The public debate about proper judicial reasoning is often so ill-informed because the focus is only on short-term partisan agendas, a bad habit which damages the fabric of our society and respect for the rule of law.
Into that morass and using the recent Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana use in California, Charles Krauthammer elaborates on the meaning of “original intent” and shows how far away the courts have moved away from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Here is the link to his very helpful and educational editorial on judicial reasoning:
…In our current, corrupted debates about the judges, you hear only about results. Priscilla Owen, we were told (by the [ultra-liberal] Alliance for Justice), “routinely backs corporations against worker and consumer protections.” Well, in what circumstances? In adjudicating what claims? Under what constitutional doctrine?
The real question is never what judges decide but how they decide it. The Scalia-Thomas argument…was about what the Constitution’s commerce clause permits and, even more abstractly, who decides what the commerce clause permits. To simplify only slightly, Antonin Scalia says: Supreme Court precedent. Clarence Thomas says: the Founders, as best we can interpret their original intent.
The Scalia opinion (concurring with the majority opinion) appeals to dozens of precedents over the past 70 years under which the commerce clause was vastly expanded to allow the federal government to regulate what had, by the time of the New Deal, become a highly industrialized country with a highly nationalized economy.
Thomas’s dissent refuses to bow to such 20th-century innovations. While Scalia’s opinion is studded with precedents, Thomas pulls out founding-era dictionaries (plus Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and the ratification debates) to understand what the word commerce meant then. And it meant only “trade or exchange” (as distinct from manufacture) and not, as we use the term today, economic activity in general. By this understanding, the federal government had no business whatsoever regulating privately and medicinally grown marijuana.
This is constitutional “originalism” in pure form. Its attractiveness is that it imposes discipline on the courts. It gives them a clear and empirically verifiable understanding of constitutional text — a finite boundary beyond which even judges with airs must not go.
And if conditions change and parts of the originalist Constitution become obsolete, amend it. Democratically. We have added 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights. Amending is not a job for judges.
The position represented by Scalia’s argument in this case is less “conservative.” It recognizes that decades of precedent (which might have, at first, taken constitutional liberties) become so ingrained in the life of the country, and so accepted as part of the understanding of the modern Constitution, that it is simply too revolutionary, too legally and societally disruptive, to return to an original understanding long abandoned.
And there is yet another view. With Thomas’s originalism at one end of the spectrum and Scalia’s originalism tempered by precedent — rolling originalism, as it were — in the middle, there is a third notion, championed most explicitly by Justice Stephen Breyer, that the Constitution is a living document and that the role of the court is to interpret and reinterpret it continually in the light of new ideas and new norms.
This is what our debate about judges should be about. Instead, it constantly degenerates into arguments about results.
Two years ago, Thomas (and Scalia and William Rehnquist) dissented from the court’s decision to invalidate a Texas law that criminalized sodomy. Thomas explicitly wrote, “If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it.” However, since he is a judge and not a legislator, he could find no principled way to use a Constitution that is silent on this issue to strike down the law…
As we approach a time of new Supreme Court nominations, it would be a service to the country if the Senate and the major interest groups across the political spectrum could conduct a reasoned public debate on these important principles.
Since we know that they have lost the ability to conduct that kind of debate over the last 20 years, recovering such a debate will only occur if the requisite public pressure from citizens across America demands it. I hope we are up to the challenge.
Here is the Hall of Shame showing who voted for the childcare unionization bill.
We will never forget. They all deserve to be defeated in 2006.
For the full story on the childcare unionization bill and political dynamics, read this posting.
Marc rightfully noted the good news on pension reform passed earlier this week, followed by a word of caution.
The caution flags are now out in full force because the week wasn’t even over before the unions of Rhode Island were out attacking the pension changes passed in the State House:
Unions representing state employees are objecting to proposed changes in the state’s pension system and are presenting their own plan, which they say is fair to taxpayers and workers affected by the cuts.
The proposal put forward…by Working Rhode Island would restore some of the benefits that state employees would lose under a proposal endorsed this week by the House Finance Committee.
The unions’ proposal, billed as “The Fair Pension Amendment,” would also reduce pension contributions from workers affected by the cuts.
“We’re asking the governor. We’re asking the General Assembly to embrace these proposals as a fair compromise,” Bob Walsh, secretary-treasurer of Working Rhode Island, said at a press conference today at the State House…
Walsh estimated that the unions’ proposal would save $25 million to $30 million next year, while state lawmakers estimated their proposal would save the state and local communities about $44 million.
