Folks who didn't grow up on a farm may not get the allusion to seed corn. Let me explain.
Back in the olden days (before hybrid seeds and genetic engineering), farmers harvested their crops and set aside some of the harvest to use as seeds for the following year's planting. Even in hard times, they would never eat the grain set aside as seed. If they ate the seed corn, it would extend and intensify the famine into the next year.
Something like that is going on in Raleigh this year as the state legislature is pushing drastic cuts in education programs, layoffs of teachers and diversion of public school resources to charter schools and even private schools. That may even be worse than eating seed corn, because the effects may last for a lifetime of the students affected.
"Why should I care?" you may ask, "I have no children in school."
Such an attitude would be foolish in the extreme. All children in school are our children. They are the ones whose contributions to Social Security taxes and Medicare funds will be used to support us in our old age. Even for those who don't need Social Security to survive, retirement plans depend on future productivity increasing the value of factories and enterprises and expanding our national wealth and the value of our stocks and bonds. Who will labor to cause that increase?
These very schoolchildren.
One of the most pernicious ideas abroad in the land is that children and their parents are "customers" of our schools and that the school systems must compete for their favor. The truth is that we are all recipients of the value provided by effective school systems.
Good schools attract intelligent and capable parents to come here. They attract businesses to our state. Schools are a valuable economic multiplier. We let them languish at our collective peril.
Let's make our schools even better, instead of starving them for resources.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Candidate Filing
Overheard during and after last Tuesday's meeting of Oriental's Town Board of Commissioners were a number of negative comments about the board.
For those who were surprised, dismayed or annoyed, you should know that Tuesday, November 8, 2011 is the date of municipal elections. Oriental also has absentee voting (including one-stop) starting in October.
But to run, you need to file. Candidate filing begins at twelve noon July 25, 2011 and ends at twelve noon August 12. It is also possible to run as a write-in candidate.
For details, call the Pamlico County Director of Elections, Lisa Bennett, at 745-4821.
For those who were surprised, dismayed or annoyed, you should know that Tuesday, November 8, 2011 is the date of municipal elections. Oriental also has absentee voting (including one-stop) starting in October.
But to run, you need to file. Candidate filing begins at twelve noon July 25, 2011 and ends at twelve noon August 12. It is also possible to run as a write-in candidate.
For details, call the Pamlico County Director of Elections, Lisa Bennett, at 745-4821.
Power to the Powerful! Wealth to the Wealthy! Blame to the Blameless!
Writing for Slate magazine yesterday, Eliot Spitzer described what he calls the "Republican war against the weak."
It is a multi front war, led by many generals. Republican governors against unions. Legislators against consumers. Judges against individuals and for corporations.
The truth is that the struggle of the wealthy and powerful against what used to be called the common man has been a feature of American politics from the beginning. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, though, it looked for a long time like the New Deal and its subsequent enhancements had permanently evened the tables. Well into the 1970's, Republican efforts to undo the New Deal and its regulatory and safety net features failed.
In the past thirty years, however, as memories of the depression faded and claims were made that we are now so smart we no longer need regulation, Republicans began to make serious inroads into the protections that had worked so well for so long.
"The unifying theme," Spitzer says, "is an assault on the weak. The power of individuals, each of us feeble in isolation, to act collectively and hence stand up to the powerful is being eviscerated. Those who already begin behind are finding the few legal protections afforded them under attack. A critical element of the Republican agenda has become increasing the legal power of those who already have power, and diminishing the power of the weak."
But Spitzer misses the boat on at least one matter. When he tries to explain why these efforts are wrong, he says: "if we are upset at the outcome of an election, we don't take away the right to vote of those who defeated us..." Yet all across the country Republican legislatures and governors are doing just that. They are introducing changes to election law clearly intended to discourage poor, elderly, handicapped, African American, Hispanic and first time voters from voting.
There are currently 41 bills in the North Carolina legislature that will, if adopted, modify election law and practice. The majority of the proposals would impede both voters and candidates. The bills appear to be part of an attempt to rig elections in favor of Republican candidates.
There are at least a half dozen proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution with the same apparent aim.
And we don't yet know what will be attempted with legislative redistricting.
It should be an interesting legislative session.
