The Governor has indicated that he will unveil 1 new reform initiative a week for the next 4 weeks. Initiative 1 -- ethics reform. As part of the Governor's plan, he would seek to stop people from collecting 2 public paychecks. So, for example, a teacher, fireman or policeman cannot collect a second public salary if that public employee is elected to public office.
Thus, we have an interesting opportunity to gain insight into what the Governor does and does not consider ethical. The Governor's probable concern is cronyism -- finding elected officials second jobs on the public dime so that they can afford to stay in office and vote as their patron would have them vote. For the record, the logic of extending that concern to public employees who win elections escapes me.
What I see is that this Governor is committed to using every power available to him to further his agenda. The Governor wants to weaken the control public employees have over state government. Since expanding a legitimate ethics concern to also limit the number of public officials running for office furthers that goal, the Governor sees no ethical conflict in doing so.
Simply put, the Governor believes that enlightened self-interest is the best route to the greater good. The world works best when everyone pursues their self-interest to the greatest extent possible, even to the detriment of others. Or, simply put, what's good for Chris Christie is good for the State.
And I believe that elected officials should put the public interest above self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. What's good for the State is good for Chris Christie.
So the Governor's efforts to minimize the ability of public employees to oppose him is perfectly ethical in his view. And to me it is unethical because it is in the interest of the State to have the most qualified people in office, even if those qualified people didn't vote for Chris Christie.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
It's Official: Change Is Coming To Newark
Governor Christie officially let Newark Superintendant of Schools Clifford Janey know that Janey's 3 year contract will not be renewed when it expires next year. In a surprising show of generosity, the Governor is not claiming that this is a termination for cause. Yet.
The Newark school system is directly under the control of the Governor, giving the Governor a unique chance to implement reform. His intention is to make Newark a test case for his education policies and priorities, as part of his on-going effort to build his national profile. And the writing is on the wall, as the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (and not the NJEA), has already gone on record as being open to merit pay and to changes in tenure and seniority.
The next step will be to name Janey's replacement. And here the politics will get interesting. Christie will want the support of Newark mayor Cory Booker behind the next superintendant. But there may be some bad blood there, as Booker supported Christie's call for a property tax constitutional amendment just before Christie abandoned that plan. There is a difference between being a steamroller and being a dealmaker, and it may be that the Governor is about to get schooled
If nothing else, it should be educational to watch two local politicians with national reputations come together for the sake of the kids.
The Newark school system is directly under the control of the Governor, giving the Governor a unique chance to implement reform. His intention is to make Newark a test case for his education policies and priorities, as part of his on-going effort to build his national profile. And the writing is on the wall, as the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (and not the NJEA), has already gone on record as being open to merit pay and to changes in tenure and seniority.
The next step will be to name Janey's replacement. And here the politics will get interesting. Christie will want the support of Newark mayor Cory Booker behind the next superintendant. But there may be some bad blood there, as Booker supported Christie's call for a property tax constitutional amendment just before Christie abandoned that plan. There is a difference between being a steamroller and being a dealmaker, and it may be that the Governor is about to get schooled
If nothing else, it should be educational to watch two local politicians with national reputations come together for the sake of the kids.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The True Lesson From The Race To The Top
By now, everyone in the State has heard that New Jersey is not getting $400 million in Federal education aid and that Bret Schundler got thrown under the school bus. I don't quite understand what all the hubbub is about -- the Governor's decision not to cut a deal wiht the NJEA was what cost us the money. All the rest is political theater, and not very good theater at that. It does make me wonder whether or not the Governor's smearing of Schundler will cost him any points on the far right -- the folks Schundler was intended to help bring into the fold.
The true story from last week is that Washington, D.C. did qualify for $75 million in Race To The Top funds. The District's implementation of a teacher evaluation system that takes test scores into account was cited as one factor that helped the District into the winners' circle. In fact, test scores accounted for 50% of a teacher's evaluation.
This should be cause for great celebration on the right. District Chancellor Michelle Rhee is a favorite of proponents of charter schools, school vouchers and teacher union busting. The agreement between the district and the Washington Teachers Union is being hailed by some as an example of the direction school districts must take in their union negotiations.