The pension reform package…would cut benefits to some 4,350 state workers and 7,000 teachers. The changes would affect only those workers who haven’t served the 10 years required for vesting. It would not affect state troopers, judges or correctional officers and employees at quasi-public agencies…
Changes proposed by the lawmakers’ include the institution of a minimum retirement age of 59.
The lawmakers’ plan would also reduce the maximum benefit available to retirees and make them work longer to get it. For example, workers can now receive 80 percent of their salary after serving 35 years. Under the lawmakers’ proposal, workers would have to serve 38 years to receive a maximum benefit of 75 percent of their salary.
Cost-of-living increases would also be tied to the Consumer Price Index and capped at 3 percent under the proposal.
Walsh said…”these proposals went far beyond anything we thought was fair.”
For example, he complained that non-vested employees would see their benefits reduced without a reduction in their contributions to the system. He said teachers currently contribute 9.5 percent of their salary to their pension, while other employees contribute 8.75 percent.
Under the unions’ proposal discussed today, those contributions would drop to 8.5 percent and 7.75 percent, respectively, starting in July 2006, then drop further as the pension fund becomes healthier.
Walsh said the problems in the pension system were not created by the employees who would be affected by the lawmakers’ proposed cuts…
Walsh blamed the system’s unfunded liability in part on government decisions, such as early retirements in the late 1980s and underfunding during the state’s banking crisis. He said poor investment decisions had also hurt the system. He also acknowledged that longer life expectancies were playing a role.
The union also takes issue with the lawmakers’ proposal to cut the maximum benefit from 80 to 75 percent. Under the unions’ plan, the service time required for the maximum benefit would increase to 38 years, as the lawmakers have proposed, but workers serving that long would receive 80 percent of their salary in retirement…
The unions also reject the idea of tying the cost-of-living adjustment to the consumer price index, with a 3 percent cap…
Here is another ProJo article:
A spokesman for Republican Governor Carcieri said: “The union leaders’ proposal appears to be a cynical attempt to head off real reform.
“The governor has been working to reform the state pension system for two-and-a-half years. He has had a comprehensive pension-reform proposal on the table since January. The union leadership has resisted the governor’s efforts every step of the way,” spokesman Jeff Neal said
“Now, at the eleventh hour, after the governor and the General Assembly appear to have reached agreement on this issue, the union leadership has come up with a half-hearted proposal that doesn’t do nearly enough to solve the state’s pension crisis.
“If the union leaders were serious,” Neal said that they would have come forward months sooner. “Instead, they waited until the very last minute when they realized that their efforts to crush the reform movement had failed.”
General Treasurer Paul Tavares, a Democrat, keyed his objections to the unions’ suggestion that the state string out, over a longer period of time — in the same way a homeowner refinances a mortgage — the payments it needs to make each year to the state retirement fund to cover about $8 billion in pension obligations to state workers and teachers.
The notion: pay less now even if it costs millions more over the longer payment period.
The state has about 25 years left on the last pension refinancing by the state Retirement Board in 2001. Doing so again now, when “the system has a significant unfunded liability that is growing,” would be “counterproductive to the system’s fiscal health,” Tavares said yesterday.
The unions just don’t get it. RI Public Pension Problems are well documented and doing less is not a financially viable option. They appear willing to bankrupt this state – as long as they get theirs.
[Open full post]My latest column, “Juggling Spheres in the Marriage Debate,” begins with activists’ invasion of Notre Dame Cathedral and makes its way to suggestions for resolving the current impasse in the same-sex marriage battle.
[Open full post]In my last post on the apparent passage of the 2006 RI State Budget in which Gov. Carcieri won important concessions, such as reducing pension benefits for state workers, I commented
. . .now is no time to let up. This is just the first battle and there is no guarantee that it has actually been won just because the politicians seem to be saying so. The foot-dragging over implementation of Separation of Powers should remind us all that nothing is ever guaranteed. If we sit back and think it’s over, we may soon find that we’re right back where we started. . .Let’s keep the pressure on and keep supporting this Governor.
Well, it didn’t take long, now, did it?
Nothing with the Assembly is set is stone until the final votes are cast — something the state’s labor unions are counting on.
“It’s neither fair nor equitable,” Marcia Reback, president of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals said of the changes.
Other union leaders had similar responses or refused to comment.
