BY MICHAEL M. SHAPIRO
As New Jersey copes with its increasing budget woes, perhaps the Legislature should consider several measures that would help reduce out-of-control spending: unannounced audits and the elimination or transformation of pension credit for part-time government work.
A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Jon Bramnick (R) currently languishing in the State Legislature, A-222, would require the Office of the State Auditor to perform unannounced audits of any program of a State or State-supported agency as long as such an audit is requested by any member of the Legislature.
The bill creates avenues for abuse by mandating that if a Legislator requests an audit, the Office of the State Auditor must conduct one. As a result, a Legislator could use the Office to target foes, leading to unnecessary audits that are both costly to the State and unjustly embarrassing to the victim. Therefore, requests from Legislators for audits should be treated like all other requests and should not result in a required audit.
The bill also does not go far enough. All government employees at all levels of government as well as all members of the public should be able to request an unannounced audit. The Office of the State Auditor can independently evaluate each request, providing a written rationale for failing to grant such an application. Currently, audits are limited to State or State-supported agencies. If the Office of the State Auditor is able to conduct unannounced audits of any entity that receives State funding, not only would State or State-supported agencies be subject to unannounced audits, but so would County, municipal governments, and school districts, where a significant amount of the waste, fraud and abuse is currently taking place.
In addition to unannounced audits, a proposal by Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) to eliminate pension credit for part-time government employees should be given serious consideration. It might be suggested that if part-time government employees want to receive a government pension, they should obtain a full-time job and work the amount of hours and years such a position requires to obtain a pension.
Since such sentiment and the Senator’s proposal are likely to meet with significant resistance that could very well cripple the proposal, alternative legislation can be considered that would prohibit part-time government employees from being able to apply the pension credits they have earned in their part-time government jobs to full-time government work should they obtain such a position. Therefore, part-time pension credits should be applied against the part-time service and any pension credits obtained through full-time government employment should be applied against the full-time government salary.
Currently, pensions are calculated by using the average of the three highest years of salary. The calculation could, hypothetically, be based on the average of the highest five years. Part-time pension credits could then be applied against the average of the highest five years of part-time service divided by the number of years served. Pension credits received from full-time government work could be applied against the average of the highest five years of full-time government service divided by the number of years served. Using this formula, the State will save millions of dollars in pension costs every year.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of www.ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
Congressman Waxman and The NCIL
BY SALVATORE PIZZURO
An issue that impacts the New Jersey Workforce, including potential employees with disabilities, as well as workers across the nation, has risen to a heated debate between a social service organization and a Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
Congressman Henry Waxman is the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Recently, he has been besieged by members of the disability community regarding the failure of the federal government to hire more people with disabilities. Furthermore, it has been suggested that during economic downturns, workers with disabilities are the first to be let go.
The obvious concern is that if the federal government, as the agency that has mandated worker protections for people with disabilities, and is charged with the responsibility to enforce those rights, cannot live up to legal standards, what hope will people with disabilities have in the workplace?
In a letter to Waxman, the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) expressed concern about the lack of oversight in the hiring practices of federal agencies regarding potential employees with disabilities. According to the NCIL:
NCIL members remain extremely concerned that in a workforce of 2.6 million federal employees, less than one percent are people with “targeted” disabilities. NCIL does not accept this data as anything close to what we might describe as successful employment statistics for the United States. If the federal government were to carry out the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act and hire qualified people with disabilities, it could serve as a model employer to states and private sectors and help end decades of stagnant employment rates, which perpetuate painful economic consequences for people with disabilities.
The NCIL has asked Waxman to hold a Committee hearing on the matter. It is the position of the NCIL that “our civil rights laws are undermined and devalued on an increasing basis”. Furthermore, the NCIL asserts:
that people with disabilities are the best experts on their own needs, that they have a crucial and valuable perspective to contribute to society, and are deserving of equal opportunity to decide how to live, work, and take part in their communities.
Certainly, as a Disability Policy Specialist, I have pointed out that New Jerseyans with disabilities are treated as second class citizens, ostracized from the workplace, regardless of their level of education, training, or professional expertise.
According to Congressman Waxman’s point man on the Oversight Committee, Daniel Davis, the Congressman and Committee staff are gathering information in an effort to assess the problem. Davis has pointed out that there is a need for demographic data that addresses whether potential employees with disabilities are given an opportunity with federal agencies. As the Committee staffer who is charged with the responsibility to investigate this issue, Davis is also quick to suggest that little should be said by Waxman or staff members until a thorough assessment of the problem has been completed.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 791), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in Federal employment and requires the Federal Government to engage in affirmative action for people with disabilities. The law:
Requires Federal employers not to discriminate against qualified job applicants or employees with disabilities. Persons with disabilities should be employed in all grade levels and occupational series commensurate with their qualifications. Federal employers should ensure that their policies do not unnecessarily exclude or limit persons with disabilities because of a job's structure or because of architectural, transportation, communication, procedural, or attitudinal barriers.
Reasonable Accommodation
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management also states that:
Sometimes it is necessary for Federal hiring officials to make a reasonable workplace accommodation for a person with a disability, if requested and appropriate (unless so doing will result in undue hardship to the agencies). Reasonable accommodation can apply to the duties of the job, and/or where and how job tasks are performed. The accommodation should make it easier for the employee to successfully perform the duties of the position. Examples of reasonable accommodations include providing interpreters, readers, or other personal assistance; modifying job duties; restructuring work sites; providing flexible work schedules or work sites; and providing accessible technology or other workplace adaptive equipment.
