Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

These words taken from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address ring as true today as they did in 1863 when they were first spoken to honor the fallen. Throughout our history, men and women have answered the call to serve our nation and defend our freedom and way of life.

Far too many of these brave souls made the ultimate sacrifice. The cost of our freedom is indeed high. To these honored dead we pause on Memorial Day to reflect on the sacrifice made by them; many not older than their early twenties, who performed extraordinary service with bravery and resolve under circumstances most of us can’t even imagine. Hopefully, we will always keep their sacrifice in our minds eye by not taking our freedom for granted and never abusing the freedom which has been entrusted to us.

Our freedom and way of life has come and continues to come at a very high price. It must always be respected and in today’s times, it must always be defended.

So, as the unofficial start of the summer begins, let us take a break from our work or school routine and enjoy the company of family and friends at picnics and barbeques and of course the wonderful parade down Main Street. We have a great deal to be proud of in our Nation. We owe it to the fallen not only to never forget them for their sacrifice, but also to celebrate the freedom that they so selflessly and so ultimately defended for our sake.  Thank you.

Outlined in the Constitution of the United States, “The Congress shall have the Power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization throughout the United States” (Madison 1787, Article I, Section 8, clause 4). This sets the stage for a need to regulate the entrance of non-citizens into the United States and establish a path to citizenship. As the desired objectives of the United States change over time so have the policies that affect immigration. Immigration policy in the United States dates back to its founding. The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the first rules for becoming a citizen of the United States of America.

Immigration policy reform has been used to manage the amount and type of people entering the U.S. It has been used to import agricultural and non-agricultural workers. Also, numeric limits have been set, and were reset multiple times, to manage refugees the U.S. is willing to accept.

Laws have been passed to provide citizenship or residency status to certain classes of people. Current law is being enforced to discourage an influx of aliens. It has never been lawful to come into the U.S. and stay without proper declaration. Registration and evaluation have been the law in some form throughout the history of the United States.

Incremental policy changes have gotten the U.S. to this point by excluding a specific class of people and specific countries while at the same time limiting the annual amount of immigrants who can enter the country. The U.S. is still a protectionist country. The policy makers want the U.S. to be a country of assimilation, not colonization. People with specific education or job skills are shown preference by policy over those who would be a burden to the system.

As administrations come and go and conditions around the world change, immigration policy has been continuously changing. The U.S. has found that as incremental change occurs surrounding immigration, the policy enacted as a result may need monumental reform to achieve its desired objectives. Introduce quotas here; exclude specific people there. Immigration policy is continuously under reconsideration because the two sides want slightly different outcomes. Examples include open borders versus regulated borders, amnesty versus deportation, colonization versus assimilation, and anonymity versus registration. Both sides want to have people be able to enter and leave the country. The task at hand is deciding which set of rules will we follow.

The civil rights revolutionary Martin Luther King Jr. referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the “Second Emancipation.” This act was introduced by John F. Kennedy who famously stated, “And this nation, for all of its hopes and all its boasts, will not fully be free until all its citizens are free.”

Freedom. On the land where this televised address echoed, the hauntingly melodic lyrics of Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit” wove for the listener a tapestry of racial bondage. Against all odds there remained a push for equality, unity, peace, and freedom. The courage of Rosa Parks ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Governor of Arkansas summoned the national guard to prevent the Little Rock Nine from integrating into Central High School. Four black students initiated the Greensboro, NC, sit-ins. Dr. King marched on Washington accompanied by approximately 250,000 people. Four African American girls were killed in the 16^thStreet Baptist Church bombing. The Selma to Montgomery marches travelled through police unleashing dogs, high pressure water hoses, and beatings of peaceful protesters. Amidst the turmoil continued the push for equality, unity, peace, and freedom.

Resistance from supremacists and politicians were painful contractions as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was birthed as the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction. The sacrifices during the Civil Rights Movement have born significant legislative fruit, providing equal protections for African Americans while drastically crippling legalized segregation and discrimination. The experience of Rosa Parks was covered under Title II, Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment … of any place of public accommodation… without discrimination or segregation…” During his march on Washington, Dr. King’s iconic speech highlighted the need for social and economic justice: “Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual….”

I ponder the immeasurable sacrifices of those who birthed this law into to existence with enormous gratitude, pride, and a desire to strive for greater. Greater equality, unity, peace, and freedom.

Being a parks and recreation director for over six years prepared me for being a city administrator in ways most people wouldn’t imagine.  In all honesty, at their core, the mission is quite similar. Areas of focus in parks and recreation, such as program development and risk assessment, transfer very easily into the world of city administration, only on a larger scale.  I’ve always told people when they ask about the transition from parks and recreation to municipal administration, if you are able to resolve issues with parents during youth programs, you can deal with anything.  No one is more passionate or volatile than a parent that is advocating for their child’s best interest.  In comparison, a city council meeting is typically less tense, but not always.  The list of skills that are interchangeable between the two positions is extremely long. I’m going to only touch on a few that I feel convey my point.