George H. Nee, secretary/treasurer of the state AFL-CIO, wouldn’t discuss the pension package yesterday afternoon as he waited outside Speaker Murphy’s office, saying the unions would respond at their own news conference today.
There they will unveil suggestions “to correct the potential injustice” the Assembly’s plan would bring.
Moments after the House Finance Committee approved the changes Tuesday night, House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, said there might be more modifications.
Specifically, he said there could be a future reduction in the 8.75 percent of pre-tax salary state workers, and 9.5 percent local teachers contribute to their pensions. Language might be added, Fox said, that if in some future year the pension system is better funded — say 80 percent of actuarial value — then new and non-vested workers could see a quarter-percent decline in their contributions.
“At some point,” Fox said, “you’ve got to balance the fact that employees are going to shoulder the lion’s share of this.”
We need keep a close eye on the Legislature in the coming days to make sure they don’t slip. I suspect the Governor won’t let them.
[Open full post]This article, entitled California Union Blues: The Golden State’s unions fight to keep their members from controlling their own money, informs us about an issue that often gets limited public scrutiny:
The leadership of California’s largest public labor unions declared a crisis last week–and it had nothing to do with outsourcing, Enron, WorldCom, the minimum wage, healthcare, or any of the other causes that usually whip union bosses into frenzy. Instead, the controversy surrounds an initiative called “paycheck protection” which is now headed to Golden State voters in a special election this fall. The measure would require public sector unions to receive written permission from rank-and-file members before spending their dues on political activities.
While the issue doesn’t sound earth-shattering, the consequences for organized labor could be devastating…if the measure passes, union leaders will only have themselves to blame for supporting political candidates and positions that don’t square with a sizeable chunk of their membership.
In almost every election cycle, labor’s leadership takes millions of dollars in dues from rank and file members and ships it off to Democratic headquarters without asking…The system is highway robbery for union members who are forced to fund politics with which they don’t agree.
Exit polls and campaign finance data make the divide clear. For example, nationally, 38 percent of union members voted for George W. Bush in 2004. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 87 percent of all labor donations either went to John Kerry or other Democratic candidates. Republican presidential candidates aren’t alone…
The initiative which will go before the voters this fall only applies to public sector unions. Under current law, public sector union members have very few mechanisms to influence how their dues are used. While some unions technically allow members to get a refund of the portion of their dues that is spent on politics, doing so is complicated, cumbersome, and unadvertised…
Paycheck protection acts as an opt-in clause, forcing the leadership to get the written consent of union members before any of their money is spent on politics…
Of course the unions will not go quietly into the night. They defeated a similar measure in 1998 and are optimistic about their abilities to win political battles with the Governator, having sunk a Schwarzenegger plan earlier this year which would have moved state workers into 401(k)-style retirement plans…
The campaign’s biggest irony is that labor leaders are fighting the initiative by raising rank and file union dues. The California Teacher’s Association did exactly that recently, telling their membership that the dues increase will go to fight the paycheck protection provision. Their message: We want to take more of your money to make sure you won’t be able to control any of your money.
It’s a strange situation for union leaders to find themselves afraid of their own members.
It is indeed a strange situation. And yet another example of how unions raise cash to pursue their own political agenda, regardless of whether that agenda matches up with the beliefs of the people supplying the cash to the union’s coffers.
Here is another, relevant posting on the union dues issue entitled Learning More About How Dues Paid To Big Labor Are Spent. Here is another tangentially related posting on Union Pension Fund Politics.
At first glance, it would appear that there is good news coming out the State House today.
Just before the stroke of midnight, a key House committee approved a new state budget that includes major cuts in public-employee pensions.
The move is expected to save the state and local communities $44 million in the coming year.
The much-vaunted pension reform was the cornerstone of the proposed new $6.3-billion state and federally financed budget for the year that begins July 1. At 11:54 p.m., the House Finance Committee gave its unanimous support of the measure, sending it on to the full House for a vote as early as Monday.
The pension package reinstates, for the first time in nearly two decades, a minimum retirement age.
To get a full pension, new state workers and public-school teachers — and people in either group without the 10 years needed to be vested — would have to be at least 59 years old and have worked for 29 years. That group includes about 4,350 state workers and 7,000 teachers.
The proposal also limits the maximum pension benefit to 75 percent of salary for workers with 38 years of service, and ties annual cost-of-living increases to inflation, with a cap at 3 percent.