Disability groups are claiming that such procedures, although mandated on the federal level, simply are not followed. Data has been widely shared with the public-at-large (including in previous publications of the Hall Institute of Public Policy) indicating that federal civil rights mandates are not enforced. Consequently, people with disabilities will continue to be noticeably underrepresented in the workplace.
It will be interesting to see how the demands of the NCIL will eventually play out with Congressman Waxman, his Committee, and his staff. Will Waxman hold a hearing or will the Committee wait for the issue to be forgotten?
An issue that impacts the New Jersey Workforce, including potential employees with disabilities, as well as workers across the nation, has risen to a heated debate between a social service organization and a Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
Congressman Henry Waxman is the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Recently, he has been besieged by members of the disability community regarding the failure of the federal government to hire more people with disabilities. Furthermore, it has been suggested that during economic downturns, workers with disabilities are the first to be let go.
The obvious concern is that if the federal government, as the agency that has mandated worker protections for people with disabilities, and is charged with the responsibility to enforce those rights, cannot live up to legal standards, what hope will people with disabilities have in the workplace?
In a letter to Waxman, the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) expressed concern about the lack of oversight in the hiring practices of federal agencies regarding potential employees with disabilities. According to the NCIL:
NCIL members remain extremely concerned that in a workforce of 2.6 million federal employees, less than one percent are people with “targeted” disabilities. NCIL does not accept this data as anything close to what we might describe as successful employment statistics for the United States. If the federal government were to carry out the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act and hire qualified people with disabilities, it could serve as a model employer to states and private sectors and help end decades of stagnant employment rates, which perpetuate painful economic consequences for people with disabilities.
The NCIL has asked Waxman to hold a Committee hearing on the matter. It is the position of the NCIL that “our civil rights laws are undermined and devalued on an increasing basis”. Furthermore, the NCIL asserts:
that people with disabilities are the best experts on their own needs, that they have a crucial and valuable perspective to contribute to society, and are deserving of equal opportunity to decide how to live, work, and take part in their communities.
Certainly, as a Disability Policy Specialist, I have pointed out that New Jerseyans with disabilities are treated as second class citizens, ostracized from the workplace, regardless of their level of education, training, or professional expertise.
According to Congressman Waxman’s point man on the Oversight Committee, Daniel Davis, the Congressman and Committee staff are gathering information in an effort to assess the problem. Davis has pointed out that there is a need for demographic data that addresses whether potential employees with disabilities are given an opportunity with federal agencies. As the Committee staffer who is charged with the responsibility to investigate this issue, Davis is also quick to suggest that little should be said by Waxman or staff members until a thorough assessment of the problem has been completed.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 791), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in Federal employment and requires the Federal Government to engage in affirmative action for people with disabilities. The law:
Requires Federal employers not to discriminate against qualified job applicants or employees with disabilities. Persons with disabilities should be employed in all grade levels and occupational series commensurate with their qualifications. Federal employers should ensure that their policies do not unnecessarily exclude or limit persons with disabilities because of a job's structure or because of architectural, transportation, communication, procedural, or attitudinal barriers.
Reasonable Accommodation
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management also states that:
Sometimes it is necessary for Federal hiring officials to make a reasonable workplace accommodation for a person with a disability, if requested and appropriate (unless so doing will result in undue hardship to the agencies). Reasonable accommodation can apply to the duties of the job, and/or where and how job tasks are performed. The accommodation should make it easier for the employee to successfully perform the duties of the position. Examples of reasonable accommodations include providing interpreters, readers, or other personal assistance; modifying job duties; restructuring work sites; providing flexible work schedules or work sites; and providing accessible technology or other workplace adaptive equipment.
Disability groups are claiming that such procedures, although mandated on the federal level, simply are not followed. Data has been widely shared with the public-at-large (including in previous publications of the Hall Institute of Public Policy) indicating that federal civil rights mandates are not enforced. Consequently, people with disabilities will continue to be noticeably underrepresented in the workplace.
It will be interesting to see how the demands of the NCIL will eventually play out with Congressman Waxman, his Committee, and his staff. Will Waxman hold a hearing or will the Committee wait for the issue to be forgotten?
Debating in America
BY MICHAEL P. RICCARDS
True to their Anglo-Saxon political heritage, the Americans developed a respect for strongly- argued parliamentary debates. They brought those intense habits to their own colonial legislatures. But on the stump, they rarely had candidates standing side by side campaigning for office. The most famous of these debates of course happened by accident. In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, the perennial loser of the Whig Party, Abraham Lincoln running on the new Republican Party ticket challenged the powerful but highly controversial incumbent, Stephen Douglas. Douglas was clearly favored, and the Republican bosses had to convince a very reluctant Lincoln to accept a proposal for a series of debates across that state. Lincoln was an accomplished lawyer and a very good public speaker, but he was not a tough bare knuckled brawler like Douglas was. He also hated racist rhetoric, which Douglas specialized in.
We like to think that Lincoln won the debates; in fact he had a very difficult time especially in the southern part of the state. He probably won the popular vote, but he lost the election in the state legislature, which in those days chose the winner in US Senate contests. Still, the visibility Lincoln received propelled him to other speaking engagements, especially in the east at Cooper Union in New York City. He said later that that one speech made him president.
In 1960, the new world of American television led to the proposal for debates between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. The studies conducted after the debates revealed that those who listened to them on the radio thought that Nixon, with his clear baritone voice, beat Kennedy substantially. But those who saw the debates on television, especially the first debate that set the tone, thought that Kennedy, who looked healthier and more handsome, clearly won. Kennedy also believed that the debates made him president, especially considering the closeness of the general election in 1960. So debates can have some effect, although Al Gore clearly bested George Bush on repeated occasions, and it did not make any difference. We have been so burdened by debates in both parties in this election cycle that it is hard to figure out who won, who lost, and how long the effects endured.
