Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

In the last weeks of 2018, the South Carolina Department of Education released report cards for the public schools as required by state and federal law. These grades are meant to reflect how the school is performing and areas of improvement. These report cards in theory are a tool to see how schools are doing with meeting grade level expectations. It provides a direction on areas that need improvement and a mechanism to provide definable progress.

With limited knowledge about how these grades are calculated, the usefulness or validity of the grading system is unclear. It does impact the perception of the school and parents’ desire to enroll their children in that school. It also leaves me to wonder what tools are available to grade how the local, state, and federal governments are doing in their efforts to support the schools. The schools that are being graded do not all have access to same funding, services available, or government support. Therefore in my opinion, the responsibility and grade do not wholly lie with the school.

How can schools be equally judged if the level of support from governing bodies is not equivalent? The standard has been set to provide feedback on the effectiveness of schools but they are just a part of the whole picture. There is little public information on what governments are doing to support education or the policies they set. It seems to me that a report card completed by the schools, districts, and states would be a good place to start. Not only would it provide important feedback information to governments on where support was needed, whether the changes are financial or changes in policy. It would also provide voters with information on how their officials are doing in supporting the schools, giving context to school’s grade and information to the constituents.

Now that these school grades are posted, I am left to wonder, are the government agencies making the grade for our schools?

The question first presented by Simon and Garfunkel came to mind recently as I was reflecting on the issues facing our community, state and nation and the inability of our elected officials to work together toward a common goal. It seems politics today has gotten personal and perhaps spiteful. It has prevented, for the most part, our elected officials from doing an effective job for us all.

Decades ago, representatives from both parties would have differences of opinion which they would eloquently state in public; but in the end, they showed leadership and worked together to find solutions to the problems presented. Today, at all levels of government, there is more rhetoric, posturing and accusing among our elected officials, which has only resulted in no resolution, or even the hope of any resolution, on the most pressing issues facing us in the last 50 years. Where have the leaders gone?

True, the political climate today is much different than decades ago. The cost of running for office and staying in office once elected is enormous. There is just too much money involved in the election process. I hope that there are leaders out there who will make the finding of solutions to our current issues a priority, regardless of political implications or re-election impact. A true leader does not have to worry about being re-elected.

Until such time we can only ask, “where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?”

There is a movement afoot in the United States to ban the use of plastic drinking straws by consumers of liquid products. This is understandable considering the large volume of straws that end up in landfills, along our road sides and highways and even in our waters. In fact, it is estimated that more than 500 million straws are used by Americans every day; that adds up to about 2,000 tons of plastic waste a year in our oceans alone. Now that’s a lot of waste! Something should be done to curb America’s appetite for slurping their favorite beverage through a straw. But what about the negative effect a plastic straw ban would have on people who can’t live without one?

It could be deadly. For instance, people with disabilities need the plastic straw. And they are making their voices heard in cities and towns across America who are considering plastic straw bans. For many people with disabilities like my son Marsh with Down Syndrome, a plastic straw is the difference between him staying hydrated or dying. It’s that simple. You see, for many people like Marsh they can’t drink directly from a cup. Due to the risk of aspiration, he must have his beverages thickened and taken in through a plastic straw. You might ask, what about a metal straw? Well, metal doesn’t regulate heat and he could burn his throat. What about paper straws? Paper straws don’t hold up under liquids and tend to fall apart into pieces that could choke and kill him. What about reusable plastic straws? That’s an option, but not everyone can carry around a reusable straw for their everyday liquid intake. The bottom line is we shouldn’t ban straws. Life is hard enough for people with disabilities only for us to take away such a simple solution for their hydration needs.

But we do need a long-term solution that will reasonably reduce the amount of plastic straw waste in our environment and the effect it has on global warming. I believe we have some reasonable solutions that would allow society to reduce the plastic straw foot print, but still allow people with disabilities to have access to this life saving tool for hydration. One solution would be for everyone without disabilities to ban their personal use of plastic straws. This would instantly reduce the production and waste associated with plastic straws. Or we could add a penny straw tax for every straw purchased and have the money collected go back to programs and services for people with disabilities. A plastic straw tax could deter many consumers from using one and could collect $1,825,000,000/annually for the disabled. Either way, we all need to remain flexible and not be so rigid when it comes to banning plastic straws.

Equality of citizens under the law of the United States is a successive policy that has been growing and changing in slight ways since before there was a constitution. From the pilgrims to Me Too, equal rights have been continually fought over. As we advance as society so too must our policies and laws. Sitting on top of the earliest American policy declaration that all men are created equal rests the entirety of equality policy. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is what many consider to be the most important piece of legislation for equality in America. However, this piece of legislation is just another of the successive steps taken toward equality. Economic and racial inequality are still significant issues being dealt with in America today. How can that be if we passed civil rights legislation over 50 years ago?