“We’re trying to do real reform and balance the equities and unfortunately it’s going to land on the backs of some,” said House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence. But, “even what we’ve come out with, with the worst-case scenario, it’s still a very good pension for a life’s work.”
The pension changes closely mirror what Governor Carcieri recommended in January, with minor tweaks around the age of retirement.
“I’m happy that the House Finance Committee seems to have accepted much of my plan for reforming the state pension system,” the Republican governor said in a statement last night.
The Assembly also adopted Carcieri’s suggestion of allowing workers to retire at age 65 with 10 years of service. The lawmakers’ plan would allow earlier retirement for workers age 55 with 20 years service, but with a reduced pension.
The House and Senate plan to study changes to the pensions of other state employees not included here, such as state police, judges and employees at quasipublic state agencies.
Overall, the budget adds $95 million to the one proposed by Carcieri in January and is 6.5 percent larger than the spending plan for the current year.
Yes, it is good news/bad news, with the pension cuts counterbalanced with spending in other areas, but it cannot be doubted that the Governor has made headway. It would also seem that the Democrat leadership in the legislature has stuck their finger in the wind and can tell which way it’s blowing. I think they can tell that the public is finally fed up and in an effort to save their political skins, they have acquiesced. Thus, now is no time to let up. This is just the first battle and there is no guarantee that it has actually been won just because the politicians seem to be saying so. The foot-dragging over implementation of Separation of Powers should remind us all that nothing is ever guaranteed. If we sit back and think it’s over, we may soon find that we’re right back where we started. In fact, a letter to the ProJo from Phil Stone of Providence reminds us all what else has gone on in just the last week:
Let’s see if I’ve got this right: During the week of June 13, members of the Rhode Island General Assembly voted to legalize the smoking of marijuana. They voted against arresting prostitutes who work inside a building. They voted to unionize child-care providers, even though the program that we have is costing the state over $80 million a year. And, finally, they entertained a proposal to charge all full-time college students in the state $100 per semester, even though the cost of education is at an all-time high.
What a week! I can’t wait to see what our senators and representatives vote on next.
Do you think it might be time to elect some new people to represent the taxpayers of Rhode Island? If this were not so absurd, it would be funny.
Let’s keep the pressure on and keep supporting this Governor.
[Open full post]Anne Applebaum, writing about airport security, also touches on cost-benefit risk analysis.
[Open full post]By their own account, federal screeners have intercepted “7 million prohibited items.” But of that number, only 600 were firearms. So, according to the calculations of economist Veronique de Rugy, 99.9 percent of intercepted items were nail scissors, cigarette lighters, penknives and the like. . . this isn’t a country that has ever been good at risk analysis. If it were, we would never have invented the TSA at all. Instead, we would have taken that $5.5 billion, doubled the FBI’s budget, and set up a questioning system that identifies potentially suspicious passengers, as the Israelis do. Even now, it’s not too late to abolish the TSA, create a federal training program for airport screeners, and then let private companies worry about how many people to hire, which technology to buy and how long the tables in front of the X-ray machines should be. But every time that suggestion is made in Congress, someone denounces the plan as a “privatization” of our security and a sellout.
A previous posting identified some important questions in the new budget for the East Greenwich Fire District.
The first news report on tonight’s annual financial meeting of the District is in from the ProJo and it sounds like it was an appropriately contentious meeting:
The largest turnout of East Greenwich Fire District voters in years heaped criticism on the district’s leadership during a four-hour annual meeting last night, but nevertheless adopted a $4.3-million budget virtually unchanged from the one proposed by the Board of Fire Commissioners.
The only thing they cut was a $28,200 proposal to pay for health insurance for the five commissioners in the fiscal year beginning July 1. That item was removed from the budget in a unanimous voice vote.
There were 127 voters at the meeting at its peak, although some trickled out of Swift Gym as the evening wore on. Last year’s meeting drew one-fourth as many.
Voter after voter criticized the commissioners, questioning the need for a string of new spending proposals and urging the board to tighten its purse strings…
The voters also fired the chairman of the board in a landslide vote…
In what seemed a reflection of the crowd’s mood, the voters removed Joseph Carnevale Jr., the chairman and the only commissioner whose post had expired, and replaced him with newcomer Christine Mattos…who spoke skeptically about new spending proposals.