The problem is that the District's teacher evalution process has proven to be somewhat controversial. According to the WTU and the American Federation of Teachers, Chancellor Rhee rushed her evaluation system into use before it was fully tested. The WTU is considering legal action pertaining to the firing of 6% of the District's teachers as a result of the allegedly flawed evaluations.
The issue is whether or not using one year's test scores to fire a teacher is an unfair labor practice. And there is data which strongly suggests that teacher evaluations which only take one year's work into account are flawed. The Wall Street Journal reports that "a large proportion of teachers who rate highly one year fall to the bottom of the charts the next year. For example, in a group of elementary-school teachers who ranked in the top 20% in five Florida counties early last decade, more than three in five didn't stay in the top quintile the following year, according to a study published last year in the journal Education Finance and Policy."
Problems with using test scores to evaluate teachers are well known. Students aren't always assigned to teachers randomly. A teacher who gets a higher percentage of lower scoring students due to that teachers' ability to help those students will be rewarded with a lower evaluation score. Elementary school teachers may only have 15 or 20 students, which is a very small pool on which to judge them. And while using test scores from multiple years helps, it does not solve the problem entirely. The Wall Street Journal cites a report from the Department of Education which shows that, even under an evaluation system using three years of data, one in four teachers will be misclassified.
Awareness of the dangers in rushing teacher evaluation systems into practice cuts across the political spectrum. The WSJ quoutes Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, as saying that "[b]ecause education tends to have this moral-crusade element . . . we tend to rush to use things before they are refined or really fully baked."
The Obama administration has been known to take the position that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. But at least with respect to teacher evaluations, let's hope that the majority of school districts out there recognize that there is no point to an evaluation process that weeds out the good teachers inadvertently.
The true story from last week is that Washington, D.C. did qualify for $75 million in Race To The Top funds. The District's implementation of a teacher evaluation system that takes test scores into account was cited as one factor that helped the District into the winners' circle. In fact, test scores accounted for 50% of a teacher's evaluation.
This should be cause for great celebration on the right. District Chancellor Michelle Rhee is a favorite of proponents of charter schools, school vouchers and teacher union busting. The agreement between the district and the Washington Teachers Union is being hailed by some as an example of the direction school districts must take in their union negotiations.
The problem is that the District's teacher evalution process has proven to be somewhat controversial. According to the WTU and the American Federation of Teachers, Chancellor Rhee rushed her evaluation system into use before it was fully tested. The WTU is considering legal action pertaining to the firing of 6% of the District's teachers as a result of the allegedly flawed evaluations.
The issue is whether or not using one year's test scores to fire a teacher is an unfair labor practice. And there is data which strongly suggests that teacher evaluations which only take one year's work into account are flawed. The Wall Street Journal reports that "a large proportion of teachers who rate highly one year fall to the bottom of the charts the next year. For example, in a group of elementary-school teachers who ranked in the top 20% in five Florida counties early last decade, more than three in five didn't stay in the top quintile the following year, according to a study published last year in the journal Education Finance and Policy."
Problems with using test scores to evaluate teachers are well known. Students aren't always assigned to teachers randomly. A teacher who gets a higher percentage of lower scoring students due to that teachers' ability to help those students will be rewarded with a lower evaluation score. Elementary school teachers may only have 15 or 20 students, which is a very small pool on which to judge them. And while using test scores from multiple years helps, it does not solve the problem entirely. The Wall Street Journal cites a report from the Department of Education which shows that, even under an evaluation system using three years of data, one in four teachers will be misclassified.
Awareness of the dangers in rushing teacher evaluation systems into practice cuts across the political spectrum. The WSJ quoutes Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, as saying that "[b]ecause education tends to have this moral-crusade element . . . we tend to rush to use things before they are refined or really fully baked."
The Obama administration has been known to take the position that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. But at least with respect to teacher evaluations, let's hope that the majority of school districts out there recognize that there is no point to an evaluation process that weeds out the good teachers inadvertently.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Shadow Republican National Convention: The Republican Governors Association
According to the good folks at Inside Washington and Politico, Haley Barbour is the most powerful Republican in the country right now. That's because, as the head of the Republican Governors Association, Barbour has $40 million to spend on 2010 elections.