It is a multi front war, led by many generals. Republican governors against unions. Legislators against consumers. Judges against individuals and for corporations.
The truth is that the struggle of the wealthy and powerful against what used to be called the common man has been a feature of American politics from the beginning. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, though, it looked for a long time like the New Deal and its subsequent enhancements had permanently evened the tables. Well into the 1970's, Republican efforts to undo the New Deal and its regulatory and safety net features failed.
In the past thirty years, however, as memories of the depression faded and claims were made that we are now so smart we no longer need regulation, Republicans began to make serious inroads into the protections that had worked so well for so long.
"The unifying theme," Spitzer says, "is an assault on the weak. The power of individuals, each of us feeble in isolation, to act collectively and hence stand up to the powerful is being eviscerated. Those who already begin behind are finding the few legal protections afforded them under attack. A critical element of the Republican agenda has become increasing the legal power of those who already have power, and diminishing the power of the weak."
But Spitzer misses the boat on at least one matter. When he tries to explain why these efforts are wrong, he says: "if we are upset at the outcome of an election, we don't take away the right to vote of those who defeated us..." Yet all across the country Republican legislatures and governors are doing just that. They are introducing changes to election law clearly intended to discourage poor, elderly, handicapped, African American, Hispanic and first time voters from voting.
There are currently 41 bills in the North Carolina legislature that will, if adopted, modify election law and practice. The majority of the proposals would impede both voters and candidates. The bills appear to be part of an attempt to rig elections in favor of Republican candidates.
There are at least a half dozen proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution with the same apparent aim.
And we don't yet know what will be attempted with legislative redistricting.
It should be an interesting legislative session.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Amending Oriental's Zoning Law
Of all of Oriental's ordinances, the most consequential by far is the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The GMO has the greatest effect on the look and feel of the town, the value of real estate, the possibilities of real estate development, and the opportunities for the town's growth.
North Carolina General Statutes rightly provide explicit rules for initial adoption of a zoning ordinance and its subsequent amendment. The goal of these rules is to foster an open process and provide members of the public meaningful opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
In discussions about zoning, we hear frequent admonitions that we must be friendly to business - after all, businessmen and real estate developers invest a lot of money in their projects.
It is worth remembering that, for most of our residents, their home represents the largest investment they will ever make. Maintaining the value of that investment as well as the look and feel of their neighborhoods is often of supreme importance to them.
The town's planning board, made up of volunteers, has significant responsibilities to advise the town's board of commissioners on zoning matters. They are, in effect, the substitute for what, in a larger municipality would be the town's planning department. But they are an advisory board. Both NCGS and our GMO make it clear that the board of commissioners is not bound by the planning board's recommendations.
The Town Board is, after all, the governing body.
Last Tuesday night's kerfuffle between the planning board and the town board shouldn't have happened. In one case, the town board rejected the request for a public hearing on a proposed new section 88. In another case, the town board tabled a motion to schedule a public hearing for a seven-page (single-spaced) complete rewrite of Article XV of the GMO, so that board members would have time to compare the proposed draft with what exists now.
There is a widespread misconception that "tabling" a motion is a back door means of killing it. Not so. Properly used, tabling a motion is appropriate whenever the proposal is seen as not quite ready for a vote (as in not being understood by the board members) or it may even provide an opportunity to build stronger support for the measure. In any event, I believe it is inappropriate (except in case of a quasi-judicial proceeding) to schedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance unless a majority of the board has reviewed the draft and is comfortable putting it before the public. Those conditions did not exist last Tuesday.
I have a number of problems with the draft amendments, including the form of the amendments as put before the town board. I will have more to say about that later.
In the meantime, anyone with an interest in Oriental's GMO, including anyone for whom an amendment might at some time in the future jeopardize any provision of the GMO of personal importance should read the proposed amendments here.
All interested citizens should be sure to attend the public hearing now scheduled June 7.
It isn't clear to me why the planning board is in such an all-fired hurry, or what the actual problems are to which these five drafts are the purported solution.
North Carolina General Statutes rightly provide explicit rules for initial adoption of a zoning ordinance and its subsequent amendment. The goal of these rules is to foster an open process and provide members of the public meaningful opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
In discussions about zoning, we hear frequent admonitions that we must be friendly to business - after all, businessmen and real estate developers invest a lot of money in their projects.
