Tej Dhawan, rebooted

For my friends with whom I’ve sparred over the Violence Against Women’s act, a little bit of background that drives my passionate response might help —-

I was brought up in a loving, strict, religious, traditional Hindu family.  Dad worked long hours to make sure the best available education was available to both my sister and me.  He was (and is) fairly strict in his beliefs and does not shy from scolding us for our transgressions despite our 40+ years of age.  When I was 10ish, we went on vacation from Delhi to southern India. We were to ride the train south, and on the way back, my dad, an employee of the US Embassy, would pickup one of the incoming cars from Bombay consulate and drive us back to Delhi.  Dad’s uniform included US Army style boots and a belt with the massive buckle with a bald eagle and he preferred those two over everyday wear.

The second class seat cars on Indian trains then had three berths facing each other with the middle berth folded down during the day.  People sat on the lower berth with luggage and overflow seating on the top.  My mom, sister and I on the lower berth in the train, and dad up top.  A few other passengers were mulling about, seated where they could or standing.  The train began to move and a gruff looking guy walked up toward us and, with a verbal assault, harshly pushed my sister (then 7ish) aside to try and sit.  Before he could grab the spot, however, I saw the inch or two high heel of dad’s shoe swing from above me and hit the guy squarely in his chest. As the guy tried to recapture his breath, dad jumped down and grabbed him by the collar, dragging him away in anger.

For those who know my dad, know that his life exists through the life of his daughters and granddaughters.  His normal gentle demeanor is a cover, one I saw disappear that day when he dragged the guy to the door of the moving train, opened the door and said – “Madarchod, remember this day when you think about lifting your hand on a female“, and threw him out of the moving train.  He had no fear, no remorse, and certainly no ego as he walked back to the seat, hugged his daughter and sat back down.

I was asked this question recently on a visit to DC by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS).  Senator Moran is an outspoken supporter of skilled immigration and the author of the Startup Act 2.0 and I met him at the Kauffman Foundation’s State of Entrepreneurship launch event.  Sharing the presence of immigrants at many critical junctures of our State’s launch, and our continued presence and inflow into the State’s economic drivers – our businesses – made the case to him and he shared a few anecdotes from Kansas.  Returning from DC, I had the opportunity to submit an editorial to the Des Moines Register with two leaders of our community – Lori Chesser of Davis Brown Law Firm and Jay Byers of the Greater Des Moines Partnership.  The editorial lays out many of the important items for our cities and State and is duplicated below.

——-

Seize the day. That is our recommendation to Iowans — including our congressional delegation — regarding immigration reform.

Our outdated system has long hobbled economic growth nationwide, but nowhere more than in Iowa. Immigration reform is a critical element in building a strong economy and a vibrant culture both now and in the future.

Iowa’s economic success depends largely on our ability to enhance international connectivity to compete in the global marketplace. This includes increasing exports, facilitating foreign direct investment, and attracting top talent.

But the current system impedes growth on all fronts.

Potential trading partners cannot visit the U.S. — or establish branch offices — because of restrictive visa policies. Potential investors are stymied by lack of visas or overly restrictive interpretations of the few visas categories available. Talented students educated at Iowa’s universities — including coveted “STEM” graduates — leave because of a random H-1B visa “cap” and painfully long waiting lines for legal residence.

Entrepreneurship is another key element of a healthy economy, and immigrants have proved to be highly entrepreneurial. A recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that almost half of the top 50 venture-backed U.S. companies had at least one immigrant founder. An immigrant-founded venture-backed company creates, on average, 150 jobs.

Again, our current immigration system has few options for company founders, leaving this resource largely untapped. Meanwhile, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and Chile have all created programs to attract immigrant entrepreneurs.

Iowa is also an agricultural leader, responsible for the safe production of food both in the U.S. and around the globe. Reliable estimates indicate that 75 percent of the agricultural workers in the United States are immigrants — most of which are not authorized to work. The main reason is that the current system does not allow for non-seasonal temporary labor.