Working in parks and recreation you are constantly solving problems and dealing with conflict resolution.  As a city administrator, problem solving is second nature and conflict resolution is a commodity that is used almost daily. I learned early on that you will not please everyone, but your goal should be to achieve a win-win outcome – this is essential to problem solving and conflict resolution. Working in parks and recreation helped instill approaching every situation with the goal of a positive resolution.

When I first became the parks and recreation director, I had to convince the community that I was capable of providing a safe and enjoyable environment for the youth sports programs.  Gaining community trust was one of the most important and difficult actions I encountered.  At the time I was promoted to city administrator, the very same issue of community trust and support had to be addressed again, on a larger scale. It is paramount that the community feels a sense of trust and good will in both the parks and recreation and city administrator positions.  Citizens need to know that you are capable of providing for their needs and safety concerns.

Prior to my promotion, I was under the impression that it was uncommon to transition from parks and recreation to city administration, but that is untrue.  It is more common than you would think.  From small towns to large cities, parks and recreation directors transitioning to city administrators are common.  In my opinion, the transition is common because parks and recreation is the perfect field to hone many skills that are needed to become a successful city administrator.

The Buck Creek Foundation began with a dream and that dream was to create a place where regardless of intellectual disability, individuals could come and be taught essential skills that lead to greater independence, social awareness, and that enable them to live the best life they possibly can. Through their two campuses, Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm, the Buck Creek Foundation will create agricultural programs to employ these individuals. These campuses will go beyond just providing vocational opportunities, but will enhance these individuals’ lives by fostering a greater level of confidence in them, so that they may become more active and contribute to society in a way previously unseen.

The Foundation’s goals include changing social perspective. Society as a whole has created a false sense of disparagement by labeling these individuals based upon a disability. The Foundation will not use these individual’s disabilities as a platform to enhance these false stereotypes but they will spotlight these individual’s unique abilities in order to cultivate self-confident members of society with greater levels of self-reliance and self-worth. This growing community deserves to have opportunities just as you and I have been afforded. We must be the generation that changes the stereotype; the generation that creates awareness. The generation that institutes change and that builds a brighter future.

There are few organizations with such a charitable cause at their heart. The Foundation seeks to help those who did not choose the path that they are on, but it intends on offering services to as many as possible to increase the opportunities made available to them. They will focus on enriching lives in a positive environment that encourages these people to be their best selves and to reach for skills that are obtainable to them.

The Foundation doesn’t plan to stop this good work at just vocational skills, but in order to further develop these individuals, they will also provide greater levels of social training and extended levels of applied education. The focus of the foundation is truly on personal growth and without opportunity there can be no growth.

Imagine a day in their shoes. Imagine not having the resources to reach your full potential because of others neglect. Now, for moment imagine a place: where judgment doesn’t exist, where patience abounds, and where hope is the center of all things. This place will be Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm. This endeavor is greater than each of us, for it is a journey to provide opportunities, education, and care for those who function on a level that maybe different but whose value is no less than yours or mine. It is time to change the definition of different because different is unique, different is beautiful, and different is what the future must be in order to make change a reality.

Buck Creek Foundation  https://buckcreekfoundation.org

Should there be an age limit on people who serve as public representatives? You must be 25 or older to serve as a U.S. Representative, 30 or older to serve as a U.S. Senator, and 35 years of age or older to serve as the President. However, there is no age limit on when you must step down from office. Late West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd served until his death; he was 92 years old. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) just turned 86 years old last month. Although RBG may not be a great example as I believe she is indestructible. The woman can plank in her 80’s… the woman can plank period, but I digress. Can people serving into their late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s still have the same mental capacity they did when they were first elected to office? I’m not so sure. Some believe Ronald Reagan exhibited symptoms of early onset Alzheimer’s during his term. Although, CBS News states only about 3% of men and women between 65 to 74 have Alzheimer’s, whereas nearly half of people 85 and older have the disease. Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected, so the likelihood he would have had Alzheimer’s during that time was small and more likely linked to his genetic makeup than his age.

Age, and the link to one’s mental capability, is likely to be brought up as an issue during the next presidential election. Our current president is 72 and two of the democratic candidates are 76 and 77. While there are many septuagenarians who are healthy and mentally fit, I’m not sure I want my president turning 80 in office. I mean, enduring the stress of the presidential office can take its toll on younger men and women, much less older ones. Look at before and after pictures of George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. This job can have physical and mental consequences for even the fittest of men.

According to a Washington Post article titled Can a president be too old? the general consensus is your 70’s and 80’s is not the prime time to be taking on such a difficult and demanding role. The article states “that between 16 percent and 23 percent of Americans over 65 experience some cognitive impairment.” Memory and cognitive speed are not what they used to be. I don’t know about you, and I mean no disrespect to the older audience, but I would rather not have a 75+ year old negotiating major deals and handling complex matters when it comes to the health and security of our nation.