Policy must continue to be developed to protect and advance equality in our society. Building on top of the Civil Rights Act, in 1992, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. From there, the Supreme Court ruled that civil rights should not be infringed on by legalizing gay marriage in 2015. Equal rights are an American policy that continues to grow as America grows. 

The American policy that all men are created equal was not accomplished when the 13th Amendment was passed or when women won the right to vote. Policy means constant evaluation, reconciliation, and revision. Future steps advancing equality could be banning Voter ID laws, federal paid family leave, or a federal jobs guarantee. Human beings grow and change constantly and so does and should our policy.

As a born and raised South Carolinian, I know first-hand that there are a variety of southern traditions that we pass down through generations.  Food centered traditions are an important part of southern life, and it would not be so dear to our mother’s hearts if the food were not considered special, or unique to our region. Grits are a southern staple that you will surely find in any southerner’s home, along with sweet tea and chicken ready to fry.  Here in Charleston we love our benne wafers, which are silver dollar sized sesame seed cookies that are crunchy and sweet.  Throughout much of the state you are sure to find restaurants that serve “country cooking” and in addition to okra, there is one more traditional southern green that you will find on almost every menu: the collard green. It should come as no surprise that my favorite piece of legislation was passed on June 2, 2011, designating the collard green as the official state vegetable (SC House of Rep., 2013).

Collard greens have always had a place at the southern table, but the history of the leafy green vegetable is worldwide and ancient.  Collard greens are the oldest member of the cabbage family and as reported in Whats Cooking America? (2017), the Greeks would grow them.  While the ancient Greeks may have been the first to grow the dark green vegetables, we have the African slaves of the American South to thank for conjuring up the tastiest way to consume these nutrient rich vegetables. Today collard greens are cooked much the same way they would have been in the late 1800’s, boiling the leaves with a ham hock in a big pot of water.  Collard greens, as with a few other unique southern dishes, are decidedly an acquired, regional taste.  However, their history in the South and their recognizably by every true southerner makes them a natural choice for South Carolina’s state vegetable.

According to the State House website, South Carolina ranks second in the nation in collard green production, a little-known fact worth bragging about at any southern dinner table. “Article 9, Chapter 1, Title 1 of the 1976 Code, Section 1-1-681. Collard greens are the official vegetable of the State” is my favorite piece of legislation because it is so uniquely South Carolinian.  While it may seem like a frivolous piece of legislation, the roots of the bill are deeply southern, steeped in generations of tradition and kept alive by our grandmother’s cooking, storytelling, and cornbread.

This post first appeared in Ten Two News online on March 13, 2018. Reprinted here upon the author’s request and consent.

I had planned my next column to continue my thoughts on police perspectives; however, something happened during the writing phase which changed my thoughts and plans.

Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer was shot and killed in the line of duty.

Paul and I were assigned to the same unit many years ago. He also would visit my friend, the late Captain Mark Marianovich, while Mark was battling cancer at Northwestern Memorial Hospital early last year. Paul was a good man and his sacrifice to the city of Chicago is one that causes deep scars to the men and women who serve, not just in Chicago, but everywhere.

Paul’s death brought back memories for me of being a member of the Emerald Society Bagpipe Band and the Chicago Police Pipes and Drums. We played at all the funerals for the line-of-duty deaths over the course of 20 years. Participating in events which pay respects to our fallen sisters and brothers is both humbling and an honor. Our comrades who gave their lives to the municipalities they protect and serve was something I took very seriously and still reflect on often.

Honoring our fallen is a great tradition in law enforcement that dates back to its formalized inception. Police officers lining the streets during funeral processions, bagpipe bands playing and eulogies about the person who gave their life in service are a culturally unique part of this phenomenon.

Officers train and prepare for situations which are dangerous on a daily basis, and many of us handle situations that most civilians wouldn’t even think of getting involved in. Police officers are the last line of defense to keep total chaos and anarchy from the guardians of peace and tranquility.

As of late, our brothers and sisters have been getting beat up pretty good in social media, media and other avenues people use to spread negativity about what we do while having no actual knowledge about the profession. This negative energy sometimes overwhelms us and, as I have studied in the past, impacts the ability of many people to carry out their daily duties as it relates to traditional police work.

Paul’s death is significant because, just like all law enforcement professionals paying the ultimate sacrifice, he was a guardian of the peace. He was someone who ran into danger rather than running away from it.

