threatens the establishment. Those who don’t want anything to change have a stake in making certain these young thinkers do their thinking somewhere else.

In the meantime, Wyomingites continue to vote “regardless-Republican” even when the Republicans we elect can’t even get other Republicans to take their phone calls. Taken for granted and holding the short-end of the stick is apparently all we get for being so reliably right.

Pro-choice? You should vote for Constitutional Amendment A.

Remember the canticle to the unintended consequences of Jed’s squirrel hunt.

“Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed

A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,

Then one day he was shootin’ at some food,

And up through the ground came a bubblin’ crude.”

Reviewing the ballot and reading Constitutional Amendment A, I started humming those lyrics. If enacted, it will write protections for a woman’s right to choose an abortion into the Wyoming constitution.

A group of anti-Obama ideologues who thought they “was shootin” at Obamacare, hit “a bubblin’ crude…oil that is…Texas tea” for those who believe abortion is a health care decision that should be reserved to the woman involved. The sponsors hoped somehow that state law could trump the federal constitution. They were trying to negate Obamacare, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the act. Therefore, the anti-Obamacare provisions of the proposal mean absolutely nothing.

But, the unintended consequences may shock the sponsors. Anti-choice legislators, whose disdain for Obamacare exceeded their ability to recognize the unintended consequences of their inability to think through an issue, proposed the constitutional amendment. Included among them was Laramie County state senator Leslie Nutting, known by some supporters as a “full-spectrum” conservative. Her legislation will most certainly enshrine a woman’s right to choose as a state constitutional guarantee.

Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision holding that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of women to make healthcare choices consistent with with their own conscience. Legal scholars may find Constitutional Amendment A provides an even clearer protection for Wyoming women. Amendment A will prevent the legislature from imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of a woman to choose.

Read it yourself. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2011/ Introduced/SJ0002.pdf. Article 1, Section 38 entitled “Right of health care access” proposes: (a) “Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.” Further the ballot proposition includes this explanation of legislative intent. “The adoption of this amendment will provide that the right to make health care decisions is reserved to the citizens of the state of Wyoming.” They could not have made it any clearer.

Constitutional Amendment A provides legislative authority to “determine reasonable and necessary restrictions” on the right to choose. However, the language of the proposition places strict limits on those restrictions. The legislature is prohibited from establishing any regulation on the right of anyone to “make his or her own health care decisions” unless those restrictions are “reasonable and necessary restrictions on health care consistent with the purposes of the Wyoming Constitution.” That would certainly not include invasive ultra-sounds, waiting periods or legislatively mandated medical advice.

Finally the constitutional amendment requires the state of Wyoming to protect the right to choose. The last paragraph “provides that this state shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.” The attorney general is required to go to court and defend the right to choose from any right-to-life legislation lawmakers, (which would undoubtedly include the sponsors of this amendment) might want to enact.

Sponsors of Constitutional Amendment A never intended to give women the right to choose. The founding fathers never intended to protect pornography either but it’s our courts, not our legislators who interpret laws. A good bet is bright lawyers will argue persuasively the language enshrines the right to choose as a state constitutional right. Right-to-life advocates will make the argument that the legislature can still restrict abortion rights. But proposal’s own words say the primary purpose of the provision is to allow “each competent adult” to “have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”

Who knows what the courts may do but language the legislature hastily adopted can clearly be read by reasonable people to give broader protection to the right to choose than Roe v. Wade gave under the United States Constitution.

Let’s vote for Constitutional Amendment A and watch what the courts do.

Part 3: The art of surrender at UW

One morning last May a controversial sculpture displayed at the University of Wyoming was destroyed and replaced with a patchwork of ordinary sod. That sod has itself became a form of art symbolizing censorship.

Governments have long exhibited an uneasy relationship with artistic expression. Before UW sanctioned and then destroyed Carbon Sink, the Athenians, Romans, and the medieval Catholic Church financed projects they later censored. Most recently the Taliban banned most art for fear of its potential to incite rebellion.

In a democracy a university doesn’t normally censor artistic expression as a matter of principle. That explains UW’s early defense of this art. But principle quickly gave way to the political and economic pressure brought by energy companies, donors and legislators who aren’t so excited about free expression.

Once the controversy arose, memories differed. The contract for loaning the sculpture to UW is silent on the issue. The artist is certain the sculpture was to remain until natural deterioration returned it “to the earth.” A collection of logs interspersed with coal shaped in a vortex, Carbon Sink symbolized the impact of climate change on Rocky Mountain forests. An “ashes-to-ashes” demise would have best made that point.