Mattos prevailed 111 votes to 25 in a paper ballot…
The voters also rejected a proposal to borrow $550,000 in bonds to buy a two-acre parcel at 1454 South County Trail for an eventual third fire station…
But the voters approved one contentious proposal included in the budget measure, to hire four additional firefighters in the next fiscal year, at a projected cost of $165,000…
…the department eventually needs eight more firefighters, which would bring the department’s total to 40…
The spending plan adopted last night represents a 16 percent increase over the budget for the current fiscal year. It would raise taxes…by about 19 percent. A new tax rate was not announced last night, as district officials were recalculating based on the voters’ changes.
Thanks to all the residents who showed up. Christine will be a great addition as a new Commissioner. She is smart and tenacious, attributes she will need in spades given the spendthrift ways of this Fire District Board.
A 16% increase in spending leading to a 19% increase in taxes. Hardly a successful bottom line. (Nearly one-third of the increase was due to required state pension contributions, something that is out of their control.)
To put the 16% spending increase in personal terms, consider this question: What would your spouse say if you came home and announced you had unilaterally increased family spending by 16% even though your family’s income only increased by 3-4%? Your spouse would be rightfully indignant and point out that the money to cover the new spending would have to come from (i) reducing your savings; (ii) incurring new debt; and/or (iii) reducing spending on current items like clothes or medical care – all of which would reduce your family’s standard of living.
Why are the spending behaviors of families so different from the public sector’s spending habits? Because families spend their own hard-earned monies, not somebody else’s money. Which is why Calvin Coolidge is reported to have said:
Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
More on the East Greenwich Fire District meeting as people write or call me with updates from tonight’s meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
An EMT has written the following in the comment section to this posting:
I suppose that if the residents of East Greenwhich don’t want the fire protection they deserve, that is their right. I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t force people to care about themselves or even their families.
Besides, fires happen to someone else, right?
But I don’t want to hear a single complaint when someone’s house burns down or someone dies waiting for medical aid.
Talk about changing the subject! But, it is the classic “fear” comment used to intimidate taxpayers which has been referenced in an earlier posting. After all, residents approved a budget that includes hiring the requested additional firefighters.
The issue here is a 16% spending increase in a 2% inflation world. It is not about providing enough to do fire coverage right.
To reinforce these points, consider this commentary from one resident who attended the meeting:
The commissioners underestimated the growing level of unrest in Town…and the willingness of residents to embrace so many (expensive) projects concurrently.
It has been my experience (and frustration) with the presentation…of the Fire District Budget that little if any consideration is given to the audience. There is a tremendous amount of information to synthesize and make sense of in short time. Most residents do not have much if any experience in reading financial statements. The Deputy Chief tried very hard to justify the wants…there just wasn’t any common sense justification for the needs.
A formal PowerPoint presentation would have been helpful along with a comprehensive budget narrative. Expenditure line itemizations, grant accounting, and multi year forecasting would have been helpful. Most disappointing of all was the motion made by Commissioner Berlyn to move to vote on the budget, thus ending any debate, or modifications beyond the $22k for health insurance (for commissioners)…Mr. Delfino did not present a good 80% of the budget, but rather touched on items of interest to him…
In other words, they are increasing spending by 16% and did not give attendees – who fund their operation – the courtesy of even an attempt at explaining the nature of the increases. Instead they cut off the debate and forced a vote.
Plus there was no information on actual spending for the fiscal year just ended. If actual spending for that year came in below budget, then the new budget represents an increase of over 16%. Instead of answering that question, they cut off debate and forced a vote.
Plus they have $1.8 million of cash sitting in their bank account, which means they have overtaxed the residents by a hefty sum in recent years. There was no explanation about how that cash might be properly utilized. Instead of addressing that issue, they cut off debate and forced a vote.
All of this is irresponsible behavior and deserving of criticism. After all, we are talking about their use of OUR money. Let’s try to stay on topic.
A new ProJo article notes that the 16% spending increase will “only” increase taxes by a lesser amount – currently estimated at 8% – due to a growing tax base in town. That doesn’t change any of the conclusions noted above.
Be sure to read the second posting in the comment section for additional thoughts on what is going on in the Fire District.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION II:
The East Greenwich Pendulum reports:
While the issue of health insurance for the volunteer commissioners drew many to the meeting, residents spoke out against the 19 percent increase of the budget over last year.
“Somebody’s got to look at these numbers. I’ve done budgets my whole life and they just don’t add up,” said four-year resident Doug Axelsen, scrutinizing the 13 percent salary and 43 percent fringe benefit increases. “How can everyday citizens afford these increases? I think we can make (the town) better, but not on the backs of everybody.”