It is worth remembering that, for most of our residents, their home represents the largest investment they will ever make. Maintaining the value of that investment as well as the look and feel of their neighborhoods is often of supreme importance to them.
The town's planning board, made up of volunteers, has significant responsibilities to advise the town's board of commissioners on zoning matters. They are, in effect, the substitute for what, in a larger municipality would be the town's planning department. But they are an advisory board. Both NCGS and our GMO make it clear that the board of commissioners is not bound by the planning board's recommendations.
The Town Board is, after all, the governing body.
Last Tuesday night's kerfuffle between the planning board and the town board shouldn't have happened. In one case, the town board rejected the request for a public hearing on a proposed new section 88. In another case, the town board tabled a motion to schedule a public hearing for a seven-page (single-spaced) complete rewrite of Article XV of the GMO, so that board members would have time to compare the proposed draft with what exists now.
There is a widespread misconception that "tabling" a motion is a back door means of killing it. Not so. Properly used, tabling a motion is appropriate whenever the proposal is seen as not quite ready for a vote (as in not being understood by the board members) or it may even provide an opportunity to build stronger support for the measure. In any event, I believe it is inappropriate (except in case of a quasi-judicial proceeding) to schedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance unless a majority of the board has reviewed the draft and is comfortable putting it before the public. Those conditions did not exist last Tuesday.
I have a number of problems with the draft amendments, including the form of the amendments as put before the town board. I will have more to say about that later.
In the meantime, anyone with an interest in Oriental's GMO, including anyone for whom an amendment might at some time in the future jeopardize any provision of the GMO of personal importance should read the proposed amendments here.
All interested citizens should be sure to attend the public hearing now scheduled June 7.
It isn't clear to me why the planning board is in such an all-fired hurry, or what the actual problems are to which these five drafts are the purported solution.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Redistricting
We attended a meeting last night on redistricting in North Carolina. This is required after every decennial US census, to insure that each legislative district (and some other districts) represent the same number of citizens.
The process is highly political (meaning partisan). It is also subject to complex legal constraints. The Research Division of the N.C. General Assembly has prepared a very helpful pamphlet: "Legislator's Guide to North Carolina Legislative and Congressional Redistricting." The pamphlet makes it very clear how difficult it is just to comply with the legal requirements. Once you overlay the legal requirements with the natural desire of each political party to maximize its vote and minimize that of the other parties, the challenge becomes mind-boggling.
The reasons we have so much difficulty with redistricting are:
1. Representation is by geography rather than by social, cultural or economic affinities;
2. We have single-member districts with representation decided on a winner-take-all vote;
3. By comparison with other countries, we have few legislators;
4. We have only two viable political parties.
The truth is, the reason we have only two parties is because of the first three characteristics of our system.
Is there a better way?
I think there is. For legislative elections, I favor multi-member districts and proportional representation. It is not as complicated as it sounds. Such an approach would almost certainly introduce new political parties into the system and require parties to cooperate. It would be less likely that a single party would control any house of a legislature, thus leading to coalition building. And redistricting would become much less complex.
Based on the past couple of decades of polling by Times Mirror and the Pew Trust, it seems that our population would shake out into perhaps nine or ten opinion groupings and perhaps that many parties.
Would such a change lead to better outcomes? Who knows? But such a system works pretty well elsewhere.
I predict we will adopt such a system as soon as we can persuade pigs to fly.
The process is highly political (meaning partisan). It is also subject to complex legal constraints. The Research Division of the N.C. General Assembly has prepared a very helpful pamphlet: "Legislator's Guide to North Carolina Legislative and Congressional Redistricting." The pamphlet makes it very clear how difficult it is just to comply with the legal requirements. Once you overlay the legal requirements with the natural desire of each political party to maximize its vote and minimize that of the other parties, the challenge becomes mind-boggling.
The reasons we have so much difficulty with redistricting are:
1. Representation is by geography rather than by social, cultural or economic affinities;
2. We have single-member districts with representation decided on a winner-take-all vote;
3. By comparison with other countries, we have few legislators;
4. We have only two viable political parties.
The truth is, the reason we have only two parties is because of the first three characteristics of our system.