It's no secret that Michael Steele is having troubles at the Republican National Convention. Steele has recently taken remarkably progressive positions on gay marriage and abortion. Steele has also been charging speaking fees, which is highly unusual for someone his position; and he recently released a book without coordinating that release with Congressional Republicans. At least partially as a result, Steele and the RNC have been having trouble raising money.
Enter Haley Barbour, Mississippi Governor and former RNC Chairman. A Southern conservative and a friend of big oil, and an outspoken critic of Michael Steele, Barbour has been raising money hand over fist. And the message he's using to raise money? The Republican comeback started in Virginia and New Jersey.
In fact, just last week the RGA announced that it will be releasing a 20+ minute documentary about Chris Christie's successful gubernatorial campaign and his first 8 months in office.
So, in effect,we are seeing a schism in the Republican party at the national level. On the one hand, Michael Steele is trying to broaden the appeal of the party by moving away from the social conservative base and attracting independents and moderates. On the other hand, Haley Barbour is pulling the party's traditional, socially conservative Southern base around him.
And Barbour is using Chris Christie as bait.
Make no mistake -- to paraphrase the RGA, the battle starts here in New Jersey with Chris Christie.
It's no secret that Michael Steele is having troubles at the Republican National Convention. Steele has recently taken remarkably progressive positions on gay marriage and abortion. Steele has also been charging speaking fees, which is highly unusual for someone his position; and he recently released a book without coordinating that release with Congressional Republicans. At least partially as a result, Steele and the RNC have been having trouble raising money.
Enter Haley Barbour, Mississippi Governor and former RNC Chairman. A Southern conservative and a friend of big oil, and an outspoken critic of Michael Steele, Barbour has been raising money hand over fist. And the message he's using to raise money? The Republican comeback started in Virginia and New Jersey.
In fact, just last week the RGA announced that it will be releasing a 20+ minute documentary about Chris Christie's successful gubernatorial campaign and his first 8 months in office.
So, in effect,we are seeing a schism in the Republican party at the national level. On the one hand, Michael Steele is trying to broaden the appeal of the party by moving away from the social conservative base and attracting independents and moderates. On the other hand, Haley Barbour is pulling the party's traditional, socially conservative Southern base around him.
And Barbour is using Chris Christie as bait.
Make no mistake -- to paraphrase the RGA, the battle starts here in New Jersey with Chris Christie.
The Cost Of Free Speech
I frequently like to compare events in Minnesota with events in New Jersey, since the two states are both blue states with red governors.
My most recent comparison pertains to the right's efforts to exploit the corporate free speech rights recently delineated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FCC. These efforts are taking the form of independent organizations which solicit corporate donations in support of issues and/ or candidates. Frequently, these organizations are headed by current or former members of a particular organization.
For example, former George W. Bush White House Deputy Secretary of Labor Steven Law is president of a tax exempt group named American Crossroads. Advisors to this group include Karl Rove, former George W. Bush chief of staff and campaign advisor, and Ed Gillespie, Republican National Convention chairman during Bush's presidency.
In New Jersey, since the election of Chris Christie, a new tax exempt organization has started collecting and spending money in support of the Governor's agenda -- Reform Jersey Now. There is a high degree of crossover between the Christie administration and this political advocacy organization. For example, the treasurer of Christie's gubernatorial campaign, John Gravino, is also the treasurer of Reform Jersey Now. Former Christie campaign advisor and current Christie strategist Mike DuHaime is a spokesman for the group. Former Republican Governors Christie Todd Whitman and Donald DiFrancesco are advisors to the group, as is Christie advisor Bill Palatucci. Governor Christie himself was the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by Reform Jersey Now and organized by Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot.
While it's clear that there is significant overlap among the State Republican party, the Christie administration and Reform Jersey Now, what is not clear is the identity of the donors to the group. State law does not require such disclosure. In the face of pressure from Democrats and from the press, DuHaime has promised to make such disclosure by the end of the year.
For its part, Minnesota has MN Forward, a pro-business political action committee managed by Brian McClung. McClung stepped down from his position as Minnesota Governor Pawlenty's spokesman to run the group. MN Forward claims to be a bi-partisan organization supporting pro-business candidates. It is not a tax exempt organization.
One big difference between Reform Jersey Now and MN Forward is that, under Minnesota law, MN Forward is required to disclose its donors. Thus, it is public knowledge that MN Forward's single largest contributor is Target, which contributed $150,000. Electronics retailer Best Buy donated $100,000.
