In a move that is surprisingly redolent of politics as usual, the Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee of the University of Rhode Island Student Senate threw a controversial proposal into the agenda of the senate’s final meeting that delayed the re-recognition of student groups until next semester, according to The Good 5¢ Cigar:
A controversial proposal from Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee Chairman Evan Duggan-Lever would change the way groups are recognized and funded by the senate.
“The old system is old and busted,” Duggan-Lever said. “It doesn’t contain any guidelines or contain anything that allows the [SOARC] committee to decide what should be recognized.”
The proposed changes would bring the recognition process in line with Rhode Island laws and recent court rulings, Duggan-Lever said.
Some among the senators wondered whether the delay would be unnecessarily disruptive for student groups. Not to worry:
“All of the groups stand to benefit [from the proposed changes],” Duggan-Lever said. “The only groups that don’t stand to benefit are groups that are illegal.”
That’s curious: what sort of group that was previously recognized could possibly be illegal? Well, I can’t find any further information, online, but another piece in the latest Cigar might give some indication:
Several student groups currently recognized by the University of Rhode Island Student Senate are being asked to change their bylaws because they do not comply with procedures and standards set forth by the senate.
One such group is the Intervarsity Christian Association, Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee Chairman Evan Duggan-Lever said. It is recognized as a Level III group currently, he said, which is the lowest level and allows the group to ask the Memorial Union for meeting space and also ask the senate for contingency funds.
Apart from a minor issue — already addressed — having to do with regulations for electing official leadership, the far greater affront is one that readers might have guessed from the group’s name:
Another bylaw problem was an “article of faith” which required members to show their religious principles to join the group. This, Duggan-Lever said, is not allowed by senate regulations and as such was required by SOARC to be removed.
The group, however, still intends to continue the practice, Secretary Hope Aswell said.
“For our leadership, we want them to hold Christian values,” Aswell said, “because it is a Christian group.”
Hope Aswell — with her magnificent name — doesn’t apparently understand the game. In the America that is currently germinating on the country’s campuses, it’s fine for believers to, well, believe — if only because, as Duggan-Lever puts it, “We can’t determine what is in someone’s head.” However, as a constitutional matter, they have to effectively deny those beliefs, or at least make those beliefs subordinate to the doctrine of tolerance.
Former group president Jillian Burger looks for reason for optimism in the likelihood that only people meeting the unspeakable criterion would manage to become nominated. And that’s probably true… as long as the group remains quiet and innocuous enough that those who would take advantage of the universal right to join and lead it don’t think a coup worth the effort.
The alarm siren that this news sets off should be audible as distantly as Hawaii:
Superior Court Judge Netti Vogel last week issued a permanent injunction blocking the state’s three-year agreement with United. United rival Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island had sought the injunction, claiming the state’s handling of the bids was unfair. Vogel agreed, saying it was riddled with errors and that the state must seek new bids.
The Carcieri administration appealed Vogel’s decision to the Supreme Court on Monday, and sought an immediate suspension of the injunction and quick consideration of its appeal.
Note that I’m calling for an alarm — not action. I lack the background to know what is and isn’t legitimate practice in the contract bidding process, and I lack the time to research the relevant law. One way or another, something just is not right in this sequence of events.
I trust the governor when he says that, even “if the allegations contained in the judge’s decision were true, United HealthCare’s bid would still be superior to the bid submitted by Blue Cross.” Furthermore, I’m not impressed with Vogel’s decision (PDF). Somewhere between the phrases “the lame excuse” on page four and “a feeble effort” on page ten, I began to wonder what legal purpose the adjectives were meant to serve. Nonetheless, my personal impressions are not the main reason for concern.
The problem is that we live in a state in which the legislature consents to tacking a provision on to the state budget that removes the executive branch from the handling of budget requests from the judiciary… and then overrides the governor’s veto. Where the guy running Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island was, until the last election, the father of a state representative.
Vogel leverages the State Purchases Act, which became law in 1989, a period during which the state senate was under the “effective control” of John Bevilacqua. John is the son of Joseph Bevilacqua, who had (at that time) recently resigned his position as Supreme Court Chief Justice “amidst revelations about links to organized crime figures,” and brother of Joseph Jr., also a man with interesting connections as well as the apparent source of the videotape whom the ailing Jim Taricani has (according to Taricani) risked prison to protect.
According to the language of the law, it “shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.” At first, I wondered whether “liberally construed and applied” might be meant to give the executive branch room in which to conduct smart business maneuvers. Then I read Governor Carcieri’s press release stating that even “Blue Cross admitted that United HealthCare’s bid was more favorable to the taxpayers,” and it occurred to me that Vogel’s rhetoric is mainly concerned, not with the taxpayers, but with “fairness” to Blue Cross & Blue Shield:
Whether due to ignorance of the law, their own flawed sense of fairness, or some other less innocent motive, [the executive] skewed the process in favor of United and denied BCBSRI fair and equitable treatment mandated by law.