This restriction also hampers processing and service industries, which often cannot find reliable workers because of the preference for — and accessibility of — post-secondary education.

But a robust economy is only one measure of success. Surveys of students and young professionals show that quality of life, including diverse cultural, food and entertainment options, are important to their decisions about where to live and raise a family.

Immigrants — including German, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Mexican and Laotian — are Iowa’s cultural heritage. Immigrants — including Burmese, Iraqi, Sudanese, Bosnian, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistani, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Liberian and many others — are our cultural future.

Recent announcements by both President Obama and a bipartisan group of senators, along with the bipartisan introduction of the Immigration Innovation (Isquared) Act, and a day of thoughtful hearings on immigration reform in the U.S. House of Representatives last month encourage the hope that real change could happen.

To secure a bright future for Iowa, we must make it happen. The right immigration reform will spur economic growth, create jobs and foster a cultural richness that has made America what it is today. Iowans particularly will benefit from these changes. Let’s seize the day.

I guess I was wrong in guessing it would take Congress forever to get anywhere with Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Senator Harry Reid has introduced S.1 in the Senate, where it was read and sent to the Judiciary Committee for review.  The official bill isn’t visible on Thomas.gov yet, but the text per The Oh Law Firm states - 

S. 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.: This Act may be cited as the “Immigration Reform that Works for America’s Future Act”.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE: It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should–
(1) create a roadmap for immigrants who are here without legal status to earn citizenship, provided they pay taxes, complete a background check, learn English, and show a commitment to America;
(2) allow students who came to America as children to earn citizenship by attending college or joining the Armed Forces;
(3) protect the sustainability of the American agricultural industry, including the dairy industry, with a stable and legal agricultural workforce;
(4) encourage those who seek to invest in the United States and create American jobs;
(5) permit and encourage individuals who earn an advanced degree from one of our world-class universities to remain in the United States, rather than using that education to work for our international competitors;
(6) fulfill and strengthen our Nation’s commitments regarding security along our borders and at our ports of entry;
(7) strengthen our Nation’s historic humanitarian tradition of welcoming asylum seekers and refugees and improve existing policies that support immigrant victims of crime and domestic violence;
(8) create an effective electronic verification system and strengthen enforcement to prevent employers from hiring people here illegally;
(9) implement a rational legal immigration system that promotes job creation by converting the current flow of illegal immigrants into the United States into a more manageable, controlled, and legal process for admitting immigrants while, at the same time, safeguarding the jobs, rights, and wages of American workers; and
(10) adopt practical and fair immigration reforms to help ensure that all families are able to be together.

So, Items 1, 2, 3, and 8 address illegal immigration, #6 is a hattip to southern border states, 4, 5, 9 and 10 address legal, highly skilled immigrants and #7 is humanitarian.

The bill’s sponsor and co-sponsors are all democrats, so I am both frustrated at the likelihood of bickering (hoping I’m wrong again) and the likely death of the STEM Jobs Act.

The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) Jobs act, H.R. 6429 was introduced in the House by Rep. Lamar Smith on September 28, 2012 and passed on 11/30 in the house 245 to 139.  Iowa Representatives Braley and Loebsack voted No while King, Latham and Boswell voted in favor.  The bill was referred to the Senate and was read on 12/3 and 12/4/2012.  I spoke with Jens Krogstad of the Des Moines Register on this topic recently, and read the article and accompanying citizen commentary today.  I am disappointed in the direction the article took, as it focused on an individual’s plight instead of the larger problem surrounding the STEM worker shortage.

