Vander Plaats Questioned As He Officially Enters Gubernatorial Race
- Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 4:01
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 4,222 views
- 29 comments
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats stopped in Des Moines while on his statewide campaign announcement tour yesterday. Vander Plaats is in the midst of his third attempt to secure the Republican Party’s nomination for governor. He made his official announcement in his home town of Sheldon on Monday.
Vander Plaats announced that it would be a goal of his administration to repay the $750 million Governor Culver borrowed for his I-Jobs program by the end of his first term as Governor. State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald told O. Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa that Vander Plaats’ proposal “wouldn’t fly.”
Treasurer Fitzgerald indicated that paying off the bond early would violate the terms of the bond agreements, meaning the state could be assessed a fine for paying off the bonds early. Fitzgerald also pointed out that the bond agreements require the bonds to be paid back with $42 million in gambling revenue every year. The State Treasurer also admitted that, even if we wanted to pay off the bonds early, the state lacks the money to do so.
Fitzgerald also warned that Vander Plaats’ proposal could put various new projects like the renovations to the Iowa Veterans Home and a new prison in Fort Madison in jeopardy if the State of Iowa reneges on its previous bonding agreements.
Vander Plaats’ plan to pay off Culver’s I-Jobs debt isn’t his first proposal that has met with scrutiny. Following the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage, Vander Plaats said that he would sign an executive order that would stay gay marriages his first day in office. The governor’s staff and Attorney General Tom Miller have said that a governor does not have the authority to issue an executive order that would overturn or stay a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court.
In addition to having his policy proposals questioned by the Attorney General and State Treasurer, Vander Plaats’ primary opponent, State Representative Chris Rants, spent most of last week questioning Vander Plaats’ stewardship of Opportunities Unlimited, a non-profit residential rehabilitation service for individuals who have sustained traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, or other physical disability.
Vander Plaats regularly touts himself as a “turn-around CEO” on the campaign trail based on his work at Opportunities Unlimited, a description that Rep. Chris Rants believes isn’t fitting of his opponent. Last week, Rants pointed out that, under Vander Plaats’ leadership as CEO and Chairman of the Board, Opportunities Unlimited went from a $471,455 operating surplus to a $630,655 deficit.
Rants and Vander Plaats have gone back and forth over the accusation. One of the main points of contention is that Rants wants to look at all of the years in which Vander Plaats was either CEO or Chairman of the Board, while Vander Plaats only feels it’s appropriate to look at his first three years of service during which he served as CEO. Rants argues that it is correct to look at all of the years in which Vander Plaats was involved with Opportunities Unlimited since his salary during the years in which he was the Chairman of the Board were higher than that which he earned during his first two years as CEO. Vander Plaats was also the highest paid employee of this organization during the years he was Chairman of the Board.
This past Friday while on WHO Radio, Rants said that, “Vander Plaats is borrowing a page from Governor Culver’s play book – as long as there is enough money in reserves, you can ignore the deficits. As long as we have an AAA bond rating – you ignore the deficits.”
Rants added, “People have to ask themselves two questions: First, should we look at his full record or only from 1996-2000?” Rants told WHO Radio personality Steve Deace that if we are only looking at bits and pieces of peoples’ records, then he’d like people to only critique his record from 1996 to 2000. Rants believes that Vander Plaats’ record as Chairman of the Board does matter.
According to Rants, the second question people need to ask when looking at Vander Plaats’ record at Opportunities Unlimited is – do you care about deficits? Rants said, “If you do, then you should be concerned. If you don’t, or you buy Culver’s argument that an AAA bond rating means our deficit doesn’t matter, or Culver’s claim that because there is money in our emergency fund, that our deficit doesn’t matter – well, then pay no attention.”
While the Vander Plaats campaign wants to move away from Rants’ attacks, these accusations will likely haunt his campaign throughout the primary or until he provides data of his own that proves that Rants is mistaken. Having the State Treasurer point out that one of your main proposals regarding the I-Jobs debt isn’t even possible only gives more credibility to Rants’ assertion that Vander Plaats isn’t the candidate to get Iowa’s fiscal house in order.
With Vander Plaats currently being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, he should prepare for more attacks and critiques of his proposals. That said, having your credibility questioned the week leading up to your official announcement, and having one of the main tenets of your campaign being called into question the day after your announcement, isn’t probably what the Vander Plaats team had in mind for their kick-off tour.
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
29 Comments on “Vander Plaats Questioned As He Officially Enters Gubernatorial Race”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Me thinks Mr. VP is prone to hyperbole.
Vander Plaats is looking more and more like an onion. The more layers I peel, the more he stinks. (OK, that’s a cheesy line, but it’s true in this instance)
Craig, you direct-quoted many of Rants’ accusations about Vander Plaats, but you ignore what Vander Plaats or Former State Auditor Johnson’s rebuttals. You can’t just directly quote one guy without quoting another. You need two sides of the story. Also, I would add that people only question those that are the frontrunners so it isn’t unusual that Bob is fielding a lot of questions. If Branstad gets in, the media will go nuts and he will have to defend himself against a 16 yr. record and that will be difficult to do. However, I do agree that Vander Plaats needs to get more detailed about his proposals. I see he has a new “Issues” tab on his campaign website.