Two years ago, the Hall Institute of Public Policy in New Jersey’s founder, George E. Hall, announced the first virtual debate in the history of the state, and one of the very first in the nation, which appeared on the Institute’s website. In an off year election, the race for the US Senate for New Jersey pitted Robert Menendez and Robert Kean in an increasingly vitriolic race. As the summer progressed, the Institute passed questions on to the candidates (including third party candidates) and received informed responses to be added to the Institute’s website.
By the end of the summer the television and the ad campaigns were so ferocious and the personal attacks so distracting that political experts from newspapers and television could not get the candidates to focus on the national issues. The acerbic ads and debate, often more intense than informative, led some correspondents to the Institute’s website and to its virtual debate page in order to better see the views of both candidates and to use them for their own reporting.
Once again the Institute is focusing on the state’s current US Senate race, seeking to inform and enlighten, to further democracy. The Institute, having solicited the opinions of the presidential candidates on various issues, has produced something similar for the 2007 election. Our presidential election coverage can still be found on the website at http://hallnj.org/nj2008/. Also, our frequently updated senate virtual debate can be found at http://hallnj.org/virtualdebate/
True to their Anglo-Saxon political heritage, the Americans developed a respect for strongly- argued parliamentary debates. They brought those intense habits to their own colonial legislatures. But on the stump, they rarely had candidates standing side by side campaigning for office. The most famous of these debates of course happened by accident. In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, the perennial loser of the Whig Party, Abraham Lincoln running on the new Republican Party ticket challenged the powerful but highly controversial incumbent, Stephen Douglas. Douglas was clearly favored, and the Republican bosses had to convince a very reluctant Lincoln to accept a proposal for a series of debates across that state. Lincoln was an accomplished lawyer and a very good public speaker, but he was not a tough bare knuckled brawler like Douglas was. He also hated racist rhetoric, which Douglas specialized in.
We like to think that Lincoln won the debates; in fact he had a very difficult time especially in the southern part of the state. He probably won the popular vote, but he lost the election in the state legislature, which in those days chose the winner in US Senate contests. Still, the visibility Lincoln received propelled him to other speaking engagements, especially in the east at Cooper Union in New York City. He said later that that one speech made him president.
In 1960, the new world of American television led to the proposal for debates between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. The studies conducted after the debates revealed that those who listened to them on the radio thought that Nixon, with his clear baritone voice, beat Kennedy substantially. But those who saw the debates on television, especially the first debate that set the tone, thought that Kennedy, who looked healthier and more handsome, clearly won. Kennedy also believed that the debates made him president, especially considering the closeness of the general election in 1960. So debates can have some effect, although Al Gore clearly bested George Bush on repeated occasions, and it did not make any difference. We have been so burdened by debates in both parties in this election cycle that it is hard to figure out who won, who lost, and how long the effects endured.
Two years ago, the Hall Institute of Public Policy in New Jersey’s founder, George E. Hall, announced the first virtual debate in the history of the state, and one of the very first in the nation, which appeared on the Institute’s website. In an off year election, the race for the US Senate for New Jersey pitted Robert Menendez and Robert Kean in an increasingly vitriolic race. As the summer progressed, the Institute passed questions on to the candidates (including third party candidates) and received informed responses to be added to the Institute’s website.
By the end of the summer the television and the ad campaigns were so ferocious and the personal attacks so distracting that political experts from newspapers and television could not get the candidates to focus on the national issues. The acerbic ads and debate, often more intense than informative, led some correspondents to the Institute’s website and to its virtual debate page in order to better see the views of both candidates and to use them for their own reporting.
Once again the Institute is focusing on the state’s current US Senate race, seeking to inform and enlighten, to further democracy. The Institute, having solicited the opinions of the presidential candidates on various issues, has produced something similar for the 2007 election. Our presidential election coverage can still be found on the website at http://hallnj.org/nj2008/. Also, our frequently updated senate virtual debate can be found at http://hallnj.org/virtualdebate/
Just Winners and Losers
By Richard A. Lee
The popular image of Atlantic City – the extravagant casinos, the world-class restaurants and the top-flight entertainment – stands in sharp contrast to the bleak picture painted by Bruce Springsteen in his 1982 song that bears the city’s name.
Indeed, 30 years after Resorts International opened on the Atlantic City boardwalk, making New Jersey just the second state in the nation to offer legalized casino gambling, the image the city conveys remains one of contrasts. Within the 17.4 square mile confines of Atlantic City, there are people staying in high-priced hotel rooms and people living in poor, rundown housing. Likewise, there are casinos reaping millions of dollars in profits while the city’s median household income is less than $27,000. Even inside the casinos, there are high-rollers who can afford to wager (and lose) thousands of dollars, and there are busloads of senior citizens playing nickel slots in the hope of beating the odds and taking home a jackpot of a few hundred dollars.
As Springsteen puts it in Atlantic City, “Down here it's just winners and losers and don't get caught on the wrong side of that line.”
In many ways, the story of Atlantic City over the past 30 years is emblematic of what has happened across the nation during this same period. The spaces that separate Americans – the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, those who rule and those who are ruled -- have grown immensely. To understand just how wide these gaps have become, consider this: CEOs earn 262 times the salary of the average worker, bringing home more from one workday than an average worker earns in a year.
Just how did we arrive here? One major reason is the breadth of choices we have from television, radio and the internet today. Regardless of our ideologies, there is a television station, a radio program and an internet site for each of us – and we may never have to watch or listen to a dissenting voice.