As the Governor and Lt. Governor of Iowa have outlined via their multi-year, statewide STEM initiative, there is a need for this state to grow the population able to fill open STEM jobs.  A University of Iowa survey in 2012 documented that 61% of Iowans agree that there aren’t enough skilled workers to fill STEM jobs in Iowa (slide 14 of the UNI Study). The Iowa Workforce development projects the need for STEM qualified workforce to grow from 57,830 in 2008 to 67,330 jobs by 2018, especially in the priority economic sectors of bio-science,  information technology, and advanced manufacturing.  These industries are prominently represented by employers large and small – names like DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Rockwell Collins, Vermeer, Pella, and others in all corners of the state.

Our pipeline of homegrown talent, however, is leaking.  Our 8th graders, at the top in 1992 nationally, have fallen to 25th in Math and 13th in Science.  Only 51% of Iowa ACT test takers in 2010 were college math-ready, and only 11% of them were actually interested in a STEM major.   To top off the data, 93% of Iowa’s population growth comes from Latino/Asian/African-american populations who are half as likely to pursue a career in STEM fields than their white counterparts.

So couple the increasing need for workers in our STEM industries (from ~58000 to ~67000) with a decreasing population of potential homegrown STEM workers (STEM-interested high school graduates now at about 4000) , and we have a deficit.  Since it takes at least 22 years to take a newborn through college, and our STEM agenda is working hard to grow the number from K-16 within the 22 year constraint), our deficit will naturally grow over time until we fix our production problem.  The choice is to export the jobs or import the people.

Importing individuals may sound petty and trite, but economically it is a choice.  Without the oceans, mountains, temperate climate, and activities, we know that our government officials’ desire to import new Iowa citizens from the coasts will be minimally fruitful.  So, why not figure out a way to keep talented, STEM-ready, young people here?  BTW, this problem isn’t localized to Iowa – Brad Feld has shared his frustrations via his posts, Vivek Wadhwa through his book, the Immigrant Exodus, and numerous others, our industry titans are hurting for qualified individuals and unable to find them.

That’s what the STEM Jobs Act is designed to do.  The democrat representatives and President I voted for killed that movement to protect a silly diversity lottery.  A lottery that brings people with no eye for what they bring to the country.  More partisan politics that bears little benefit for the country’s citizens.  There is a chance I might get to discuss this with the President himself in a few weeks.  Hopefully I can deliver the message more concisely for political consumption by then.

Please hit your employees in DC to tell them we need the STEM Jobs act.  Here are the links -

Bruce - http://braley.house.gov/contact
Dave – https://loebsack.house.gov/contactform/default.aspx
Barack –  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

–Tej

The debate pops its head up, seemingly every six or so months.  The new website or app that you happily downloaded and connected through all your social networks issues an updated terms and conditions or privacy policy, a news source notices it, publicizes it, everyone shares it on social networks, a brouhaha ensues, the company issues a retraction with an update that no one notices or cares about anymore, and information about users continues to get sold.

Software isn’t cheap.  Whether developed in basements, outsourced to contractors, offshored to India or elsewhere, funded by friends, families, fools or venture capitalists, it takes real people, real time and money to develop it.  The developers, people in high-demand and high-salaried, expect to get paid for working.  They don’t release applications for free because they are being philanthropic.  The apps and sites are free because they expect to sell something entirely different as a product.   In the 80s and 90s, independent developers or small programming shops made software and made it available for free under a concept called ‘shareware’.  People who found the application useful were expected to pay for it and the amounts were usually small – $10-$50.  People downloaded these applications and a relatively small number ever paid for them.  Developers tried time-bombing apps, limiting features, etc. but never really seemed to recover a decent income.  Then came the world of advertising where revenue could be generated by showing advertisements.  Contextual advertising replaced that… with ads that were specifically targeted to the user and no longer generic.

The number of applications that suddenly became free in the past decade, however, is staggering.

Remember Hotmail circa 2000?  You received 2MB of mail space and the company attracted users by millions.  It was sold by the original developer for a mere $400 Million and served generic advertising for revenue.  Then came Gmail in 2004.  Google offered 1GB of storage for free and showed advertisements based upon the content of the message.    Users ignored the loss of privacy and flocked from hotmail, AOL and other mail services by the millions for the massive data space made available to them for free.

