College Leaders

Marc Johnson, Assistant Director of the Sorensen Institute and Director of Programs, as well as a graduate of the College Leaders Program Class of 2003, shared these final remarks to close out the College Leaders Program Class of 2009 graduation ceremony on Saturday, June 27.

The Program Managers for the College Leaders Program Class of 2009 shared these memorable remarks at the class graduation on Saturday morning, June 27.

Virginia State Senator Robert Hurt is a member of the Sorensen State Advisory Board and a graduate of the Political Leaders Program Class of 2000. He delivered the Graduation Address for the College Leaders Program Class of 2009. In this podcast, he is introduced by Sorensen's Bob Gibson.

Sorensen's April Auger presented the College Leaders Program Class of 2009 Spirit of Citizenship Award to Scott Van Der Hyde.

Jack Ruddy was selected by his classmates to deliver the Class Address for the College Leaders Program Class of 2009 Graduation. In this podast. Jack is introduced by Sorensen's Marc Johnson.

Dr. Steve Bragaw delievered the faculty address at the College Leaders Program Class of 2009 graduation.

The College Leaders Program Class of 2009 celebrated its graduation in the historic Dome Room of the University of Virginia Rotunda this past Saturday, June 27.

Executive Director Bob Gibson welcomed the class, plus an audience of family and friends, with these remarks.

The College Leaders Program Class of 2009!

Today in Charlottesville the Sorensen Institute's College Leaders Program Class of 2009 celebrates its graduation at a special ceremony with family and friends. The board members, alumni, and staff at Sorensen are very proud to welcome each of you to the Sorensen family. Congratulations!

College Leaders Program Class of 2009
Day 26—Thursday, June 25, 2009
Reported by: Benjamin Soltoff, James Madison University

"Chaos in the House"
As chairman of the fictional Appropriations and Finance Committee for the House of Delegates, I had the pleasure of presiding over House negotiations in the CLP’s annual Budget Game. Designed to mimic the challenges legislators face when attempting to approve a budget, this year’s session came very close to mimicking the actual process. Facing a $1 billion dollar budget shortfall, the class was split into the two houses of the legislature to debate and prepare a budget proposal. Discussion proceeded amicably during the first hour, but descended into chaos during discussion about budget reductions and tax increases. The session ran over while accounting errors were fixed and a subsequent conference committee meeting with our Senate counterparts was convened to reconcile our different budgets. Parts of this process proved most contentious, with the delegates being accused of unfairly burdening high-income earners, while one delegate accused the senators of being “immoral” for targeting education and low-income individuals for spending cuts (the veracity of this statement is questionable). Eventually we managed to approve a budget that provided for modest personal income and corporate taxes to offset declining revenues, while slashing almost $1 billion dollars from programs and funding few new programs or initiatives. Some lessons I learned while “presiding” over the debate:

· Come in with a game plan. Most of us received the governor’s proposals the night before, but did not plan how we would pursue a balanced budget. When we began discussing various options, there were no overarching goals that we could use as a framework to determine where cuts could be made. The Senate did a much better job of identifying key parts of the government that needed funding and worked their proposal around these goals. The House of Delegates wasted 4 hours going over each line of the budget individually to determine if we wanted to keep or cut it. In the end, most of the assorted programs we chose to fund were left out of the final budget. Our failure to identify our priorities caused our budget to be ripped to shreds.
· Discussion is good, to a point. Everybody has an opinion on issues, and while it is good to talk them out, especially with those who have differing views, a time comes where you just need to take a vote and move on. Most deals made in the General Assembly (and any parliament) are made behind-the-scenes, in one-on-one discussions between legislators from both parties. Rarely are opinions changed during committee meetings because a legislator is won over by the arguments from another legislator. After spending two hours on proposed spending increases, we still needed to address spending cuts and possible tax increases. Getting bogged down in discussion caused us to rush through proposals at the end and short-changed some worthy ideas simply because they were last on the list. Make a decision, and move on.
· Always bring a gavel. If you have to run a committee of any kind, make sure the chairman has the authority and ability to control the flow of events. I had a very difficult time controlling the flow of discussion because people started shouting their opinions on topics without first being recognized to speak. Organized debate and discussion is always preferable to mob rule. Even simple things such as the use of a gavel enhance the group’s ability to proceed with its charges in an efficient and orderly manner. You may not achieve your personal goals, but at least you will make sure something is achieved.

—Benjamin Soltoff, James Madison University