That’s not a good thing – on any level – because there can be benefits to bridging gaps. Take music, for example. When John Sebastian performed at the War Memorial in Trenton in 2006, he noted how the music he played and wrote in the 1960s reflected a variety of influences because, unlike today radio stations tended to play music by artists with a myriad of musical styles. That showed in the work of pioneering entertainers such as Elvis Presley who melded gospel, country and blues into his music.
There is a broader lesson to be learned from these entertainers – and that is that there are good things can be accomplished when we bridge the gaps that separate us instead of sticking with what is familiar and what is comfortable.
This is especially important in 2008. Gaps in gender, race and income have become important factors in the presidential campaign. Other gaps – among them class and age – may supersede all the others.
Perhaps it is all as simple as singer/songwriter Arlo Guthrie put it during a May 9 concert at McCarter Theatre. There are just two types of people in this world, Arlo explained, those who give a damn and those who do not.
And it is because of those who do give damn that there is hope for bridging the gaps that exist across America in places such as Atlantic City. Or as Springsteen says, “Maybe everything that dies someday comes back.”
# # #
The popular image of Atlantic City – the extravagant casinos, the world-class restaurants and the top-flight entertainment – stands in sharp contrast to the bleak picture painted by Bruce Springsteen in his 1982 song that bears the city’s name.
Indeed, 30 years after Resorts International opened on the Atlantic City boardwalk, making New Jersey just the second state in the nation to offer legalized casino gambling, the image the city conveys remains one of contrasts. Within the 17.4 square mile confines of Atlantic City, there are people staying in high-priced hotel rooms and people living in poor, rundown housing. Likewise, there are casinos reaping millions of dollars in profits while the city’s median household income is less than $27,000. Even inside the casinos, there are high-rollers who can afford to wager (and lose) thousands of dollars, and there are busloads of senior citizens playing nickel slots in the hope of beating the odds and taking home a jackpot of a few hundred dollars.
As Springsteen puts it in Atlantic City, “Down here it's just winners and losers and don't get caught on the wrong side of that line.”
In many ways, the story of Atlantic City over the past 30 years is emblematic of what has happened across the nation during this same period. The spaces that separate Americans – the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, those who rule and those who are ruled -- have grown immensely. To understand just how wide these gaps have become, consider this: CEOs earn 262 times the salary of the average worker, bringing home more from one workday than an average worker earns in a year.
Just how did we arrive here? One major reason is the breadth of choices we have from television, radio and the internet today. Regardless of our ideologies, there is a television station, a radio program and an internet site for each of us – and we may never have to watch or listen to a dissenting voice.
That’s not a good thing – on any level – because there can be benefits to bridging gaps. Take music, for example. When John Sebastian performed at the War Memorial in Trenton in 2006, he noted how the music he played and wrote in the 1960s reflected a variety of influences because, unlike today radio stations tended to play music by artists with a myriad of musical styles. That showed in the work of pioneering entertainers such as Elvis Presley who melded gospel, country and blues into his music.
There is a broader lesson to be learned from these entertainers – and that is that there are good things can be accomplished when we bridge the gaps that separate us instead of sticking with what is familiar and what is comfortable.
This is especially important in 2008. Gaps in gender, race and income have become important factors in the presidential campaign. Other gaps – among them class and age – may supersede all the others.
Perhaps it is all as simple as singer/songwriter Arlo Guthrie put it during a May 9 concert at McCarter Theatre. There are just two types of people in this world, Arlo explained, those who give a damn and those who do not.
And it is because of those who do give damn that there is hope for bridging the gaps that exist across America in places such as Atlantic City. Or as Springsteen says, “Maybe everything that dies someday comes back.”
# # #
The GRC Becomes Its Own Worst Enemy
By Martin O’Shea
By carefully blending bureaucratic bungling with a liberal dose of typical government inefficiency, the state agency created in 2002 to enforce the then-brand spanking new Open Public Records Act, has become its own worst enemy.
In what might sound like a bad joke the Government Records Council (GRC) has not made some of its own invoices available to the public, although they should be available immediately upon request according to the law it is supposed to enforce. The GRC also hasn’t followed its own bylaws in regard to the release to the public of its annual budget, and in only one example of its inefficiency on the grandest of scales the GRC has been fiddling with one complaint since July of 2006 while the public was getting burned.
The complaint from 2006 alleged that a municipal utilities authority wrongfully withheld minutes of meetings. The authority twice ignored GRC orders to produce the minutes. A year after it received the complaint, the GRC asked a Mercer County Superior Court judge to enforce the two orders it had issued. Aided and abetted by the GRC, the utilities authority strung the court along for four more months until Nov. 8, 2007, when it produced the missing documents.
Given the missing minutes, the GRC wasted no time not releasing them. Prompted to act by a sarcastic e-mail, Catherine Starghill, executive director of the GRC, tried to explain the unseemly delay in an e-mail dated 22 months after the complaint was filed by saying, “There was an apparent breakdown in communications between myself and our Deputy Attorney General.” Some breakdown; 22 months.
“You should have copies within a week,” Starghill also said. That was in late April of this year and the records that were originally withheld from the public by the utilities authority still haven’t been pried loose from the state agency that is charged with enforcing a law that was intended to make government more transparent. Go figure.
Separate requests to the GRC for its projected budget for the fiscal year beginning in July and how much money it spent on fees for overnight delivery of documents during 2007 and the first quarter of this year resulted in answers that illustrate that the wheels have fallen off the council’s cart.
In her e-mail response to the request for her agency’s projected budget, Starghill tried to slough off the responsibility for the fact that it doesn’t exist and even hinted that the requestor may have been responsible because he didn’t raise the issue with her two predecessors.