Is there a better way?
I think there is. For legislative elections, I favor multi-member districts and proportional representation. It is not as complicated as it sounds. Such an approach would almost certainly introduce new political parties into the system and require parties to cooperate. It would be less likely that a single party would control any house of a legislature, thus leading to coalition building. And redistricting would become much less complex.
Based on the past couple of decades of polling by Times Mirror and the Pew Trust, it seems that our population would shake out into perhaps nine or ten opinion groupings and perhaps that many parties.
Would such a change lead to better outcomes? Who knows? But such a system works pretty well elsewhere.
I predict we will adopt such a system as soon as we can persuade pigs to fly.
Management that Works
I'm reading through The New Economics by W. Edwards Deming. That his methods get results is demonstrated by the postwar success of the Japanese automobile industry after he trained them in his system. More recently, his methods have contributed to the current success of the Ford motor company.
Every page of his book has one or more gems. Here's one:
"Reward for good performance may be the same as reward to the weather man for a pleasant day."
Every page of his book has one or more gems. Here's one:
"Reward for good performance may be the same as reward to the weather man for a pleasant day."
Friday, May 6, 2011
Oriental Zoning Controversy
There were fireworks at last Tuesday night's meeting of Oriental's Town Board even before the vote on a proposed town dock.
At the beginning of the meeting, the board considered whether to schedule public hearings on five separate amendments to the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the town's zoning ordinance. When the proposal to schedule a hearing on changes to Article VI of the ordinance failed due to lack of a motion and the motion to schedule a hearing on changes to Article XV was tabled because some commissioners wanted to read it before voting on it, one member of the planning board stormed out of the meeting and the other members present expressed displeasure in other ways.
In view of the board's actions on the two most controversial GMO amendments, the subsequent public comment period was devoted entirely to the town dock issue (previous post).
At least one member of the public, who had come to the meeting for the specific purpose of speaking out against the change to Article VI, did not speak on that subject, since the board did not act. She left, thinking that business was over.
Apparently intimidated by the planning board reaction, though, the town board reconsidered its vote to table Article XV and voted to schedule a public hearing for Article XV and Article VI as well, except for a new Section 88 exempting religious institutions from the maximum footprint limits of Section 77.
That didn't make the planning board happy either. The next day the mayor scheduled a special meeting for Friday to address Article VI again. This morning the town board scheduled a public hearing for all of the changes to Article VI, including the new Section 88.
(According to some townspeople, the new Section 88 is solely designed to alleviate a concern of the church attended by the mayor and his wife I have no idea if that is true). The truth is, it is impossible for a member of the public, by reading the five draft amendments to the GMO or by attending last Tuesday's town board meeting, to have any idea why the proposed changes were drafted, what problems they were designed to solve, or what justification exists for the solutions recommended by the planning board.
Regrettably, the emotions expressed, the misunderstanding of proper legislative procedure and the failure to have effective and transparent communication between the Town Board and the Planning Board has made a situation far worse than it needed to be. Neither did it build confidence among the public that this isn't a scheme to railroad the changes through the system.
I have some ideas about how to improve procedures that I think could go far to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I just looked at the clock, though, and decided to save my ideas for the next post.
At the beginning of the meeting, the board considered whether to schedule public hearings on five separate amendments to the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the town's zoning ordinance. When the proposal to schedule a hearing on changes to Article VI of the ordinance failed due to lack of a motion and the motion to schedule a hearing on changes to Article XV was tabled because some commissioners wanted to read it before voting on it, one member of the planning board stormed out of the meeting and the other members present expressed displeasure in other ways.
In view of the board's actions on the two most controversial GMO amendments, the subsequent public comment period was devoted entirely to the town dock issue (previous post).
At least one member of the public, who had come to the meeting for the specific purpose of speaking out against the change to Article VI, did not speak on that subject, since the board did not act. She left, thinking that business was over.
Apparently intimidated by the planning board reaction, though, the town board reconsidered its vote to table Article XV and voted to schedule a public hearing for Article XV and Article VI as well, except for a new Section 88 exempting religious institutions from the maximum footprint limits of Section 77.
