Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Too many voices stifle economic progress

William H. Gray Special to The Spokesman-Review

While the state of Washington seems content to marginalize Eastern Washington by a “let them have call centers” approach to economic development, the Spokane community itself is prone to diversion. Instead of focusing on our strengths and assuring that our institutions are strong, we tend to embrace new fixes. We continually develop new organizations, new “umbrellas,” new consortia, new centers and councils. I am not suggesting that such organizations are not sometime useful, but rather they divert our attention from our core sectors and institutions. Strong organizations pursuing worthwhile missions can create success without being subjected to endless round of meetings with the same people in different rooms.

Spokane has a history of not trusting its institutions. For example, if the area colleges and universities had been perceived to have been doing the job, then there would have been no opportunity for the creation of SIRTI. Similarly, if the training institutions in the community had been perceived to be doing the job, INTEC would not have been established.

During the decade, there have been numerous efforts to “pull ourselves up by our boot straps”. Remember Momentum, Focus 21, SIRTI, One Spokane, INTEC, TechNet, the Terebyte Triangle, the Inland Northwest Digital University, et.al.? Each of these has been a well-meaning effort by many to transition the community into a different future. None has been fully successful because: first, they ignored the natural assets of the community; second, they creating a new organization that did not anticipate the high cost associated with organizational development nor the resistance likely to be offered by existing organizations; and finally, they did not recognize that the culture of Spokane is not very supportive of change.

On the latter point, a personal observation is in order. During my decade of building the university infrastructure and Riverpoint campus here, my largest challenge was NOT turf wars, nor was it securing funding from Olympia. Rather it was helping this community to develop an appreciation for the academy. Spokane is one of the largest communities in the country without a resident research university. Trying to correct that omission has taken a lot of community energy and has bruised many egos.

As a community we have been guided by “Spokane-nice,” as semiretired Professor Shane Mahoney called it in a recent monograph for Eastern Washington University. The community operationalizes Spokane-nice by forcing collaboration among institutions. I would argue that the reason we don’t have a research university in Spokane is that we have insisted that everyone must have a role and given everyone at the table a veto. Similar arguments can be made the absence of a school of health sciences, or an engineering school. By failing to understand how institutions work, and forcing everybody to the table, we undermine our strongest institutions. Does anybody not believe that Washington State University is the research horse to ride? EWU once had a College of Health Sciences. Gonzaga University has an engineering school. We should free these folks up to compete for funds and resources from outside the region, not tie their hand with forced collaboration.

We have simultaneously failed to confront the lack of effectiveness of some existing institutions and tied them to unnecessary collaboration. Meanwhile, we have developed a plethora of newer alphabet soup organizations that have little chance of long-term success. Rather than design these newer organizations as short-term interventions to influence the behavior (and mission) of existing institutions, we try to preserve them, and in so doing, we fragment the local support for the more effective of our organizations. This serves to perpetuate mediocrity and instills a culture of distrust.

Some institutions have accomplished their missions (or failed) and should be allowed to go away. Others can be revitalized or merged. Still others should be fed. Without a clear understanding and consensus on the direction economic development investments should take, gridlock takes over.

We are at a choice point concerning our support of economic development in the community. For example, rather than have two, underfunded, technology-based organizations in the middle of change (SIRTI and INTEC), why not merge them into a single entity on the Riverpoint campus and manage them in conjunction with WSU’s Office of Intellectual Property and its Research Foundation. In that way, we can approach critical mass in technology education and development, rather than continuing the status quo of small, underfunded organizations.

Why not recognize EWU’s primacy in undergraduate health science education?

Why not support GU as Spokane’s engineering school?

OK, so much for Spokane-nice. Now that I have succeeded in taking myself off the A list for this year’s Christmas parties, let’s deal with the real issues constraining our future.