Minnesota, in play
Solar on schools, let's play games, and a word about polls
Ruh Roh
Over he last few days, national commentators have noted that Minnesota is now in play in the presidential race. If Minnesota is in play, and the third district is in play, then SDs 42, 45, and 37 are in play. These are the Senate districts that align closely with the geographical distribution of Indivisible West Metro. So we are all in play. We’ve known for weeks that we are one of a dozen or so battleground patches in the US in the upcoming election. It seems that we are moving up on that list. Please stay involved!
[AI generated image of the ideal energy efficient school that does not exist anywhere.]
Solar on the schools: not so fast!
Even though a handful of school districts have embraced the idea of putting solar panels on their schools, it doesn’t take much to make the habitually skidish administrators of your average school district balk at the idea. Some still see it as a political move (it is not) and fear reprisals. Others are not quite so sure the technology is ready (yes, poorly educated people are in positions of power in some of our school districts, sadly). But they do have a seemingly legitimate reason to avoid solar.
Currently, the state provides Long Term Facilities Maintenance (LTFM) funds to school districts, which can be used for the upkeep and replacement of "like-for-like" materials in and around school buildings. School districts across the state greatly appreciate LTFM funds, as these funds are instrumental in keeping our school buildings safe and well-maintained.
One limitation of LTFM funds is they can only be used to replace like-for-like materials. They cannot be used for the new installation of energy-conscious and sustainable solutions like solar panels, geothermal energy, or more energy efficient boilers and windows. Furthermore, solar panels are explicitly prohibited from being maintained by LTFM funds. This means that, even if school districts find a way to fund the initial purchase and installation of solar panels, they cannot use LTFM funds to maintain or replace the panels long-term.
The limitations of LTFM funds have become barriers to implementation and acceptance among school district administrations. Most school district personnel have little experience with green technology on a large scale, and the lack of support from the state makes implementing such technology an even riskier proposition, from an administrative point of view.
We would like state legislators to eliminate the barriers to the use of LTFM funds for solar panels and other environmentally conscious solutions in our public school buildings.
Please contact your state legislators and ask them to fix this problem with statute, preferably this year. This is not a heavy ask and is obviously important.
Remember our upcoming event!
The Problems and Perils of Land Use in West Metro Cities: Sat, Mar 16, 1:00pm-2:30pm CDT
Please join Indivisible West Metro and guest members of area city councils to discuss land use decisions from holding ponds to golf courses to mega-churches to everything else. In the aftermath of the Eagle Brook Church permitting process, we are asking city council members from Plymouth, Minnetonka, and Maple Grove to share their thoughts and field questions.
Members can submit questions prior to the event (see your newsletter or use this URL: https://forms.gle/tpmv9zGJMrSYbfXX7 )
Legislative Action Anyone?
Consider subscribing to the MN Leg Legislative Action newsletter, an Indivisible joint. Of joint Indivisible groups. No actual joints involved, though. Here’s the most recent newsletter, click through and subscribe if you like it.
DFL Game Night and Potluck Dinner Friday, March 22 at 6 pm
St. Barnabas Lutheran Church, 15600 Old Rockford Rd, Plymouth
DFL says, “Everyone is welcome! This is a great opportunity to get out of the house and socialize with your fellow Democrats. Bring a dish, snack, or dessert to share, or just bring yourself. We will have games for all ages and skill levels. Bring a favorite game if you like.”
[AI generated image of game night with Democrats]
Don’t truther-truth the polls
If you see a poll you don’t like, don’t panic. But also, don’t say, “well, polling is broken, so I can ignore this.” Polls are not broken. Almost every instance of polls being wrong over the last decade or two is an example of one of the following:
The interpretation and reporting, mainly by the lamestream press, misrepresented one or more polls, or otherwise muddled up any reasonable interpretation of one or more polls (more on this below). This is a likely and common event. How many times have you seen something that you knew a LOT about reported in the press, where the press didn’t muddle up the story? There is some good reporting, and eventually they get some things mostly right, but day to day, there are certain categories of information that the press routinely under-report, or sensationalize, or otherwise muddle. Poll results are the frequent victim of journalistic laziness and ineptitude.
A poll is a bad poll. Yes, there can be bad polls while at the same time it is not true that polling is broken. There are a lot of bad cars, hot-dogs, restaurants, movies, or recently released songs. Just look at Yelp or Rotten Tomatoes. That there are either bad polls or, more commonly, iffy pollsters, is both true and irrelevant. You didn’t stop watching movies just because somebody made Ishtar, and you probably own a car even though they made the Gremlin. Rather than writing off all polls, learn which polling concerns are reliable, and ignore the rest.
A very good poll that puts a given candidate in the lead was not wrong if that candidate does not win, if the top contenders were statistically tied. If that is uncomfortable or difficult, then you have to make adjustments in how you think about it, because Johann Friedrich Gauss and Karl Pearson don’t care. This is partly a reporting problem (see above). Reporters can’t seem to understand that statistical ambiguity is a real thing, and they don’t ever seem to report it.
Polling data are data. They are part of the big picture. Poll results are not predictions. They are snapshots of what was going on when the poll was taken. There are features of polling that are soft and mushy, others that are sharp and unforgiving. For example, “wrong direction/right direction” questions do nothing to clarify how people will vote in an upcoming election, and approval ratings have lost their baseline because the population of Americans being sampled have become jaded and cynical and have turned on the political process and government, even if they will vote for a candidate they complain about. But pollster (the good ones) are smart people and guess what, they noticed that too!
Brushing off polls because “polling is known to be broken” is buying into a falsehood. Polls show that people don’t trust polls. They also show that 30% of Republicans would support bombing Agrabah. There are bad movies, crappy cars, and inedible hot-dogs, yet we still drive to the movies and stop an an A&W on the way home.
Years ago I worked for a marketing research consultant, a PhD in that field (very rare). From that experience I learned that surveys in general are poorly written/conducted, resulting in data that should be viewed skeptically..... if not trashed entirely. So l learned to be leery of most polls results. BUT: I do believe that stuff put out these days by the Cook Report is solid and believable.