Facebook, Instagram, Foursquare, LinkedIn aren’t doing anything they haven’t publicly stated before — they are selling you to their advertisers.  If you don’t like it, cancel your account and buy the software for the service.  Want email – Microsoft sells Exchange for an advertising free experience.  Want photo management – Adobe sells Elements.  Want to share photos – buy a domain and host your images for sharing with friends.  Facebook is free.  Gmail is free.  Instagram is free.  Pinterest is free.  Words with friends is free.  Yet, these companies are valued for real dollars on the stock markets and their owners and shareholders are living indoors, eating food they bought .  What makes that possible is the product being sold by these companies — the USERS.

Users have been presented with the caveats in the sign-up screens.  Check these out for yourself:

Facebook - “We use the information we receive about you in connection with the services and features we provide to you and other users like your friends, our partners, the advertisers that purchase ads on the site, and the developers that build the games, applications, and websites you use. For example, in addition to helping people see and find things that you do and share, we may use the information we receive about you:”

Linkedin – “We use the information you provide to… Create and distribute advertising relevant to your or your network’s LinkedIn experience. If you share your interactions on LinkedIn, for example, when you recommend a product, follow a company, establish or update your profile, join a Group, etc., LinkedIn may use these actions to create social ads for your network on LinkedIn using your profile photo and name. You can control whether LinkedIn uses your name and picture in social ads here.”

Pinterest – “The information we collect may be “personally identifiable” (meaning it can be used to specifically identify you as a unique person) or “non-personally identifiable” (meaning it can’t be used to specifically identify you). We use both types of information, and combinations of both types, as described above. We may use or store information wherever Pinterest does business, including countries outside your own.”

Yahoo Services -

• We look at a person’s browsing activity, such as the types of content the person accessed, ads the person clicked, and searches the person conducted. Based on this, we infer certain interests the person has, and we show ads likely to meet the person’s needs. For example, for people who like to check out the golf scores on Yahoo! Sports, we may show ads that focus on golf-related products and services.
• We offer this service not just on the Yahoo! network but across our partners’ sites as well.
• Advertising is how we’re able to offer the innovative, free services that are traditional at Yahoo!. As we continue to customize your Yahoo! experience, you may see ads that more closely reflect your interests.

Foursquare  - information collected includes … “We receive and store any information you enter on our Service or provide to us in any other way. The types of Personal Information collected may include your name, email address, phone number, birthday, Twitter and/or Facebook usernames, use information regarding your use of our Service, and browser information. We automatically receive your location when you use the Service…… ” and is shared with entities including “Agents: We employ other companies and people to perform tasks on our behalf and need to share your information with them to provide products or services to you. Our agents do not have any right to use Personal Information we share with them beyond what is necessary to assist us, and they provide a comparable level of protection for your Personal Information.”

These are just a handful of privacy policies from a few sites that are free to users because they derive revenue from elsewhere.  Your favorite social network – Quora, Google+ and others probably have privacy policies that aren’t very different from above.  Their  revenue is generated when ads are served to the browsing user.  The ads are neither free nor cheap and entire industries are built upon advertising.  For example, if you are about to begin selling something in Iowa and want to target women aged 24-37 (young moms?), Facebook will let you configure an advertising to specifically target the 21,460 women who identify themselves as just that.   That data is worth  some serious dollars and was generated by you, the user when you uploaded the kids birthday pictures, invited friends to a party, or perhaps wished a Happy Birthday.  Want to target specific audiences who visit specifc sites – checkout one such syndication network site’s blog list and how much each impression can be worth.

These sites/apps  provide a valuable service to our social networks and the social graphs are prospering because of that.  But before we get up an bash the companies for using our data, we bear the responsibility for reading what the privacy policy of the site explicitly states.  In most cases, the privacy policies aren’t legalese and relatively easily understood.