The GRC’s bylaws provide for the introduction of its budget for the coming fiscal year during its last meeting of December of the previous year. In an e-mail response to the request for the budget, Starghill wrote, “I appreciate you pointing out the inconsistency in the GRC bylaws with regard to the announcement of the GRC's budget at the December meeting of each year. It is unfortunate that this inconsistency was never brought to the attention of my predecessors.” She added that she will recommend to council members changes to the bylaws, rather than get the next budget done by December of this year.
In response to another request, Starghill did provide 54 invoices from United Parcel Service and asked for an extension of time to furnish seven she didn’t make available. Given an extension, it turned out that Starghill didn’t need it. In another e-mail she flatly said the seven requested invoices “do not exist.”
Starghill, a lawyer, never addressed the point that the law she is supposed to enforce mandates that she should furnish invoices on demand. She also didn’t say a word about the fact that the state’s records retention policies mandate that the invoices from 2007 she says don’t exist should be retained for seven years by the agency she directs.
In addition to the GRC not obeying the law, it recently has issued some questionable opinions that prompted one attorney whose practice is comprised solely of open government issues to say, “I don’t want the GRC making decisions about anything. Not even about what to have for lunch.”
# # #
Martin O’Shea, of Stockholm, works on open government issues throughout the state.
By carefully blending bureaucratic bungling with a liberal dose of typical government inefficiency, the state agency created in 2002 to enforce the then-brand spanking new Open Public Records Act, has become its own worst enemy.
In what might sound like a bad joke the Government Records Council (GRC) has not made some of its own invoices available to the public, although they should be available immediately upon request according to the law it is supposed to enforce. The GRC also hasn’t followed its own bylaws in regard to the release to the public of its annual budget, and in only one example of its inefficiency on the grandest of scales the GRC has been fiddling with one complaint since July of 2006 while the public was getting burned.
The complaint from 2006 alleged that a municipal utilities authority wrongfully withheld minutes of meetings. The authority twice ignored GRC orders to produce the minutes. A year after it received the complaint, the GRC asked a Mercer County Superior Court judge to enforce the two orders it had issued. Aided and abetted by the GRC, the utilities authority strung the court along for four more months until Nov. 8, 2007, when it produced the missing documents.
Given the missing minutes, the GRC wasted no time not releasing them. Prompted to act by a sarcastic e-mail, Catherine Starghill, executive director of the GRC, tried to explain the unseemly delay in an e-mail dated 22 months after the complaint was filed by saying, “There was an apparent breakdown in communications between myself and our Deputy Attorney General.” Some breakdown; 22 months.
“You should have copies within a week,” Starghill also said. That was in late April of this year and the records that were originally withheld from the public by the utilities authority still haven’t been pried loose from the state agency that is charged with enforcing a law that was intended to make government more transparent. Go figure.
Separate requests to the GRC for its projected budget for the fiscal year beginning in July and how much money it spent on fees for overnight delivery of documents during 2007 and the first quarter of this year resulted in answers that illustrate that the wheels have fallen off the council’s cart.
In her e-mail response to the request for her agency’s projected budget, Starghill tried to slough off the responsibility for the fact that it doesn’t exist and even hinted that the requestor may have been responsible because he didn’t raise the issue with her two predecessors.
The GRC’s bylaws provide for the introduction of its budget for the coming fiscal year during its last meeting of December of the previous year. In an e-mail response to the request for the budget, Starghill wrote, “I appreciate you pointing out the inconsistency in the GRC bylaws with regard to the announcement of the GRC's budget at the December meeting of each year. It is unfortunate that this inconsistency was never brought to the attention of my predecessors.” She added that she will recommend to council members changes to the bylaws, rather than get the next budget done by December of this year.
In response to another request, Starghill did provide 54 invoices from United Parcel Service and asked for an extension of time to furnish seven she didn’t make available. Given an extension, it turned out that Starghill didn’t need it. In another e-mail she flatly said the seven requested invoices “do not exist.”
Starghill, a lawyer, never addressed the point that the law she is supposed to enforce mandates that she should furnish invoices on demand. She also didn’t say a word about the fact that the state’s records retention policies mandate that the invoices from 2007 she says don’t exist should be retained for seven years by the agency she directs.
In addition to the GRC not obeying the law, it recently has issued some questionable opinions that prompted one attorney whose practice is comprised solely of open government issues to say, “I don’t want the GRC making decisions about anything. Not even about what to have for lunch.”
# # #
Martin O’Shea, of Stockholm, works on open government issues throughout the state.
What kind of health care system do we get for our tax dollars?
By Nadeem Esmail
As the calendar flips to May, and the income tax deadline safely passed for another year, Canadians can at least take solace in all the wonderful things that government does with our tax dollars, like Canada’s much-vaunted universal health care, right?
Given that more than one half of the personal income taxes Canadians pay in aggregate are required to cover the cost of taxpayer-funded health care programs, surely we are getting value for all that money. Unfortunately, comparisons to other industrialized countries with universal health care systems clearly show that Canadian taxpayers aren’t getting their money’s worth when it comes to health care.
Canadians are funding the developed world’s third most expensive universal access health insurance system. Yes, you read that correctly. On an age-adjusted basis (older people require more care) in the most recent year for which comparable data are available, only Iceland and Switzerland spent more on their universal access health insurance systems than Canada as a share of GDP. The other 25 developed nations who maintain universal health insurance programs spent less than we did; as much as 38 per cent less as a percentage of GDP in the case of Japan.
With that level of expenditure, you might expect that Canadians receive world-class access to health care. The evidence finds this is not so.
Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2007, waiting lists for access to health care in Canada reached a new all-time high of 18.3 weeks from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 54 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997.
Canada’s waiting lists are also among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals in seven nations, six of whom maintain universal access health insurance programs, published in the journal Health Affairs found that:
• Canadians were more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, Germans, the Dutch, and New Zealanders but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom; and were least likely among the six nations to wait less than one month for elective surgery;
• Canadians were most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and were least likely to receive an appointment the same day or next day among the six universal access nations surveyed;
• Canadians were least likely to wait less than one hour and most likely to wait two hours or more for access to an emergency room among the six universal access nations surveyed.
That is hardly the sort of access you might expect from the developed world’s third most expensive universal access health insurance system. Seven other developed nations, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, maintain universal access health insurance programs that deliver access to health care without queues for treatment.
Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada. In a recent comparison of age-adjusted inventories of medical technologies, Canada ranked 13th of 24 nations for whom data was available in MRI machines per million population, 18th of 24 nations in CT scanners per million population, 7th of 17 in mammographs per million population, and tied for 2nd last among 20 nations in lithotripters per million population. Canada’s relatively high spending on health care is not resulting in quick access to care, nor is it leading to high tech health care services.
Governmental restrictions on medical training, along with a number of other policies affecting the practices of medical practitioners, have also taken their toll on Canadians’ access to care. Among 28 developed nations who maintain universal approaches to health insurance, a recent comparison found Canada ranked 24th in the age-adjusted number of physicians per thousand population. It should come as no surprise that Statistics Canada determined in 2003 that more than 1.2 million Canadians could not find a regular physician, while a recent estimate of the number of Canadians without a regular physician put the number somewhere around 5 million.
When all is said and done, the evidence makes it clear that Canadians are paying for a world-class health care system but are not receiving one. Shouldn’t we expect more from our tax dollars?
# # #
Nadeem Esmail is the Director of Health System Performance Studies and Manager of the Alberta Policy Research Centre at The Fraser Institute. His articles have appeared in newspapers across Canada and he has been a guest on numerous radio and TV programs across the country.
As the calendar flips to May, and the income tax deadline safely passed for another year, Canadians can at least take solace in all the wonderful things that government does with our tax dollars, like Canada’s much-vaunted universal health care, right?
Given that more than one half of the personal income taxes Canadians pay in aggregate are required to cover the cost of taxpayer-funded health care programs, surely we are getting value for all that money. Unfortunately, comparisons to other industrialized countries with universal health care systems clearly show that Canadian taxpayers aren’t getting their money’s worth when it comes to health care.
Canadians are funding the developed world’s third most expensive universal access health insurance system. Yes, you read that correctly. On an age-adjusted basis (older people require more care) in the most recent year for which comparable data are available, only Iceland and Switzerland spent more on their universal access health insurance systems than Canada as a share of GDP. The other 25 developed nations who maintain universal health insurance programs spent less than we did; as much as 38 per cent less as a percentage of GDP in the case of Japan.
With that level of expenditure, you might expect that Canadians receive world-class access to health care. The evidence finds this is not so.
Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2007, waiting lists for access to health care in Canada reached a new all-time high of 18.3 weeks from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 54 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997.
Canada’s waiting lists are also among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals in seven nations, six of whom maintain universal access health insurance programs, published in the journal Health Affairs found that:
• Canadians were more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, Germans, the Dutch, and New Zealanders but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom; and were least likely among the six nations to wait less than one month for elective surgery;
• Canadians were most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and were least likely to receive an appointment the same day or next day among the six universal access nations surveyed;
• Canadians were least likely to wait less than one hour and most likely to wait two hours or more for access to an emergency room among the six universal access nations surveyed.
That is hardly the sort of access you might expect from the developed world’s third most expensive universal access health insurance system. Seven other developed nations, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, maintain universal access health insurance programs that deliver access to health care without queues for treatment.
Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada. In a recent comparison of age-adjusted inventories of medical technologies, Canada ranked 13th of 24 nations for whom data was available in MRI machines per million population, 18th of 24 nations in CT scanners per million population, 7th of 17 in mammographs per million population, and tied for 2nd last among 20 nations in lithotripters per million population. Canada’s relatively high spending on health care is not resulting in quick access to care, nor is it leading to high tech health care services.
Governmental restrictions on medical training, along with a number of other policies affecting the practices of medical practitioners, have also taken their toll on Canadians’ access to care. Among 28 developed nations who maintain universal approaches to health insurance, a recent comparison found Canada ranked 24th in the age-adjusted number of physicians per thousand population. It should come as no surprise that Statistics Canada determined in 2003 that more than 1.2 million Canadians could not find a regular physician, while a recent estimate of the number of Canadians without a regular physician put the number somewhere around 5 million.
When all is said and done, the evidence makes it clear that Canadians are paying for a world-class health care system but are not receiving one. Shouldn’t we expect more from our tax dollars?
# # #
Nadeem Esmail is the Director of Health System Performance Studies and Manager of the Alberta Policy Research Centre at The Fraser Institute. His articles have appeared in newspapers across Canada and he has been a guest on numerous radio and TV programs across the country.
“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall”
By Jarrett E. Chapin
What makes a good wall? Electrified metal mesh? Barbed wire? Security cameras? $2 billion? What makes a good neighbor? A wall? These are questions that some Americans are asking other Americans about the growing U.S.-Mexican border wall which, AP reports, will crawl an additional “700 miles of the border by the end of the year.” On that wall question, build or don’t build, AP reports that “Americans are split pretty much the same way” like Mexico being split from the U.S.—by a wall. How is it though that a wall, only 10 or 20-feet-high, has divided neighbors who otherwise might coexist amicably? Don’t walls make good neighbors?