In the Bible, Matthew speaks of the eight Beatitudes Jesus Christ taught us. Two of the Beatitudes come to my mind when I think of police officers and other law enforcement professionals. They are:

“Blessed are the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers: they shall be recognized as children of God.”

This tragic situation also made me reflect on another biblical writing by John who said, “No one can have greater love than to lay down his life for his friends.”

In Paul’s case, he was chasing someone for his fellow officers who called for assistance. Many officers do this every single day, never knowing who the offender might be or what they might be capable of doing. Yet, officers will pursue the offender without hesitation.

As thoughts raced through my head and ideas began to circle, I decided to really focus on the nature of line-of-duty deaths. I did some research using the numbers from the Officer Down Memorial Page from January 2002 through the beginning of this month.

During that span of time, there were a total of 2,583 on-duty deaths. The causes of those deaths are illustrated below.

Gunfire led to the most deaths of an officer lost while doing his or her job, followed by vehicle crashes and heart attacks to comprise the leading causes.

The deadliest year for law enforcement during the time period researched was 2007 with 206 line-of-duty deaths. The top two leading causes of law enforcement deaths that year – gunfire and automobile crashes – mirrored the overall trend of my research that covered 16-plus years of data.

The number says a lot, but the fact each and every one of these deaths represented a life cut short in the name of protecting and serving others speaks louder. Next time, I’ll share more about the information I collected.

Until then, please be good to each other, stay safe and remember the words of Matthew when he said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: they shall be recognized as children of God.”

“At times the halls of power are so glutted with special pleaders that government itself seems to be gagging.” (Thomas, 1986, p. 26)

This quote brings to mind imagery of lawmakers being so bombarded by special pleaders that they are in essence on a gag order under which they are essentially prohibited from sharing the details and information that go into private deals being made in the halls rather than on the actual voting floor. As special pleading typically involves persuading to do something by only sharing the facts that support their case, the best lobbyists are providing information to lawmakers about the issues that concern only their clients or themselves personally, while they do their best to manipulate lawmakers to vote in their direction and neglect the needs of the population at large.

The pros of interest groups are that they can contribute to a healthy democratic process by being the voice for those who otherwise, may not have the opportunity to be heard. Lobbyists have the ability to motivate our legislators to pass laws that benefit both large groups and smaller, more specific groups across all spectrums.  I think they also have the ability to provide positive solutions for legislators through their inside and expert knowledge in certain areas in which legislators may not be well versed.  This can be helpful in assisting elected officials in making educated decisions respective to passing legislation.  In a pure sense, lobbying and special interest groups are beneficial to our public policy process.  However, when money and power come into play, things become complicated and ripe for corruption.

While special interest groups can be positive, they typically have a negative connotation.  Interest groups are often involved in negative issues like being too specialized in their initiatives; only seeking benefit for themselves and/or for a small subset of the population.  While special pleading and sometimes questionable moral/ethical behavior is a common occurrence in our public policy process; interest groups have also been known to participate in blatantly, more sinister corrupt behavior such as bribery and fraud to serve their own interests.

When elected officials, who have a duty to serve their constituents’ interests and the public good, are allowed to benefit by making policies to serve the interests of specific private parties, conflicts of interest arise.  The process of special pleading for interest groups carries great potential for conflicts of interest, which can quickly lead to an inadvertent or intentional failure of policy makers to adequately represent and serve or to act in the best interest of their constituents. This is the ultimate consequence of special pleading.

The First Amendment right to petition brings another ironic dynamic into play, especially as it relates to lobbyists.  Lobbyists seem to have more access to office holders than ever before.  However, groups that are not aligned with the current government have the freedom to petition but often that falls on deaf ears.  I included info below on the top 10 interest groups and to which members of the 114^th Congress they are giving in the 2018 cycle.  I also included the link to the info which shows additional info on the overall biggest interest groups, top groups giving to each of the two major parties, and more.

Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2018 Cycle

Who’s got the most juice on Capitol Hill? Here’s a list of the top interest groups contributing to members of the 114th Congress during the 2017-2018 election cycle. The first list shows the overall 50 biggest interest groups. The other two highlight the top 25 interest groups giving to members of each of the two major parties. In all cases, the Top Recipient listed is the individual member of the 114th Congress who received the most from the interest group. Totals shown here include only the money that went to current incumbents in Congress.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

“Policy is not made once and for all; it is made and remade endlessly. Policy-making is a process of successive approximation to some desired objectives in which what is desired itself continues to change under reconsideration” – Charles E. Lindblom

In the formative days of our country, the notion of same-sex marriage would have been as obscure as that of women or people of color having the right to vote. The establishment of sodomy laws emerged in a pattern of criminalizing behavior that was viewed as lewd and objectionable, with no consideration given to “rights” for these individuals. This legislated persecution continued into the 20^th century.