The bottom line remains – if the site is free, YOU are the product being sold.  Put that lipstick on

The citizens of Johnston came out in a democratic voice yesterday and denied the school board the ability to raise $51MM in debt via municipal bonds to build a new high school.  Participation in this process showed me two views of my community that I’d like to share here, but first a brief intro to the project.

The Johnston public school district is growing and is projected increase by 1100 over the next 8 years.  After the past decade of improvements to elementary and middle schools, the district turned its attention to the aging high school, built in the 70s (when population was growing from 270 toward 2500 per the 70s and 80s census’), already overcrowded and aching for support.  After much consternation, the district presented a proposal to the community via public townhalls, participatory meetings and volumes of data.  This proposal, though not perfect, was a result of community interaction and changes were still possible if this vote had been approved.

The tombstone of the proposal is still available.  I was glad to attend two of the four public meetings and had my questions about the finances answered and voted yes on the proposal on 9/11/12.  Apparently a majority of Johnston residents who voted agreed this was important, but the votes weren’t sufficient for passage (the proposal received 55% support vs the 60% needed).

The Johnston that is engaged and one that isn’t….

I was able to attend two of of the four public sessions on this issue.  Scanning the Johnston middle school auditorium both times, I saw about 100 people in the room  comprising district employees, Principals, teachers and parents.  I saw the city Mayor, press and commercial partners.  In those two meetings, about 400 (eyeballed, not scientific count) of the city’s 17,550+ residents heard the case for (or against) the new project, the school and its cost in these four meetings.  Even if twice that number saw the detailed materials for the school on the district website, that represents less than 10% of our city engaged in a fairly important local issue.  Not very representative of a democratic society.

The east vs. the west side of Johnston

I was glad to hear comments from residents of the old Johnston – the one from 70s and 80s when the city was still <2500 people.  That Johnston is no more.  It will never be that Johnston again.  The complaints from the historic neighborhoods of Johnston that the new sections are causing this need for growth were interesting, but irrelevant.  Of course the new neighborhoods cause growth when new people move in.  The new neighborhoods are high valued properties paying their fair share in higher property taxes.  The formula for taxes is linear — 99 cents per $1000 in valuation.

The affected vs. the unaffected Johnston

WHO Radio asked me if I’d support the bond issue if my kids weren’t currently enrolled.  Of course I would — we grow as a community of residents, workers and corporations when we see an investment in the future.  The small and large corporate citizens of Johnston don’t exist here because this land is cheap – they exist partly because there is (was?) a higher focus on education in our community.  They see their future workforce learning in our K12 schools.  Their employees reside in our neighborhoods.  Though I wasn’t a product of Johnston’s school system (growing up in India makes it hard to ride the school bus across 12 time zones), I understand that we as a community invest in the WHOLE community.  If we expect to pay for every service received AT the time of receiving it, we need to plan for and begin a transition to a fully privatized school system or get educated in the art and science of homeschooling.

But we also believe in something called citizenship – a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.”

–President Barack Obama, September 2012

Participatory vs. Spectator Johnston

About 4800 people voted on Sept 11. 2012 in this election out of the 17,550+ residents of whom about 12,000 are of voting age (data from US Census).  About a quarter of the city’s population participated in setting a direction for the city’s non-voting population.  That non-voting populace is 100% our future that will now receive their education in:

• mobile classrooms

• crowded hallways
• aging classrooms constructed in the 1970s

• aging stadium

Or, perhaps some of the families will begin contemplating a move to Ankeny, Waukee, SE Polk and other school districts where the citizens have approved an investment in education.

***

Des Moines Register Coverage

I recently received an invitation to a breakfast meeting of local conservative group.  Though I wear my political affiliation on my sleeve, on Facebook and voter registration clearly, the invitation wasn’t unusual because it came from a long-time friend who is deeply involved in the community.  What was unusual was how the invite ended –

“If you are a small business owner, remember:  You did not build your business, somebody (ie. Government) did it for you ????????”