For some Americans, it is the wall itself rather than what it represents that offends them. A border state reporter for the Texas Observer writes that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been building through the backyards of various border state residents, while, so the reporter suggests, it has avoided building through property owned by private industry and the affiliates of private contractors from Boeing that the DHS has hired for the project. That the public is asking “why?” and opining “don’t build” matters little to DHS officials who have pushed forward despite public opinion. This boldness from the DHS has drawn concerned speculation from observers like the Mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, Chad Foster who thinks that the new department operates like a “government inside a government.” True, the DHS has been relatively unresponsive to questions about the border wall construction and seems to have valued the interests of industry over life and liberty. It has attacked these latter two virtues from under the aegis of national security, currently at code yellow.
Also among American anti-wall group members are small business people and others who rely on illegal immigration for cheap labor and to fill positions which no American would otherwise fill. Many of these middle class Americans have bought themselves the American dream by essentially selling it to illegal immigrants along with substandard pay, or no pay at all, unsafe working conditions, and racial discrimination.
Pro-wall advocates cite various reasons for American immurement. Among those reasons are those human rights concerns just named in addition to concerns about drug trafficking and black market industries like prostitution, crime, and again, illegal labor. However, the strongest argument for a wall is an economic argument which actually mirrors the arguments of small business owners. Specifically, as anti-immurement Americans suggest that illegal immigrants only fill jobs that Americans normally would not, an opponent might point to research conducted by Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, as does Steven Malanga in City Journal, which finds that, on the contrary, low-wage workers take jobs away from Americans that Americans would otherwise fill: “low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born high school dropout by some 8 percent, or more than $1,200 a year.” Furthermore, pro-wall advocates might point to another economic argument suggesting that immigration leans heavily on the American economy as immigrants use public services, though being illegal and practically invisible to taxation, they use but do not pay into publicly funded services.
At this point it is necessary to turn to an important aspect of this complex debate to which I have so far given superficial summary. The immigration debate is vast, and though every argument for or against immigration itself might be enlisted for the purpose of debating for or against a U.S.-Mexican border wall, many proponents and opponents who espouse the above arguments for or against immigration hold different views about American immurement.
Many pro-immigration Americans prefer an alternate means for controlling immigration such as the recent movement toward immigrant registration or licensing. The RAND corporation begins its 1997 introduction to Immigration in a Changing Economy by attributing a good share of the current (or current in 1997) immigration situation to policy changes in the 1960’s such as the termination of the agricultural guest worker program in 1964 which had the effect of changing a “predominantly legal and seasonal flow of Mexican immigrants into a predominantly illegal, permanent flow.” Thus, possible reform for the present might require a re-establishment of this kind of legislation. President Bush, for one, has supported such a strategy in the past, though that fact probably does little to increase its attractiveness.
RAND also mentions the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which endeavored to extend American hospitality to non-white peoples in third world nations. To that end, the legislation was successful. Yet, as it also deregulated the number of family visas administered for the purpose of reunifying U.S. naturalized families, the ultimate effect of the legislation, coupled with the termination of the guest worker program, was the significant increase of new immigration and the innovation of family reunification as a new means of attaining American citizenship.
Along this line, some critics have proposed other kinds of policy reform as an alternative to immurement, specifically, legislation which removes the incentives for both illegal immigrants and those in the U.S. who would employ them. Indeed, some critics suggest that illegal immigration is not simply owing to the capacity of immigrants to illegally traverse a national boundary, but rather to the strong incentives that induce them to do so. These incentives are none other than money and hope, of which there must be some shortage in Mexico. Removing these would require that the incentives for U.S. employers, namely, the ability to purchase immigrant labor at extremely low prices, be removed as well. No mere wall of cement and concrete will accomplish this as immigrants will always find other ways of circumvention.
Underscoring this idea, the Christian Science Monitor quotes Ken Rosevear, president of the Chamber of Commerce in the border town of Yuma, Arizona who suggests that heavier walls and security in one spot of the 2,000 mile boundary may only divert human and drug traffic to other, more remote areas where immigrants and drugs may cross freely over—and under—the border. Furthermore, closing off one route may also cause desperation in smugglers and traffickers who may then turn to a more violent means of delivering their cargo. In the interview, Rosevear suggested that recent violence against border patrol officers might be causally connected to increased border fortification at particular crossing points. In short, immurement would seem to be an expensive and ineffective means of controlling the flow of illegal immigration.
Walls are funny things; we build them as a means of walling in or walling out and, importantly, they are built by and between neighbors. I think that’s the most important thing about walls. It is strange to think about how the U.S.-Mexican border wall has split Americans; though it is only that wall that will split the U.S. from Mexico. Wall or no, we must assume that illegal immigration will continue. There is, after all, money to be made for immigrants and small business owners in the low-wage labor exchange—and for Boeing contractors in the nascent immurement industry.
Of the immigration incentives shared between the U.S. and Mexico, those on the Mexican side of the fence are the least likely to go away. And anyway, it is most convenient for the U.S. to work on this problem from its own side of the wall. Perhaps a guest worker program would work well for both parties concerned. There is, after all, some historical evidence to support such a policy. Also, the establishment of greater penalties for U.S. employers who hire illegal immigrants may hurt both employers and immigrants; however, in the long run, it may make us better neighbors.