Now, I’m not asserting any form of wrongdoing on either side. I’m merely suggesting that we ought to keep a very close eye on the judicial overruling of executive processes on the basis of ensuring fair treatment for a healthcare monopolist with questionable connections throughout the state and its government.
ADDENDUM:
Let me tack on, here, a tangential curiosity that I stumbled upon while skimming this ruling. Vogel writes that “the Court does not require a ‘smoking gun’ to draw a reasonable inference that favoritism was present and that Defendant acted so unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously as to be guilty of a palpable abuse of discretion.” The phrase “smoking gun” is footnoted as follows:
On August 5, 1973, President Nixon released transcripts of taped conversations he had had six days after the Watergate break-in. Those transcripts became known as “The Smoking Gun” because they disclosed how early Nixon learned that his staff and re-election campaign had been involved in the break-in and also revealed his own participation in the cover-up. Following release of those tapes, it became clear that Nixon would be impeached and convicted in the Senate.
Is it common for judges to indulge in political history (involving Republican scandals) in order to explain extremely common phrases?
[Open full post]I will be appearing on Rick Adams’ radio show on WARL 1320 AM (“Reality Radio”) in Providence, Rhode Island, next Wednesday, December 15, from 8-9 p.m.
You can also hear the radio station streamed online at its Web site.
Yesterday I “braved” the rain to vote in a special election that sought to winnow down the candidates for an open school committee seat from 5 to 2. Dr. Saleh R. Shahid and Lucille Mota-Costa emerged as the winners. Shahid is a registered Republican who has unsuccessfully run for both the State Legislature and State Senate before, though he didn’t do so this year because of a technical filing error (he checked the wrong box!). Mota-Costa is a retired West Warwick school teacher who finished last in the four-way primary held on November 2 to fill two other vacant seats.
Turnout was extremely low, (only 711 of an eligible 18,756 voters casted ballots)
with Shahid receiving 278 votes, Mota-Costa receiving 165 votes and other candidates receiving 268 votes. The vote totals would seem to bode well for Shahid’s chances in the final election to be held in January. In addition, the fact that Mota-Costa has already been rejected within the past month or so for the same position may prove a tough hurdle for her to overcome. Will voters who have already rejected her turnaround and vote for her?
I took note of the statements made by the candidates (as quoted after the results were learned), which I believe provided a clue as to their disposition and “management style.”
“I feel relieved but not rested. I know there is a lot of work to be done,” Shahid said last night. “I want to congratulate Ms. Mota-Costa … and the other candidates for an honorable and well-fought race. I hope in January to convince the voters that I’m the best man for job.”
“I think if the people in the city continue to support me they won’t be sorry,” she said last night. “I’m a hard-working woman.”
However, Mota-Costa said that in January the voters must come out in greater numbers.
“They need to vote,” she said, “otherwise live with whoever you end up with, live with the decisions other people make.”
Notice the difference? Shahid is nothing but complimentary and thankful and realizes that he needs to do more work. Mota-Costa says she works hard, but puts the onus on the voters to turnout and vote for her “or else.” Shahid realizes it is his responsibility to convince the voters, while Mota-Costa indicates that her credentials are self-evident and it is up to the voters to realize that she is right choice. In short, she sounds as if she feels entitled to the position. This makes Mota-Costa sound like a lecturing teacher and contributes to what I believe is her significant handicap going into the election: she is a teacher. A teacher on the school committee is like the fox watching the henhouse and I think that the average Warwick voter believes this. Mota-Costa will need the votes of teachers, and those sympathetic to them, to win. Shahid will need to make sure that more parents and taxpayers turn out for him. The raw numbers would seem to favor Shahid, but the motivation of the teachers union can never be underestimated.
[Open full post]Marc:
I published a ProJo editorial in March that noted the ludicrous comments last Spring about Governor Carcieri’s then-proposed modest increase in charter school funding and insignificant reduction in general education funding.
What made the comments so ridiculous was the proposed small changes in funding for the upcoming year were completely dwarfed by the hefty spending increases of prior years. And what results do we have to show for all that spending?
Education is the gateway to the American Dream for all of our children. I continue to be astounded at how politicians, education bureaucrats, and the teachers’ unions oppose every meaningful reform to the ongoing failings of public education. As you note so well, they would rather protect their own special interests than help disadvantaged children who most need the benefits resulting from some freedom of educational choice.
