Ohio University is moving forward in its search for a candidate to fill the newly-created director of governmental relations position. That future employee will be charged with the task of strengthening relations between OU and the state and federal government. An institution such as OU desperately needs a full-time employee to focus his or her full attention to lobbying for the university's agenda. OU has undertaken this process after much preparation and the university should be praised for identifying a potential weakness and attempting to rectify it.
The hiring of a qualified individual for the position is well worth the time, effort and expense that the process is sure to incur. The estimated salary of the director of governmental relations -$75,000 to $100,000 a year -is a bargain when compared with the salaries of other university employees and weighed against the need for the position.
A dedicated director of governmental relations could help to explain the university's rationale to legislators when questions arise about OU's need for more funding. In the past two years alone, OU has suffered negative publicity because of some expenditures that the media have viewed as wasteful -such as former President Robert Glidden's $83,000 salary and three-year contract for fund raising, the $3.7 million spent on an airplane and the OU first lady Deborah McDavis's $25,000 salary.
If OU had an employee that could devote all of his or her time to developing relationships with legislators and explaining the universities actions in the proper context, OU could better combat negative publicity. OU is properly prepared for the process of finding such an individual and is pursuing the proper course of action.
Flip-flop
Multilateral talks with Iran are noble but also politically expedient
Upon his return from a whirlwind tour of Europe, President Bush is continuing to try to repair the relationship between America and its allies offended by the U.S.'s unilateral action in the Iraq War. The Bush administration is currently close to a decision that would align America with Europe in seeking a diplomatic solution to potential problems with Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. The diplomatic solution would offer incentives to Iran -theoretically including future membership in the World Trade Organization -in exchange for a formal agreement to halt plans to develop nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration should be commended for its pursuit of a diplomatic solution to avoid a future quagmire -like the one it has in Iraq -and the administration's desire to extend an olive branch to both Europe and Iran. However, as refreshing as this change in foreign policy is, the decision to pursue such an action must not be viewed in a political vacuum. The decision to pursue diplomatic solutions to future problems in the Middle East is the correct one, but it is not motivated by the right reasons. The current administration has chosen the path of political expediency when dealing with Iran, solely because it has exhausted all other options, most notably the inability to pursue a military agenda because of the Iraq War.
The administration has shown its political duplicity by reversing its strong stance of bringing freedom and liberty to nations around the world, even at the risk of alienating its allies and going it alone. After sweeping Iran into its axis of evil
and taking the country to task in the State of the Union, the president is now willing to multilaterally negotiate with Iran.
Although this flip-flop in policy does have direct benefits to the country, it alludes to the current administration's willingness to compromise its ideology just to improve its image. The American public needs to be skeptical of Bush's decision and question whether it is motivated by a desire for peace and tolerance or is another public relations move to curry favor with the nation's citizens.
It is too early to tell whether the diplomatic solution to Iran will succeed or what motives are behind Bush's willingness to pursue a peaceful solution -one he rejected when dealing with Iraq. However should the administration decide to join Europe in this measure it would be the correct action. America can ill afford another quagmire abroad and any action to prevent such a situation is positive, but whether or not this decision represents a softening of the Bush administration's foreign policy has yet to be determined. 17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
OU's search for a strong lobbyist