And when MN Forward gave money to gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, Target found itself in an uncomfortable position. Emmer is pro-business, but he is also adamantly against gay marriage and pro-life. Target's customer base is decidedly progressive.
When news of Target's connection to Emmer became public, Target found its Minnesota headquarters to be the focus of demonstrations. A planned expansion into the San Francisco area may now be in jeopardy.
Target and Best Buy are now in negotiation with the Human Rights Campaign about making donations to progressive candidates, to offset their donations to MN Forward. Which means the companies may find themselves targeted by activists on the right.
All of which has brought a fresh layer of interest in the donors of Reform Jersey Now. It can't be long before State Senator Loretta Weinberg makes the connection between Governor Christie's veto of funding for women's health programs and Reform Jersey Now supporter Ken Langone, who was made a Knight of St. Gregory by Pope Benedict XVI. Or the NJEA and other public employee unions make the connection between Langone and Christie's anti-union agenda. All of which could make life interesting for New York University and Bucknell University, both recipients of largess from alumna Langone. Students tend to be pro-choice and pro-union, and NYU and Bucknell students may well be interested in the political positions of their schools' benefactor.
If DuHaime is good to his word and Reform Jersey Now donors are disclosed by the end of the year, there may be many companies in New Jersey who get to find out the true cost of free speech.
My most recent comparison pertains to the right's efforts to exploit the corporate free speech rights recently delineated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FCC. These efforts are taking the form of independent organizations which solicit corporate donations in support of issues and/ or candidates. Frequently, these organizations are headed by current or former members of a particular organization.
For example, former George W. Bush White House Deputy Secretary of Labor Steven Law is president of a tax exempt group named American Crossroads. Advisors to this group include Karl Rove, former George W. Bush chief of staff and campaign advisor, and Ed Gillespie, Republican National Convention chairman during Bush's presidency.
In New Jersey, since the election of Chris Christie, a new tax exempt organization has started collecting and spending money in support of the Governor's agenda -- Reform Jersey Now. There is a high degree of crossover between the Christie administration and this political advocacy organization. For example, the treasurer of Christie's gubernatorial campaign, John Gravino, is also the treasurer of Reform Jersey Now. Former Christie campaign advisor and current Christie strategist Mike DuHaime is a spokesman for the group. Former Republican Governors Christie Todd Whitman and Donald DiFrancesco are advisors to the group, as is Christie advisor Bill Palatucci. Governor Christie himself was the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by Reform Jersey Now and organized by Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot.
While it's clear that there is significant overlap among the State Republican party, the Christie administration and Reform Jersey Now, what is not clear is the identity of the donors to the group. State law does not require such disclosure. In the face of pressure from Democrats and from the press, DuHaime has promised to make such disclosure by the end of the year.
For its part, Minnesota has MN Forward, a pro-business political action committee managed by Brian McClung. McClung stepped down from his position as Minnesota Governor Pawlenty's spokesman to run the group. MN Forward claims to be a bi-partisan organization supporting pro-business candidates. It is not a tax exempt organization.
One big difference between Reform Jersey Now and MN Forward is that, under Minnesota law, MN Forward is required to disclose its donors. Thus, it is public knowledge that MN Forward's single largest contributor is Target, which contributed $150,000. Electronics retailer Best Buy donated $100,000.
And when MN Forward gave money to gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, Target found itself in an uncomfortable position. Emmer is pro-business, but he is also adamantly against gay marriage and pro-life. Target's customer base is decidedly progressive.
When news of Target's connection to Emmer became public, Target found its Minnesota headquarters to be the focus of demonstrations. A planned expansion into the San Francisco area may now be in jeopardy.
Target and Best Buy are now in negotiation with the Human Rights Campaign about making donations to progressive candidates, to offset their donations to MN Forward. Which means the companies may find themselves targeted by activists on the right.
All of which has brought a fresh layer of interest in the donors of Reform Jersey Now. It can't be long before State Senator Loretta Weinberg makes the connection between Governor Christie's veto of funding for women's health programs and Reform Jersey Now supporter Ken Langone, who was made a Knight of St. Gregory by Pope Benedict XVI. Or the NJEA and other public employee unions make the connection between Langone and Christie's anti-union agenda. All of which could make life interesting for New York University and Bucknell University, both recipients of largess from alumna Langone. Students tend to be pro-choice and pro-union, and NYU and Bucknell students may well be interested in the political positions of their schools' benefactor.
