Matching Items (2)

Filtering by

Clear all filters

Glick, Milton

Description

Dr. Milton Glick grew up wanting to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a jeweler. However, his father had other plans for him and insisted that he attend college. Milt received his undergraduate degree in Chemistry from Augustana College

Dr. Milton Glick grew up wanting to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a jeweler. However, his father had other plans for him and insisted that he attend college. Milt received his undergraduate degree in Chemistry from Augustana College in his hometown of Rock Island, IL. He went on to receive his PhD in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He spent 2 years as a Post-Doctoral student at Cornell University before joining the faculty of Wayne State University. From there, he went to serve as Dean at the University of Missouri and then Provost at Iowa State University, serving as interim President in his final year. In 1991 he joined the administration of ASU as Provost and remained here for 15 years. He spent almost 5 years as President of the University of Nevada, Reno before unexpectedly passing away of a stroke in April 2011.

In this interview, Milt talks about his goals of improving the quality of the faculty at ASU from being the “ordinary” that he found when he arrived to becoming the “extraordinary”. He attributes his success in improving faculty salaries as one aspect of achieving this goal. He talks about the challenges ASU had living in the shadows of the greatness of the University of Arizona and overcoming those to where the UofA now looks up to ASU! Milt also talks about his role as the “Zen master of managing limited budgets” during his years at ASU. And he speaks of the special relationship he had with now President Michael Crow, from his years at Iowa State, to using Michael as a consultant and mentor to him in his role as Provost at ASU and finally to having Dr. Crow as his “boss”. Throughout the interview, Milt stressed his love for ASU and mentioned that ASU was “more than just a destination for sunlight.”

Contributors

Created

Date Created
2010-03-06

134953-Thumbnail Image.png

Arizona Clean Elections: The Impact of Publicly Financed Campaigns on Representation in the Legislature

Description

Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of

Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers and banning contributions from corporations. As the United States moved into the 20th Century, regulations became more robust with more accountability. The modern structure of campaign finance regulation was established in the 1970's with legislation like the Federal Election Campaign Act and with Supreme Court rulings like in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, the Court has moved increasingly to strike down campaign finance laws they see as limiting to First Amendment free speech. However, Arizona is one of a handful of states that established a system of publicly financed campaigns at the state-wide and legislative level. Passed in 1998, Proposition 200 attempted to limit the influence of money politics. For my research I hypothesized that a public financing system like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) would lead to Democrats running with public funds more than Republicans, women running clean more than men, and rural candidates running clean more than urban ones, and that Democrats, women, and rural candidates would win in higher proportions than than if they ran a traditional campaign. After compiling data from the CCEC and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, I found that Democrats do run with public funds in statistically higher proportions than Republicans, but when they do they lose in higher proportions than Democrats who run traditionally. Female candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008, after which the difference was not statistically significant. For all year ranges women who ran with public money lost in higher proportions than women who ran traditionally. Similarly, rural candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008. However, they only lost at higher proportions from 2002 to 2008 instead of the whole range like with women and Democratic candidates.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2016-12