What makes a good wall? Electrified metal mesh? Barbed wire? Security cameras? $2 billion? What makes a good neighbor? A wall? These are questions that some Americans are asking other Americans about the growing U.S.-Mexican border wall which, AP reports, will crawl an additional “700 miles of the border by the end of the year.” On that wall question, build or don’t build, AP reports that “Americans are split pretty much the same way” like Mexico being split from the U.S.—by a wall. How is it though that a wall, only 10 or 20-feet-high, has divided neighbors who otherwise might coexist amicably? Don’t walls make good neighbors?
For some Americans, it is the wall itself rather than what it represents that offends them. A border state reporter for the Texas Observer writes that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been building through the backyards of various border state residents, while, so the reporter suggests, it has avoided building through property owned by private industry and the affiliates of private contractors from Boeing that the DHS has hired for the project. That the public is asking “why?” and opining “don’t build” matters little to DHS officials who have pushed forward despite public opinion. This boldness from the DHS has drawn concerned speculation from observers like the Mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, Chad Foster who thinks that the new department operates like a “government inside a government.” True, the DHS has been relatively unresponsive to questions about the border wall construction and seems to have valued the interests of industry over life and liberty. It has attacked these latter two virtues from under the aegis of national security, currently at code yellow.
Also among American anti-wall group members are small business people and others who rely on illegal immigration for cheap labor and to fill positions which no American would otherwise fill. Many of these middle class Americans have bought themselves the American dream by essentially selling it to illegal immigrants along with substandard pay, or no pay at all, unsafe working conditions, and racial discrimination.
Pro-wall advocates cite various reasons for American immurement. Among those reasons are those human rights concerns just named in addition to concerns about drug trafficking and black market industries like prostitution, crime, and again, illegal labor. However, the strongest argument for a wall is an economic argument which actually mirrors the arguments of small business owners. Specifically, as anti-immurement Americans suggest that illegal immigrants only fill jobs that Americans normally would not, an opponent might point to research conducted by Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, as does Steven Malanga in City Journal, which finds that, on the contrary, low-wage workers take jobs away from Americans that Americans would otherwise fill: “low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born high school dropout by some 8 percent, or more than $1,200 a year.” Furthermore, pro-wall advocates might point to another economic argument suggesting that immigration leans heavily on the American economy as immigrants use public services, though being illegal and practically invisible to taxation, they use but do not pay into publicly funded services.
At this point it is necessary to turn to an important aspect of this complex debate to which I have so far given superficial summary. The immigration debate is vast, and though every argument for or against immigration itself might be enlisted for the purpose of debating for or against a U.S.-Mexican border wall, many proponents and opponents who espouse the above arguments for or against immigration hold different views about American immurement.
Many pro-immigration Americans prefer an alternate means for controlling immigration such as the recent movement toward immigrant registration or licensing. The RAND corporation begins its 1997 introduction to Immigration in a Changing Economy by attributing a good share of the current (or current in 1997) immigration situation to policy changes in the 1960’s such as the termination of the agricultural guest worker program in 1964 which had the effect of changing a “predominantly legal and seasonal flow of Mexican immigrants into a predominantly illegal, permanent flow.” Thus, possible reform for the present might require a re-establishment of this kind of legislation. President Bush, for one, has supported such a strategy in the past, though that fact probably does little to increase its attractiveness.
RAND also mentions the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which endeavored to extend American hospitality to non-white peoples in third world nations. To that end, the legislation was successful. Yet, as it also deregulated the number of family visas administered for the purpose of reunifying U.S. naturalized families, the ultimate effect of the legislation, coupled with the termination of the guest worker program, was the significant increase of new immigration and the innovation of family reunification as a new means of attaining American citizenship.
Along this line, some critics have proposed other kinds of policy reform as an alternative to immurement, specifically, legislation which removes the incentives for both illegal immigrants and those in the U.S. who would employ them. Indeed, some critics suggest that illegal immigration is not simply owing to the capacity of immigrants to illegally traverse a national boundary, but rather to the strong incentives that induce them to do so. These incentives are none other than money and hope, of which there must be some shortage in Mexico. Removing these would require that the incentives for U.S. employers, namely, the ability to purchase immigrant labor at extremely low prices, be removed as well. No mere wall of cement and concrete will accomplish this as immigrants will always find other ways of circumvention.
Underscoring this idea, the Christian Science Monitor quotes Ken Rosevear, president of the Chamber of Commerce in the border town of Yuma, Arizona who suggests that heavier walls and security in one spot of the 2,000 mile boundary may only divert human and drug traffic to other, more remote areas where immigrants and drugs may cross freely over—and under—the border. Furthermore, closing off one route may also cause desperation in smugglers and traffickers who may then turn to a more violent means of delivering their cargo. In the interview, Rosevear suggested that recent violence against border patrol officers might be causally connected to increased border fortification at particular crossing points. In short, immurement would seem to be an expensive and ineffective means of controlling the flow of illegal immigration.
Walls are funny things; we build them as a means of walling in or walling out and, importantly, they are built by and between neighbors. I think that’s the most important thing about walls. It is strange to think about how the U.S.-Mexican border wall has split Americans; though it is only that wall that will split the U.S. from Mexico. Wall or no, we must assume that illegal immigration will continue. There is, after all, money to be made for immigrants and small business owners in the low-wage labor exchange—and for Boeing contractors in the nascent immurement industry.
Of the immigration incentives shared between the U.S. and Mexico, those on the Mexican side of the fence are the least likely to go away. And anyway, it is most convenient for the U.S. to work on this problem from its own side of the wall. Perhaps a guest worker program would work well for both parties concerned. There is, after all, some historical evidence to support such a policy. Also, the establishment of greater penalties for U.S. employers who hire illegal immigrants may hurt both employers and immigrants; however, in the long run, it may make us better neighbors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