That didn't make the planning board happy either. The next day the mayor scheduled a special meeting for Friday to address Article VI again. This morning the town board scheduled a public hearing for all of the changes to Article VI, including the new Section 88.
(According to some townspeople, the new Section 88 is solely designed to alleviate a concern of the church attended by the mayor and his wife I have no idea if that is true). The truth is, it is impossible for a member of the public, by reading the five draft amendments to the GMO or by attending last Tuesday's town board meeting, to have any idea why the proposed changes were drafted, what problems they were designed to solve, or what justification exists for the solutions recommended by the planning board.
Regrettably, the emotions expressed, the misunderstanding of proper legislative procedure and the failure to have effective and transparent communication between the Town Board and the Planning Board has made a situation far worse than it needed to be. Neither did it build confidence among the public that this isn't a scheme to railroad the changes through the system.
I have some ideas about how to improve procedures that I think could go far to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I just looked at the clock, though, and decided to save my ideas for the next post.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Town Budget
I've been thinking about the budget and some of the priorities reflected therein. But let's get to first principles.
What is a town for?
To provide services to the citizens. If there were no services, there would be no need for the town.
How are the services provided? The town's employees deliver the services. The water plant doesn't operate itself. Neither does it repair itself. The water meters don't read themselves and the bills don't get in the mail by themselves. The streets and sidewalks aren't self repairing.
No employees - no services. It's as simple as that.
Last year the town board decided to balance the budget on the backs of our employees by establishing and gradually increasing a monetary contribution by each employee to purchase his or her health insurance. The scheme was to reduce the town's contribution to health insurance, but to compensate somewhat by increasing wages and salaries. Even if this modification to the pay structure resulted in a dollar for dollar compensation (one dollar increase in pay for each dollar of decrease in the town's contribution to health insurance), the burden on the employee would be greater. We would replace an untaxed benefit (health) with a taxed benefit (wages).
We're talking about employees making as little as $11.00 an hour, who are having difficulty buying enough gas to get to work and we want to place another burden on them? These are people for the most part who can't afford to live in Oriental and walk or bicycle to work. And they don't buy Priuses.
So where might the town get the money to continue paying employee health insurance as before and still balance the budget? A good place to start would have been to not spend the $22,000 the board spent to hire a lawyer to investigate the previous town manager in hopes of finding a cause to fire him that would save spending the $25,000 termination pay in the contract the town negotiated and signed.
A second place to look for how to balance the budget without passing the hat to the employees is to tap into the money the water system should have been paying to the general fund (recently recalculated) but hasn't. That's on the order of another $25,000 for the coming fiscal year.
I think there are better options than taking up a collection from the workers.
What is a town for?
To provide services to the citizens. If there were no services, there would be no need for the town.
How are the services provided? The town's employees deliver the services. The water plant doesn't operate itself. Neither does it repair itself. The water meters don't read themselves and the bills don't get in the mail by themselves. The streets and sidewalks aren't self repairing.
No employees - no services. It's as simple as that.
Last year the town board decided to balance the budget on the backs of our employees by establishing and gradually increasing a monetary contribution by each employee to purchase his or her health insurance. The scheme was to reduce the town's contribution to health insurance, but to compensate somewhat by increasing wages and salaries. Even if this modification to the pay structure resulted in a dollar for dollar compensation (one dollar increase in pay for each dollar of decrease in the town's contribution to health insurance), the burden on the employee would be greater. We would replace an untaxed benefit (health) with a taxed benefit (wages).
We're talking about employees making as little as $11.00 an hour, who are having difficulty buying enough gas to get to work and we want to place another burden on them? These are people for the most part who can't afford to live in Oriental and walk or bicycle to work. And they don't buy Priuses.
So where might the town get the money to continue paying employee health insurance as before and still balance the budget? A good place to start would have been to not spend the $22,000 the board spent to hire a lawyer to investigate the previous town manager in hopes of finding a cause to fire him that would save spending the $25,000 termination pay in the contract the town negotiated and signed.
A second place to look for how to balance the budget without passing the hat to the employees is to tap into the money the water system should have been paying to the general fund (recently recalculated) but hasn't. That's on the order of another $25,000 for the coming fiscal year.
I think there are better options than taking up a collection from the workers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