Through the McCarthy era, homosexuality was oft regarded to be as “anti-American” as communism (see the Lavender Scare). Underground LGBT enclaves began to appear in cities like New York and San Francisco. Later, emboldened by the Civil Rights revolutions of the 1960s, they grew more vocal in demanding equal protection under the law. The conversation began to shift, with Lindblom’s “desired objectives” becoming the attainment of everyday civil rights, such as the right to marry.

A select timeline of successive change:

1778 – Continental Army Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin is dishonorably discharged for “attempting to commit sodomy”; George Washington approves of the verdict “with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes.”

1779 – Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson drafts a law that would prescribe castration as the maximum punishment for men engaging in sodomy. This was rejected by the legislature in favor of preserving the existing penalty of death.

1892 – Congress passes a Washington DC law protecting property from “vagrants” including anyone viewed as leading a “notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life.”

1917 – Congress overrides Woodrow Wilson’s veto, enacting the Immigration Act with language barring “mentally defective” individuals or those with a “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” from entering the country (same-sex attraction was considered a mental disorder at the time).

1919 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, directs a sting operation to uncover instances of “vice and depravity”, resulting in 17 sailors being jailed and court-martialed on suspicion of homosexuality.

1962 – Illinois becomes the first state to decriminalize sodomy.

1969 – Riots begin after police raid the Stonewall Inn, a New York City gay bar, sparking the symbolic beginning of the gay civil rights movement.

1977 – Harvey Milk elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming the first non-incumbent openly gay man elected to public office in the US.

2003 – US Supreme Court reverses Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating state sodomy laws. Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is in violation of the state constitution, becoming the first state to license same-sex marriages.

2011 – The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, implemented by President Clinton which barred openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals from military service, is repealed by President Obama.

2013 – SCOTUS rules in United States v. Windsor that a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

2015 – Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges holds that any ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and that such marriages should be legalized and recognized in all states.

2017 – Danica Roem wins a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates becoming the first openly transgender state legislator to be elected. Palms Springs, California City Council becomes the first in the country comprised of all LGBT members.

In what direction will the objectives of both LGBT rights advocates and those opposed to LGBT rights shift next?

“I ask the chair, you know what this is? It’s a snowball, just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonal,” James Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma, said shortly before he infamously threw a snowball in the Senate Chamber (as reported by Slate in February 2015). Inhofe’s performance that day was in the context of a heated global warming debate that had been raging on the Senate floor. Inhofe argued that the science was not conclusive on global warming, and suggested that snow was proof of just that.

If only he had known that uncommon weather patterns, including increased winter precipitation, are a sign of global temperature increase, according to the National Wildlife Federation. But the debate over global warming has never really been a debate about the science, although both sides argue that it is. Instead, this debate is a policy one; the two sides differ with respect to their ideological position on environmental regulation, and global warming has become a proxy for that war. The battles are fought on specific federal policies concerning carbon emissions, whether they be international treaties, carbon taxes, or departmental regulations. Although scientific data is utilized in these debates, it only serves as a tool of the discussion, not as the main focus, as we shall see.

Republicans are actually divided on whether or not global warming is even happening at all. In the 2016 presidential election, for example, New Jersey governor Chris Christie said that he does think, “global warming is real… And I do think human activity contributes to it,” while Ted Cruz claimed, “the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of flat-Earthers” (as reported by CBS News in September 2015). Where they are in agreement, however, along with the rest of their party, is in their overall opposition to the regulations that have been recommended to combat climate change. The 2016 GOP platform opposed most of President Obama’s actions to combat it, and instead claimed that environmental problems are best faced by, “incentives for human ingenuity … not through top-down, command-and-control regulations” (as reported by Los Angeles Times in July 2016).

Democrats, by contrast, are largely in agreement that global warming exists, is affected to a notable degree by human activity, and should be addressed through federal regulation. Going back to the 2016 election, the two frontrunners for the Democratic party election, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders “ … laid out aggressive plans to reduce carbon emissions that make President Obama’s initiatives look tame” (Time magazine, April 2016). They differed a bit on specifics, but a basic trust in science, as well as their support of federal measures designed to support its conclusions, could be found at the heart of both candidates’ plans. The Democratic platform, crafted once the primary season was over, called on the federal government to take drastic steps toward fighting climate change, such as moving to 50% renewable energy in one decade’s time.

As shown in Senator Inhofe’s speech, this debate is not a scientific one. Rather, this debate is perspective-driven, with the two sides disagreeing on what role the federal government should play in combating environmental issues more broadly. Science serves as a sort of cloak to further the agendas at work. Ideology is the wolf under that cloak.