If DuHaime is good to his word and Reform Jersey Now donors are disclosed by the end of the year, there may be many companies in New Jersey who get to find out the true cost of free speech.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
A Quick Note On $175,000
I keep hearing that no one in the state should make more than the Governor, and that the Governor only makes $175,000 a year.
But the Governor also gets to live in Drumthwacket, the Governor's mansion, on the taxpayers' dime. And unless I miss my guess, that mansion comes with a staff, that includes meal preparation. And I'm pretty sure the Governor gets a car and driver on the taxpayers' dime.
So unless and until someone calculates the value of all those non-salary benefits that the Governor gets, I'm done with discussion of the $175,000 cap.
But the Governor also gets to live in Drumthwacket, the Governor's mansion, on the taxpayers' dime. And unless I miss my guess, that mansion comes with a staff, that includes meal preparation. And I'm pretty sure the Governor gets a car and driver on the taxpayers' dime.
So unless and until someone calculates the value of all those non-salary benefits that the Governor gets, I'm done with discussion of the $175,000 cap.
Friday, August 13, 2010
It's The Implementation, Stupid: Lessons from the D.C. School District
As I’ve discussed before, I think it’s interesting to check in on the job Michelle Rhee is doing as Schools Chancellor in Washington D.C. Ms Rhee, who succeeded current Newark, NJ Superintendent Clifford Janey, is a darling of the Wall Street Journal and the far right. While Mr. Janey is seen as the type of “careerist” who is ruining public education, Ms. Rhee is seen as a teacher union buster and school choice advocate who is just what public education needs -- a leader who is doing major reform at low cost.
Ms. Rhee has been making national headlines of late. Six or seven weeks ago, she entered into a new agreement with the Washington Teachers Union allowing for:
1. An end to “lock-step” pay for teachers;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system; and
3. The end of tenure. Teachers can now be fired more easily, and now can be designated “marginally effective” and placed on probation for 2 years.
In exchange for these concessions, the union got an agreement that teachers rated highly would get more money (including a 21.6% pay increase through 2012 and opportunities for merit pay).
What happened next is open to interpretation. Ms. Rhee implemented a new performance review evaluation system which takes student test scores into account for those teaching reading and math in the 4th through 8th grades. Under that system, 241 teachers (6%) were fired, and an additional 17% were put on notice that if they don't improve next year, they could lose their jobs. Of the 241 fired, 165 were let go because of poor performance; the remainder didn't have proper teaching credentials. 16% of teachers received the highest possible ranking.
According to WTU President George Packer, Rhee’s evaluation system is flawed and unfairly assesses teacher performance. Other critics contend that the evaluation system was rushed into implementation before there was evidence to show it to be effective. The WTU is appealing the firings, and may file an unfair labor practice complaint with the District. The fact that Ms. Rhee said she couldn't break down how many teachers were being dismissed due to low student achievement versus those dismissed for poor performance does suggest that the system has some kinks that need to be worked out.
For my money, I don't understand how an evaluation system adopted after school let out for the summer could possible have led to teacher firings before school started up again in the fall. Were the evaluations completed before the agreement was signed? Is that possible?
The teacher evaluation system in question requires classroom observations, as well as evaluations 5 times a year by school administrators and master teachers. Teachers are critiqued on such things as creating coherent lesson plans and engaging students, and also are advised as to perceived weaknesses. Coaching is available to teachers.
It seems doubtful that the teachers fired this summer got the full benefit of the union's bargain. Sure, the 76 let go for improper teaching credentials are hard to defend (without knowing more -- for all we know before the current contract they were considered to be properly credentialed), but it seems that the remaining 165 let go for poor performance never got their coaching sessions or their chance to improve during the year-long evaluation process. Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see how a year long process got done over the summer when school was not in session.