The surprise wasn’t that the email contained the above rhetoric that has been emblematic of current politics.  The surprise is that it came from someone I hold in high regard for helping me build my business 17 years ago.  I’d left the protections of the large corporation and its benefits and had worked in my basement, writing software, for 6 months.  When a second big customer came through, I approached a prior co-worker to help with the new work.  His core requirement for moving was, even then, insurance so I went looking, unsuccessfully for insurance.  When the large insurers in town scoffed at our small group size of two, one small, family owned business accepted the challenge.  He went to bat for us with Principal Financial, Blue Cross Blue Shield and others and found our tiny group of two a policy that was acceptable, affordable and competitive.  We stayed with his brokerage for the next 15 years.  His and his team’s work helped attract future employees to the company and helped us grow.

He was not the only one who helped, but was one of the few.

Similarly, customers like Terry DeRoin of Nestle Food Company, helped me grow.  I had been doing contract coding work in 1994, when a chance referral from Microsoft Solution Provider program landed a fax at my desk.  Terry, a controller for the Waverly plant, had looked at software developers in Iowa before and was largely unhappy.  When he came to my house in March of ’94, I happened to be in sweats and a t-shirt (him in a suit!).  He did hire me after looking at sample code and gave me months and years of work that took me from tiny revenue to significant amounts.  Without his initial work, who knows if I could’ve even hired employee #1.

Leaders of Federal and State government agencies helped my previous company grow when they selected a company from Des Moines, Iowa for their critical projects over much larger companies in the US and abroad.  Today, StartupCity exists because local, state and corporate leaders have lent their support behind a mission and dream we shared with them.  Government agencies — Des Moines Councilmembers, County Supervisors, Director of Economic Development or the Governor’s office — all contribute heavily to our existence.  Mentorship from leaders of the Des Moines Partnership (indirectly the Des Moines business community) remains critical in our beginnings and current work.

My work today is that of a mentor and advisor to nascent companies.  I do it voluntarily, with no promise of income or revenue, not because I have nothing else to do.  I do it because since my arrival in the US, people like Elaine and Ralph Jaarsma of Pella instilled the volunteer spirit in me.  They spent extremely valuable time on me, a foreign student, to enter the Iowan work ethic.  They showed me how a tiny bakery in a town of 8000 people had national reach, how their work from 2:30 every morning till the end of the day, and their dedication to their community defined their success.  Despite their successes and life’s challenges, they continue to embody the volunteer spirit of helping others.

Dozens of new entrepreneurs benefit from the numerous city and business leaders who give up their personal time, early and late on weekdays and weekends to help companies.  In Des Moines, watch Bankers Trust CEO Suku Radia, for example, challenge and guide entrepreneur after entrepreneur in his office, coffee shops and city spots, and you’ll see the tireless spirit adding value to companies.  Watch the dozens of meetings Mike Colwell at the BIZ arranges in the city to supercharge people’s businesses, and you’ll know it takes a village.  Ayn Rand followers know that every Howard Roark has a Mike, a Cameron and a Dominique who challenged him and, in turn, guided him.

Business owners know who helped them along the way – from teachers, spouses, family, mentors, employees and customers.    I don’t know what selective listening candidate Romney was practicing that made him miss the boldfaced text below, but I stand with the President’s speech -

“Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

I was inclined to go to the breakfast meeting tomorrow and make a snarky remark about the irony of the message.  But that would be disrespectful to someone I hold in very high regard; I hope he knows how many tiny businesses he helped grow over his remarkable career and continues to support daily.

“Oatmeal is not negotiable” is the title of a story I read in a hotel bedside book during an overnight stay at the Marriott at London Heathrow.  The story of an interaction with JW Marriott and one of his executive chefs was an interesting reminder about how certain minutiae that define a company and may seem replaceable or erasable in ‘strategic planning’ sessions can have an unintended impact on the company’s culture.