Isn’t Deace only quoting one side? Did you scold Deace?
Does anyone else find it odd Vander Plaats campaigned against the last “turn-around CEO” who ran in Iowa… and is now using the same moniker? Romney failed and he REALLY was a “turn-around CEO”. I’m tired of Vander Plaats and can hope only hope he fails as miserably as the last one… oh, the irony.
As an actor I study lines alot. One of my favorite lines from the last 9 years of the Vander Plaats campaign for governor is the following: “The definition of insanity is do the same thing over and over again and anticipating a different result.” Great line! And so true.
DVFO–Last night I listened to Deace and his sidekick Bill (government suck) Salier discuss their scorched earth view of politics. I am convinced more than ever that Deace is a closet pro choicer. He posits publically that abortion is the end all be all issue that defines Republican politics. Yet he is unwilling to advocate a political strategy that will culminate in a prolife government. Rather he and his brand of fire breathers advocate a strategy of extremism that will virtually ensure that Republicans never regain power. Why, one might ask, would a person so seemingly dedicated to protecting human life do such a thing? Here’s the answer. It’s all in the ratings. He knows that once abortions are outlawed he no longer will have the abortion issue to galvinize his listeners and therefore his audience and rating will plummet. DVFO–you were right all along. This guy has an agenda that defies his spoken words.
Drama – you’re dead on. In the words of Chris Tucker, “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?”.
Stacia..
I heard Auditor Johnson on Deace’s show the other day..and quite frankly…he DIDN”T answer any of the questions that Rants put out there..he just basically recycled the line that Vander Plaats has been saying about this issue from the beginning.
I still have not seen or heard an explanation from the BVP camp about the IRS data that clearly shows Opportunities Unlimited had a surplus when he came on board and that when he left, the organization had a considerable deficit.
I have not heard an explanation from the BVP camp about the circumstances surrounding his removal as Chairman of Opportunities Unlimitied…
BVP is NOT doing a good job of responding clearly to these issues..and its hurting him as a result…
Mod: My take on Deace is slightly different. I do believe he cares about the issue but I believe he cares MORE about his ego and in his mind, HE has to be the most virtuous of any other human walking the earth and the only way he can get to that status is by belittling anyone virtuous enough to be a threat to his elevated status. Do you understand that convoluted logic?
I do believe he is dangerous to the very issues he says he cares about. Those who are willing to follow him over the cliff are of no help, either.
It’s reminiscent of the reaction to Haley Barbour’s speech. The guy just laid out the strategy he had used to make Mississippi the most pro-life state in the union but that wasn’t good enough for the purists.
They were horrified that he had used RINOs in the process. I say three cheers for Barbour and I’d follow him into battle any day before I’d follow Deace or others who agree with his strategy (or lack of it).
Stacia,
I would include direct quotes from Vander Plaats if he would have provided direct answers. Rants uses Opportunities Unlimited Tax Documents to make his point that Bob isn’t the turn-around CEO he claims to be.
Vander Plaats responds by saying that he was the CEO in some of the years that Rants is talking about. To Rants’ credit he never said he was the CEO in other years, but points out that he was still there in a leadership capacity making around $80,000 a year while running for Governor. One of the questions I didn’t raise in this article is why would a non-profit organization pay its Chairman of the Board so much money when they are traveling the state running for Governor?
The one thing that Vander Plaats did say that could explain the deficits is that OU was built a building and started a new initiative in the late 90’s. According to 2004 tax records the new initiative, the Children’s Center that Vander Plaats spoke about, ceased the majority of its operations in 2004 because it was a becoming a financial drain on its parent organization Opportunities Unlimited. As for the new building, it was paid for by a $3 million bond in 1998. In 2000, OU spent $470k on land for future development, that land remains vacant today.
I know the Vander Plaats campaign wants to only focus on the years in which he was the CEO, but the years in which he was the Chairman of the Board also matter. The campaign has also pointed out the turn-around in the level of care that they have provided under Vander Plaats leadership. Nobody is questioning the type of work that is done there or the quality of care that is provided.
This is about Bob’s fiscal management of OU, and thus far he hasn’t wanted to talk about the same numbers that Rants is talking about. Instead Vander Plaats wants to all about gross assets. Gross assets don’t always indicate whether or not a company is well run. Regency Homes in West Des Moines had a ton of gross assets in terms of new unsold homes and development property. So while they were asset rich, they were also cash poor. I don’t think you could find anyone in Iowa that would call Jamie Myers, Regency’s former CEO, a turn-around CEO.
DVFO–you nailed it on Barbour. Mississippi in no longer a backwater economically either. Talk about results. Despite his track record the reaction to him at Hoyt Sherman by those in attendance and those that comment here were tepid at best and hostile at worst. Go figure.