While visiting The Learning Community Charter School in Pawtucket, Governor Carcieri floated the idea of removing the state’s charter school cap, which limits each school district to two charter schools (except Providence, which is allowed four). Predictably, there are those who disagree with the Governor about removing the cap, even though recent studies have shown that Charter Schools in Rhode Island are working well. (There are also those who oppose charter schools, but that is another debate entirely). One opponent to Carcieri’s idea is Rep. Paul W. Crowley, chairman of the House Finance Subcommittee on Education. However, his opposition seems based less on the merits of the proposal than on political calculation. Crowley stated that he opposed any changes in the cap unless the Governor
promises to do something about the way traditional public schools are financed. “Remember what he did last year,” said Crowley, who also serves on the Board of Regents. “He started a range war in education. It’s nice to say this about charters, but if it’s not part of a comprehensive package on public school funding, it’s not going anywhere.”
Crowley and the Governor have agreed on other education matters in the past, such as a common statewide curriculum, so I don’t automatically assume that he opposes Charter schools or the Governor per se. Rather, it appears he simply wants to employ the Charter School cap issue as a weapon in this so-called “range war.” He probably also doesn’t like the fact that he and the legislature will soon be losing some of their existing educational oversight power. In fact, Crowley proposed in 2001 to increase the seats controlled by legislators on both the Board of Regents and the Board of Higher Education by increasing the number of appointments made by the House and Senate, though State Representatives or Senators would not fill those new seats. As such, it is evident that Crowley is a proponent of the legislature having a greater control of not just educational funding, but also how the money is spent. Crowley is also a member of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education. With the passage of the Separation of Powers Ammendment, I believe that Crowley will no longer be able to serve in both the Legislature and on the Board of Regents. This probably doesn’t sit well with him, either. In refering to a similar situation regarding the Board of Governors for Higher Education Crowley stated
“As we get into the separation-of-powers issue, we will lose our two seats on the board,” Crowley said, referring to the slots held by a state senator and a state representative on the 15-member Board of Governors. “We’ve got to improve our oversight.”
Almost in answer, Jeffrey Selingo, political editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education, observed, “Lawmakers usually have short-term views and are more parochial, focusing on projects in their districts….They sometimes do what is politically expedient to get themselves reelected.” That is exactly why so many Rhode Islanders supported Separation of Powers in the first place. It seems Rep. Crowley is more interested in the political advantage to be gained by opposing an idea proposed by the Governor than in broadening the access to a successful and innovative method of educating poor and at-risk children. Of course, the issue is more than a political bargaining chip, it is also based upon satisfying a key constituency: teachers and their union. In this, Crowley is not alone as the General Assembly has declared
“The Board of Regents shall not grant final approval for any new charter school to begin operations in the 2005-2006 school year.”
As usual, it is the children, especially those who start with the biggest disadvantages, who are being victimized by both an unnecessary political turf war and legislators who prioritize “special” interests over the best interests of the next generation.
[Open full post]Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:
When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don’t understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. “I am a normal person and when I don’t have enough money I have to change my habits,” 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. “Government should be the same way.”
But it isn’t and that begs the question of why?
Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):
Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.
In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.
Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:
How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.
The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.
Practically speaking, the decline in your family’s standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family – you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family’s needs.
It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.
It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:
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.
Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:
When you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote – and the potential for mischief is the greatest.
That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste’s Pig Book.
The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.
So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.
Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:
When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don’t understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. “I am a normal person and when I don’t have enough money I have to change my habits,” 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. “Government should be the same way.”
But it isn’t and that begs the question of why?
Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):
Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.
In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.
Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:
How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.
The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.
Practically speaking, the decline in your family’s standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family – you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family’s needs.
It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.
It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:
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.
Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:
When you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote – and the potential for mischief is the greatest.
That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste’s Pig Book.
The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.
So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.
Robert Whitcomb’s writing, as much as conservatives might find to disagree with, is refreshing for the simple fact that he obviously thinks things through and is willing to take an unpopular position when his thinking demands it:
Corporate-income taxes — local, state or federal — are absurd, and should be abolished. I say that as we come out of a political season in which some politicians said that they wanted “corporations to finally pay their fair share” of government expenses, and that it’s outrageous that corporations are “getting away with murder,” by paying a smaller percentage than “hard-working Americans.”
But the “corporate-income” tax is actually paid by plenty of “hard-working people”: the employees of the taxed company; the company’s customers, to whom the costs of the tax are passed on, in the price of goods and services; and, of course, the investors who help start and expand companies.
His view of what we need tax dollars for, and from whom we ought to take them leaves room for argument. But in our nation’s current state of affairs, anybody who agrees that taxes should be instituted “as simply and honestly as possible” is a welcome ally.
[Open full post]