As I drove home late from a meeting last night, a story from personal experience came to mind about that very topic.  I’d hired the first person into my prior company and, purely for our workday comfort, we decided to get a small drom fridge and stock it with Diet Dew (the 90s energy drink for programmers).  Over the next several years of the company’s growth, the drom fridge became a full-size double door unit, and Diet Dew was joined by a dozen other varieties of soda shared by 50 some employees.  Someone always filled up the fridge and gave me the expense voucher and I paid it.  Customers, employees, and all were welcome to partake.  The  procurement was a modest expense and didn’t bother any of us.

However, with the growth from 2 to 50 employees came the onerous task of needing to stock the fridge, take the empties to recycling, listen to Diet Coke haters whining about Diet Pepsi, and more.  Being a group of engineers, none of us was willing to ‘outsource’ the work to vendors and tried to do it ourselves.  So, one day when the fridge hadn’t been filled and one habitual complainer in the office was whining away, my partner and I decided enough was enough and the free soda was history.  We ordered a vending machine from Coke, priced the contents it at cost, and the vendor stocking the contents.  A few employees complained but none loud enough to make a difference.  It seemed like everyone was happy to get rid of the restocking duties.

Then one day, one of the company’s critical customers walked into the kitchen with me for a drink, glanced at the vending machine and said:

 I knew the company would change, and now it has.

A simple statement like this from a customer might be taken as a compliment, but this was different.  This particular customer had selected us against his initial gut feeling.  I had not forgotten his email to us prior to contract award with a dozen key concerns (like our small size, whether could we scale in DSM to service their account, etc.) about selecting us as a vendor.  We had assured him that we’d scale with him and had.  His business had caused us to more than double in a short period and his concerns seem to have been allayed.  Now, boom  - an apparent change that set off something negative.

He explained why so many elements of our culture were attractive to him – from the entrepreneurial drive amongst employees to do whatever to solve problems, frank disagreement with a customer followed by respectful discourse, a work-life balance AND ability to react to production problems,

With little deliberation the free soda returned.  The fridge was restocked.  We outsourced the delivery to Coke and Pepsi drivers, and our janitors offered to take the hundreds of recyclables and keep the money.  All were happy.

If something that tiny about our culture was visible to a stakeholder, then what else had gone unnoticed in the growth.   We could see the positives but where were the warts?  And what other things had employees come to simply accept as “growing pains”.  As the tiny company of 2 grew to 50, much had been gained and some had been lost along the way, presumably for the better.

Yet as a off-handed comment from a customer reminded me — be prepared to be surprised at what matters.

I had just checked out of our hotel in Kearney, NE and were loading our suitcases into the car when a nice, large moon suddenly came into view.   Not only was it huge, it also happened to display a beautiful shadow across a portion of its brightly lit face.  Out came the camera from the suitcase, and the enclosed picture became a part of the permanent memory of the trip.

The pic isn’t stunning or re-print worthy.  The craters aren’t visible.  Millions of lunar surface photos exist all over the Internet.  The photo is special to me because it will forever remind me of a moment in time, when I saw a beautiful celestial event underway, completely by accident.

So, as you’re packing the charging cables, the clothes and the GPS, throw in your camera also… (and a tripod if you can!)

There is an eerie consensus across the aisle in DC that our current immigration system is broken, in need of reform, and change is necessary for the long term economic growth.  There is little consensus on how such reform will be achieved, who will lead it, and what will eventually motivate Congress into action.

Human Capital, impacted by immigration, was one of the core topics of the Des Moines Partnership’s DC trip this spring and I am privileged in being able to join business and government leaders from our region on this trip.  I am certainly privileged to work with Lori Chesser from the Davis Brown Law firm and invited to a panel on immigration.