Kudos, Craig, no a great article and excellent follow-up comment.
Vander Plaats has not directly answered the allegations…..because he has no answer for them. He’s a “turn-around CEO” all right…. but in a bad way.
Vander Plaats is a FRAUD. It’s about time he was exposed.
Steave Deace is going to go berserk if you people don’t start getting on the BVP wagon.
Thanks Craig for your response. I’m glad we all have this website that we can discuss each candidate and hold each candidate accountable. I think this whole Chairman vs. CEO thing is interesting. I think there is a difference between a CEO and Chairman of the Board. In profit companies, there might not be a distinction between the two; however, non-profit companies opporate differntly than profit companies and I think people ignore that. I have a family member who works for a non-profit company and he said that the Chairman acts like a spokesman (kind of like the symbol) and the CEO runs the day-to-day tasks. During those years where Bob was Chairman instead of CEO was actually a smart thing because Bob couldn’t be their everyday to see the day-to-day operations while he was campaigning for gov. They still paid him because they wanted him to be the face of the company. The mainstream media did not pick up on this story because they said that Rant’s accusations were unclear and confusing. I can see the validity in Rants and BVP’s claims because they have numbers to back each other up. I do trusts Johnson’s judgment. He was a great auditor and said that he wouldn’t be troubled by BVP’s organizaion
Stacia,
Thanks for your response. I would agree with you that there is a difference between being the CEO and Chairman of the Board if the new CEO had a full time position and was compensated at the same level that Vander Plaats was when he was CEO.
When Bob moved from CEO to Chairman his salary remained the same and he went from working 40 hours to 32 hours.. The new CEO was paid $32,000 one year, and nothing the next year, the CEO also only worked 16 hours a week or half of what Vander Plaats worked.
I think it would be good for Bob to address the numbers that Rants is questioning.
hey, craig, ask the pants about the order to reverse the supreme court decision in varnum, unitl he abandons that, he shouldn’t be taken seriously.
silence
I’ve often wondered if tenants were allowed to have tenets.
Good work, Craig.
Excellent article. I read the audit and the tax spreadsheet, along with Mr. Vander Plaats’ rebuttal and wasn’t sure what to make of all the information. You provided some additional insight not obvious from the data alone that furthers my understanding and hopefully the understanding of us Republicans who want to base our decisions on information and not on statements about executive orders, bond repayments in the future or even on perky You Tube videos.
I think it is obvious that Stacia is right. OU paid Bob well to be the Chairman because they wanted him to be the face of the organization even though his availability was going to be limited. Surely Republicans don’t have a problem with a guy making as much money as an organization is willing to pay? If they were willing to pay him that much even though his responsibilities and hours were going to decrease… more power to him. They must have thought that it was in their best interest to do so.
Now Dick Johnson did do a pretty good job of explaining how non-profit budgets work especially when you have a capital campaign and are expanding the operation. But truthfully, it really should be Bob that’s doing the explaining. I think if he’d simply explain the issues Rants raises one by one in detail, it would make sense to people who don’t already hate him.
If he doesn’t do it, it’s a mistake. And maybe it’s too late now.
Tyler: ” I think if he’d simply explain the issues Rants raises one by one in detail, it would make sense to people who don’t already hate him.”
Just because it is expected that VP be able to explain his positions or allegations, does not translate into hate. The word is being used the same way that someone calls someone else a racist when they can’t find any other way to intimidate them.
Not gonna work so drop it.
I think it’s obvious BVP should NOT be our nominee!
Timmy, you are insensitive. Running for Governor is the only thing he knows how to do. And it pays the bills too. Sign me up for the 4th attempt in 2014!
I have never heard of a small not-for-profit organization that paid its CEO $80K to run for govenor.
sc area:
Ever hear of a small motivational consulting company that consults (wink, wink) to the businesses of your biggest campaign sugar daddies? I have now. Apparently that is the new way to seemlessly run for governor from year to year to year to year to year to year to year to year to year.
Then again, how credible is criticism from the highly partisan Democrat Attorney General and Democrat treasurer? Rants may or may not be raising a valid point about Opportunities Unlimited, and I don’t know the answer to that one, but relying on Democrats’ criticiques of Republicans seems more than a little silly as the basis for rejecting a Republicans ideas.
Of course Miller and Fitzgerald are opposed to real change and will say anything to prevent it.
Ted, the “highly partisan” democrats critique of Vander Plaats is correct. I dont’ agree with them often but they are right on this one – I would think someone with your legal background would understand the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, and constitutional and unconstitutional… Vander Plaats’ needs to find someone to ‘fact check’ him before he speaks. Its embarrassing.
I would think the bonding thing would be pretty simple. Aren’t the people who buy the bonds promised a certain rate of return for a certain time frame? Aren’t there probably some penalties to be paid if the state doesn’t hold up their end of the deal? Isn’t this essentially reneging on a contract?