Under great pressure, UW Art Museum Director Susan Moldenhauer offered evolving explanations starting with, “It is also true that when the work was installed and during the controversy of its installation last year there were both no plans to desintall...” As political pressure mounted, the public record evidences efforts to ameliorate critics by assuring them the sculpture was only temporary. When Peabody Energy said the sculpture might cost UW its 2 million dollar donation, they were told, “The specific timeline has not been established, though the timelines discussed have been on the order of 1 to 3 years.”

A lot had happened since Buchanan initially said, “The University has and will promote a robust marketplace of ideas.” By the spring of 2012 he had tired of the fight, which cost UW a 2 million dollar art appropriation recommended by the governor and denied by the Appropriations Committee as a penalty for displaying the sculpture. On April 10^th, Buchanan emailed Moldenhauer, “It’s about time the fire pit…disappeared.  What’s the time schedule?”

She replied that Carbon Sink’s removal was scheduled for the summer of 2013. President Buchanan wasn’t willing to endure the threats and critics for another year. “Given the controversy that it has generated, it would be best for UW if the fire pit (I’ve forgotten the name of the work) could be considered part of the Prexy’s removal during the summer of 2012.”

So last May, less than a year after it was installed, it was destroyed in a way that sent a message. An email describing the removal said, “Some of the larger logs were kept in our bone yard on Gibbon Street; the smaller ones were disposed.  The coal was taken to our Central Energy Plant and used in the boilers to produce heat.”

Lessons learned? UW learned the perils of tangling with the energy scions and their legislators, confirmed in this email to critics from Richards who, shortly before, was named chair of UW’s art committee, “The recent comments by policymakers, donors, and industry have opened the eyes of the faculty and staff to (and in some cases reinforced) the contributions of Wyoming’s energy industry, employees and contribution to the tax base.”

Rep. Lubnau walked away believing the legislature, not artists, should make decisions about art at the University. Lubnau told Public Radio, “I think that everybody who has a stake at the University of Wyoming should have the opportunity to have a say in what that university looks like for our citizens. And what better body than the mirror of the people of the state of Wyoming through the 90 people who are elected by the people of the state of Wyoming to have input?” 

“The mirror of the people.” That phrase itself is a work of art with meaning made clear by this unfortunate episode.

Part 2: Wyoming legislators as art critics & bullies

Wyoming’s constitution gives executive powers to the governor, legislative powers to the legislature. Seems like elementary civics but a distinction often ignored by zealous legislators. The governor is responsible for implementing the law and policy. The legislature is supposed to be a deliberative assembly acting not individually but collectively to pass, amend, and repeal laws. They don’t implement policy nor do they manage any agency much less the University.

When UW decided first to display and later to destroy a controversial sculpture, the Governor had no input in the decision nor was he or his staff consulted but some Wyoming legislators became heavily involved, giving real meaning to the term “bully pulpit.” In July 2011, UW announced a sculpture called Carbon Sink would be displayed on the campus. “Warmer winters allow the pine bark beetle to thrive and as a direct consequence vast tracts of forests in the Rockies are dying,” UW’s news release quoted artist Chris Drury. “So I am about to make a large and very black work on campus, using coal and charred, dead tree trunks in the shape of a whirlpool spiraling down into the earth.”

Before anyone saw the sculpture, the energy lobby went after the University for daring to create a dialogue about climate change. Immediately a group of legislators who often carry industry’s bags weighed in. These weren’t just any legislators but those with clout. Public records show they bullied President Buchanan with threats to reduce funding and to create a second four-year school.

First was Gillette Republican Tom Lubnau, the House Majority Floor Leader, who threatened UW’s funding. “I read, also, with amazement, the choice of sculpture for the University of Wyoming campus.  *** I would also like to inform you I am considering introducing legislation to avoid any hypocrisy at UW by insuring that no fossil fuel derived tax dollars find their way into the University of Wyoming funding stream.”

Lubnau emailed colleagues accusing UW of “biting the hand that feeds,” suggesting consideration of developing additional four-year schools if UW doesn’t get the message.

Kermit Brown, a Republican representing Albany County who chairs the Judiciary Committee, told UW official Don Richards the school’s “hypocrisy is maddening.” Brown also threatened UW with a competing four-year institution. “This sculpture…almost seems to mandate that we have a second four-year school in this state open toward the interest of those who make this state successful.” Brown warned a UW Trustee, “We are going to get to the bottom of who knew what and when they knew it.” He threatened reduced funding. “Even if the University does not know where its bread is buttered, the State does.”