As I sat in Lee Hall on Clemson’s campus last Thursday, surrounded by my peers to listen to Dr. Russell L. Riley, Co-Chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, present on  “The White House as a Black Box,” I was unsure where a topic like this could lead. As we are all aware, the “Black Box” records the events that happen during any given flight. The “Black Box” gives investigators insight on conversations, decision and in the unfortunate event that an incident happens, the “Black Box” reveals the details leading up to the event. Dr. Riley discussed his work documenting the oral history of the U.S. Presidency as the “Black Box” of the White House. Even though Presidential records become public records upon that President’s exit from office, the documents are not released until they have been examined for security purposes. As you could imagine, this process takes quite a while.

Dr. Riley gave multiple examples, but the one that truly stuck with me was the sheer number of documents from the Obama Presidency, as listed below. During Obama’s Presidency there were more than 15,000 cubic feet of stored textual documents, 6,000 cubic feet of audio/visual documentations, and an astounding 275 MILLION emails. Each item has to be individually reviewed minute by minute or line by line. President Bush’s data that was released in 1993 is only about 25% completed. So, in 25 years after leaving office only a quarter of the information has been reviewed, and if this pace is maintained it could be another 75 years to complete his document review.

Dr. Riley’s work focuses on past Presidents and their top officials. He and his team try to interview these individuals, maybe as many as 100 interviews per presidency, to provide a first-hand account of the dealings within the White House. This endeavor is to primarily fill in the gaps and to provide the public with the “common language,” and Dr. Riley and his team believe that the people who served under the President are usually the most substantive and truthful/critical because they were the closest and know the most. They tend to be internal critics.

D. Riley also informed those in attendance on the reality of how little we know about the sitting President and that we only have access to about 20-25% of the truth and what actually goes on in the White House. It was also stated that the general public can only draw inference on the dealings within the White House. A majority of the information that we are privileged to know is typically through leaks, investigations (i.e., Mueller Report), auto-biographies, etc.

I feel privileged to have attended an event hosted by Clemson University such as Dr. Russell L. Riley’s lecture on “The White House as a Black Box.” Not only was it greatly informative, it has prompted me to start looking more in-depth about the information that is presented by the media, leaks, investigations and reports. It has also made me curious on the free resources available through the Miller Center. If you are interested in the Oral Histories, you can access the documents and videos via https://millercenter.org.

Recently I read The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alistair Smith. This book not only left me with a new outlook on politics but it also left me with some taunting questions. Do politicians really pick power over policies they believe in? Will the continuing divide of political parties and inequality hurt our nation in the long run?

In this book Bueno de Mesquita and Smith share their thoughts on selectorate theory, with the central thesis that leaders, whether an autocrat, president, or even a CEO, do not rule alone. These leaders or politicians are voted in and kept in power by their winning coalition, and depending on the size that may be 61 million (such as in the United States for those who voted for Pres. Trump) or 200 people (such as the Donju in North Korea).  This winning coalition helps to keep the ruler in power and pleasing the winning coalition will be the leader’s focus. The size of the winning coalition will ultimately decide if they will use private or public goods to stay in power. And, through these incentives and benefits to the winning coalition a ruler can solidify their power.

So, if we change our perception on politics and understand that “leaders cannot lead unilaterally,” requiring their winning coalition to stay in power, this should ultimately mean that those who want to stay in power must pick policies that please the winning coalition. Essentially picking power over policies. If we all viewed our democracy this way, it could be a powerful tool for voters. There are many factors on why voters select certain candidates, but why not focus on the candidate’s past voting records and proposals, over what they are promising by taking candidates “at face value on their motives”.

Furthermore, in the 2016 election 77% of Americans were eligible to vote, or the as the theory would call them the nominal selectorate (interchangeables), and only 42% voted or the real selectorate (influentials), and the winning coalition (essentials) was only 19% or 61 million as mentioned earlier. As you may remember, President Trump won by having 306 electorate votes, and not the majority vote, meaning the winning coalition is actually smaller than the majority of those who voted.

In the book it says “we have learned that just about all of political life revolves around the size of the selectorate, the influentials, and the winning coalition. Expand them all, and not the interchangeables no more quickly than the coalition, and everything changes for the better for the vast majority of people.” However, we are in a time where the partisan gap continues to grow (according to Pew Research Center). So as the partisan gap grows wider, the winning coalition essentially would continue to grow smaller. Party values become more extreme and bipartisan values become rarer, forcing people further to either side or to the middle.

Yet, I find myself wondering, as the inequality in America grows, will this force the majority of people to come together to form a winning coalition? There are many factors and questions to debate regarding this topic as our democracy does not necessarily implement wealth-equalizing polices. Nevertheless, according to Bueno de Mesquita and Smith “change the coalition size and you can change the world.”

The Spring Fling was memorable, fun, educational, stimulating, intellectually challenging, boundary expanding, and “a hoot.” Folks who attended got a chance to work on a case study, tour the Clemson campus, go to a football and a baseball games, tailgate, have meals together, taste some classic FRIED OKRA, and enjoy the company of fellow MPA students and faculty.

Lisztomania by Phoenix from “Mozart in the Jungle”