The panel, consisting of Rosemary Gutierrez and David Johns from Sen Harkin’s office, Kathy Neubel Kovarik from Sen Grassley’s office, Aaron Brickman from Department of Commerce, Ben Johnson from American Immigration Council, and moderated by Lori Chesser was attended by various members of the Des Moines community and focused significantly on answering questions from the audience and thus remaining very interactive.

There are three forms of legal immigration today – 1) marriage to a US citizen, 2) sponsorship by an employer, or 3) sponsorship by an American citizen family member.  Being involved in all three forms, I felt comfortable contributing my experience and need for policy changes and bills currently circulating in DC.  I am married to a natural born US citizen from Iowa,  have sponsored, on my previous company’s behalf, several H1b candidates from India, Nepal, Indonesia and Vietnam, many of who are taxpaying residents, green card holders, naturalized citizens and contributors to Iowa and the US economy.  I am also sponsoring my sister, a Malaysian citizen to the US.

What is broken and in need of fix are the second and third categories.  Whether it is the HR3012 bill that allows green cards to be issued from the available pool rather than be artificially limited, the proposed StartupVisa that allows for foreign entrepreneurs to start their businesses in the US when sponsored by an accredited US investor, the DREAM act  or others, several solutions exist and are available to Congress.

What I heard from many during this recent visit to DC was that many in Congress would rather wait for a comprehensive immigration reform.  Both Senators’ offices comments were consistent that they prefer comprehensive reform such that visas should not take jobs from US workers, college seats from native US students, be considered comprehensively and not piecemeal etc.

Though a desire for comprehensive reform is respectable, Congress hasn’t shown an ability to work together toward real reform in my voting life in the US.  Furthermore, careers in STEM fields continue to be underfilled by software developers, doctors and  engineers.  Companies large and small, represented in the audience for our forum, continue needing to offshore their work in absence of sufficient resources here.

As Jim Clifton so clearly pointed out in Coming Jobs War, there is a marked change underway worldwide.  Qualified technology workers are finding an ability to find careers overseas and no longer want to stand in line as second-class citizens in the US.  Recent news reports are listed net-immigration from Mexico even to be zero, resulting in shifts even in the agricultural economies of Texas, Florida and California.    People are finding opportunities elsewhere in the world, and if we are unable or unwilling to bring job-seekers here, our companies will be sending the jobs overseas.

My message to the congressional representatives and other members on the panel was clear –

1. We can’t wait for comprehensive reform.  To stem the outflow of jobs, we must tweak our immigration policy through bills like the HR3012 that received significant support in the house (373-15) but remain stuck in the Senate.
2. Small and new businesses are the job creators.  Startups, a subset of the new businesses, are the high growth leaders in wealth creation that leads to more job creators.  The StartupVisa, as introduced by Kerry and Luger in 2011 needs to be addressed in Congress.
3. Our colleges and universities are global leaders in education and attract students from around the world.  As we graduate them and give them options to intern/train via OPT/CPT statutes, we should allow them the ability to apply for a green card and legal employment at the end of the practical training rather than subject them to 3-10 years of servitude via the H1b program.  These students represent a large community of individuals who are establishing strong ties to America – we need to grow through them.
4. Our schools and colleges are not graduating needed numbers of STEM fields.  While we build that population up through K-12 systems over the next 20-30 years, we should make our universities and colleges attractive globally through a foreign student program as attractive as the one I used when entering this US in the 1980s.
5. The DREAM Act proposes to give children of illegal immigrants a legal way to stay in the country.  Whether it is the original Dream act or the modified version by Senator Marco Rubio, the purpose is the same – keep and grow with those who love and cherish America.

We do not have time for comprehensive reform, or does Congress show any willingness to bridge the divide, specially in this election year and beyond.    If you have any doubts about our place in the world, pickup a copy of Jim Clifton’s Coming Jobs War or Thomas Friedman’s many tomes, including That Used to be Us.