Axelsen’s comment drew applause and cheers from the 130-plus in attendance. Living in a “modest” home, Axelsen said the $6000 he pays in town and fire taxes represents ten percent of his family’s total income.
Aren’t you a bit curious about why and how salaries had to increase 13% and fringe benefits increase 43% in one year? Do people feel like the Fire District offered responsible answers to all residents?
But there are even bigger governance and accountability issues, as noted in this story from the North East Independent on the Fire District meeting:
…The $4.3 million budget, which included a proposal to add four firefighters to the force, passed narrowly. A resolution to purchase a new pumper truck at a net cost of $251,000 also passed…
…residents were highly critical of plans to build the new station and add up to eight new firefighters, saying the district had not adequately looked at other solutions before proposing such high-cost answers.
Fire officials were stunned as the land measure was defeated in a vote in which many resident firefighters voted against the proposal. Fire Chief Thomas Rowan, clearly upset by the vote, said he and Deputy Chief John McKenna did all they could to show that the new station was necessary.
“I am a professional. I make recommendations based on my years of professional experience,” Rowan said after the meeting adjourned. “If they want to vote to reject that recommendation, they certainly have that right. We’ll see, down the road, if it costs somebody their lives.
“I don’t live in East Greenwich,” he added. “I’ve got nothing to lose.”
Officials sought to purchase a two-acre parcel near the Rocky Hill fairgrounds because of development planned for that property. The board had negotiated a deal to purchase the land for $675,000, a price that would have been partially offset by more than $130,000 in impact fees. From there, board members planned to introduce plans for the new station over the next year, with the whole process taking up to five years.
Residents accused district officials of springing the plan on them without doing their homework first. Town Planning Board member Robert Holbrook said the town will have a lot on its hands with discussions about a referendum for a new police station and other plans already taking place. He said the district should complete a needs assessment, formulate a plan and allow time for proper public discussion.
“It warrants more attention than is being paid to it tonight at this meeting,” he said…
The vote to deny the land purchase came even though McKenna warned the residents in attendance that the district’s fire coverage was woefully inadequate. With only two firefighters on at a time at the Frenchtown Road station and four at the Main Street station, studies showed that 33 percent of the district’s runs were outside of acceptable standards, with 21 percent of those clocking in at six or more minutes…
The Fire Chief’s behavior is arrogant and even incompetent. As these postings have noted, they did not prepare the community for their major request in advance of the meeting and they did not present a thorough analysis of their request at the meeting. And, if it was such a good proposal, why did EG resident firefighters vote against it?
This is about Governance 101 which leads to Accountability 101. As a corporate CEO, I wouldn’t dare think of proposing such a major change without first having talked to my investors (equivalent to residents on this issue) and Board members. I certainly would never ask any of them to approve such a major issue immediately after hearing about it for the first time – which is what the Fire Chief did. And my Board would shred me – with just cause – if I told them to approve it without rigorous analysis and simply because it made sense in my professional judgment. All corporate Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholder investors and that means their governance role is to hold the CEO accountable and to certain minimum performance standards. Accountability 101 is what the residents attending the FTM did to the Fire District leadership.
A leader with integrity would have responded by accepting the legitimate nature of the criticisms and developing solid plans in response to the limits approved by residents.
Instead, the Fire Chief responded like a petulant child who didn’t get his way: “We’ll see, down the road, if it costs somebody their lives. I don’t live in East Greenwich. I’ve got nothing to lose.”
He, indeed, does have something to lose – his reputation and credibility as a professional. He severely damaged it this week with those words. People will remember his performance this week when he makes his next request of taxpayers.
Instead of accountability in the public sector, all we get are threats. And that leads to a lack of trust in our public officials.
We can only hope the Fire Chief gets a dose of reality in the coming days and does what is right for our town. After all, that’s what real professionals do.
To further enable investigation, here is the rundown on Sen. Clinton provided by Project Vote Smart. Concerning “Issue Positions,” one will be confronted by this disclaimer:
In 2000, this candidate was contacted repeatedly over several weeks by Project Vote Smart staff members and by prominent political leaders, and asked to do the right and honorable thing by providing citizens with the critical information that the 2000 National Political Awareness Test supplies. On each occasion this candidate failed to provide voters with this information.
However, a catalogue of “Interest Group Ratings” is available. Here are some of her ratings according to a variety of conservative groups (whose mention doesn’t mean endorsement, by the way).
[Open full post]