Elaine Harvey, chair of the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee emailed UW, “It never ceases to amaze me how the UW invites folks in that spit in the face of the very system that writes the checks to pay the bills at the university.”

Rep. Greg Blikre, of the House Revenue Committee, accused UW of sponsoring art “that trashes the very industries that provide nearly all the income in Wyoming for the State and for the University.” Rep. Norine Kasperik, of the Minerals, Business and Economic Development, asked UW to reconsider displaying the sculpture. “I support the artist's right to create it and also the University's right to refuse to display it.”

The Appropriations Committee then intimidatingly gathered “a detailed summary of all funds” spent by UW on artwork and “descriptions of the artwork.” The controversy cost the University. Chris Boswell, who later took Richards’ job, told Wyoming Public Radio, “Governor Mead had proposed a $2 mm dollar appropriation for the Cultural Trust Fund…there was a very simple motion to delete the $2mm from the Governor’s budget, and it passed without discussion.” (wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/documents-show-artwork-removed-early-due-pressure).

The threats were real and persistent and included the withdrawal of a financial gift from another legislator who said because of “the anti-coal actions I won’t be donationing (sic) to UW at this time.”

President Buchanan initially defended academic freedom. Tomorrow-UW’s response evolves.

Part 1: Wyoming's mining industry vs. freedom of expression at UW

The public records act is a fascinating tool, offering a picture of government decision-making otherwise unavailable to citizens who rely on public statements made by public officials. It proved useful in digging into the controversy stirred recently when University of Wyoming officials destroyed a sculpture that had drawn the ire of influential donors and legislators.

My public records request produced massive amounts of documents weaving a troubling story including threats from legislators and the mining industry. The issue is more important than UW’s decision to destroy a sculpture known as Carbon Sink, which raises significant questions of freedom of expression. The University cannot address those issues until it addresses more foundational questions.

Over the years, with the steadfast insistence of the University, Wyoming made a choice. It would remain one of the only states in the country to have just one state funded four-year school. There would be no competition allowing education consumers to choose one school over another. That elevates the role and responsibility of policymakers to make certain our university is a place of excellence where students learn not what to think but how to think.

Tom Buchanan has announced he’ll resign at the end of this academic year. The University is beginning the process of selecting his successor. This is the time to ask how much influence the University should give to those with political and economic clout? Bluntly, if the mining industry has sway sufficient to force censorship of art, shouldn’t we assume they are also influencing the school’s research on issues ranging from fracking to climate change?

Finding an answer implicates not only the University but also the legislature. As the state’s single four-year school of higher education, UW relies heavily on its relationship with the legislature. The conduct of certain legislators in the destruction of Carbon Sink demonstrates a lack of discipline on their part and an attitude of individual self-importance destructive to a healthy relationship between the legislature and the University. The legislature won’t open that conversation. Others must.

This series examines records provided by the University and actions taken by President Buchanan and others. It discloses the threats made by legislators and the energy industry coercing the University to censor a piece of art they found objectionable. Finally, the series examines the role of certain legislators. Just as the state has but one university, it has, for any practical purpose, one political party. That’s a prescription for the kind of abuse of power evident in this case.

The controversy began with a July 12, 2011, announcement that British artist Chris Drury would create a sculpture for the campus. Drury uses the environment to make artistic statements. Carbon Sink used beetle-kill logs interspersed with coal in a vortex to create a message about climate change. UW’s announcement said, “It explores the connection between Wyoming’s strong oil and coal industries and climate change, which is contributing to pine beetle kill.” But the energy industry is allergic to messages acknowledging climate change.

 The next day, Bruce Hinchey, a former Speaker of the Wyoming House who now heads the Wyoming Petroleum Association, emailed industry leaders and legislator-friends stirring unhappiness over the sculpture. From Drury’s July 22, 2011 blog, “By day three of construction, the mining industry was accusing the university of ingratitude towards one of its main benefactors – in what some have seen as a veiled threat to cut funding.” 

Marion Loomis, Wyoming Mining Association head, fired an email to Don Richards, UW’s vice president for government affairs. “Don, what kind of crap is this? It got worse quickly.  Loomis told reporters, “They get millions of dollars in royalties from oil, gas and coal to run the university, and then they put up a monument attacking me, demonizing the industry." Kelly Mader, vice-president for State Government Relations for Peabody Energy (a former Wyoming legislator), threatened, “Our $2 million donation to the University is now in question.”

Then legislators loyal to the causes of the energy lobby jumped into the fray. More tomorrow.