What does this mean for New Jersey? First, it seems that the Governor is intent on creating the same conditions in New Jersey as those which allowed Ms. Rhee to negotiate her new union agreement. Specifically, 38% of D.C. students are in charter schools; there was also a school voucher system in place for a short period. These factors undermined the bargaining position of the union. Simply put, a strike would have been much less debilitating to the district and only further fueled the growth of charter schools.
All of which sheds new light on the Governor’s own interest in charter schools and voucher systems. The primary goal is to weaken the unions. Improving the educational process is a secondary concern. Remember, unions vote Democratic.
Second, the ability to beat a union into submission is different from the ability to manage labor relations. Once Ms. Rhee had won her contract, the smart move would have been to make sure that she had buy-in on her evaluation process. By so quickly dismissing so many teachers and putting twice as many in the doghouse, Ms. Rhee has accomplished at least two things. She has guaranteed that D.C. will be paying a lot of legal bills for a long time (so much for low cost reform), and she has guaranteed that any union faced with a similar proposed contract in future will fight it even harder than they did before.
But I believe the biggest lesson for New Jersey is the reality of government under idealogues. Ms Rhee negotiated safeguards into the teacher evaluation process and then just disregarded them for what I'm sure she believes is the greater good. In all fairness to Ms. Rhee, I'm not sure she is too concerned about the voting power of the teachers' union in D.C., since D.C. does not elect national legislators, but in the hands of someone who does care (like Chris Christie) this idealogical union busting, sold as being in the best interest of children but then administered so as to weaken the unions as much as possible, could go from problematic to dangerous.
If we're not careful, someone following Ms. Rhee's lead will be firing teachers first and asking questions later, hoping that a more Republican state government will be able to clean up the mess. The mess that students will be stuck with in the interim.
Ms. Rhee has been making national headlines of late. Six or seven weeks ago, she entered into a new agreement with the Washington Teachers Union allowing for:
1. An end to “lock-step” pay for teachers;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system; and
3. The end of tenure. Teachers can now be fired more easily, and now can be designated “marginally effective” and placed on probation for 2 years.
In exchange for these concessions, the union got an agreement that teachers rated highly would get more money (including a 21.6% pay increase through 2012 and opportunities for merit pay).
What happened next is open to interpretation. Ms. Rhee implemented a new performance review evaluation system which takes student test scores into account for those teaching reading and math in the 4th through 8th grades. Under that system, 241 teachers (6%) were fired, and an additional 17% were put on notice that if they don't improve next year, they could lose their jobs. Of the 241 fired, 165 were let go because of poor performance; the remainder didn't have proper teaching credentials. 16% of teachers received the highest possible ranking.
According to WTU President George Packer, Rhee’s evaluation system is flawed and unfairly assesses teacher performance. Other critics contend that the evaluation system was rushed into implementation before there was evidence to show it to be effective. The WTU is appealing the firings, and may file an unfair labor practice complaint with the District. The fact that Ms. Rhee said she couldn't break down how many teachers were being dismissed due to low student achievement versus those dismissed for poor performance does suggest that the system has some kinks that need to be worked out.
For my money, I don't understand how an evaluation system adopted after school let out for the summer could possible have led to teacher firings before school started up again in the fall. Were the evaluations completed before the agreement was signed? Is that possible?
The teacher evaluation system in question requires classroom observations, as well as evaluations 5 times a year by school administrators and master teachers. Teachers are critiqued on such things as creating coherent lesson plans and engaging students, and also are advised as to perceived weaknesses. Coaching is available to teachers.
It seems doubtful that the teachers fired this summer got the full benefit of the union's bargain. Sure, the 76 let go for improper teaching credentials are hard to defend (without knowing more -- for all we know before the current contract they were considered to be properly credentialed), but it seems that the remaining 165 let go for poor performance never got their coaching sessions or their chance to improve during the year-long evaluation process. Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see how a year long process got done over the summer when school was not in session.
What does this mean for New Jersey? First, it seems that the Governor is intent on creating the same conditions in New Jersey as those which allowed Ms. Rhee to negotiate her new union agreement. Specifically, 38% of D.C. students are in charter schools; there was also a school voucher system in place for a short period. These factors undermined the bargaining position of the union. Simply put, a strike would have been much less debilitating to the district and only further fueled the growth of charter schools.
All of which sheds new light on the Governor’s own interest in charter schools and voucher systems. The primary goal is to weaken the unions. Improving the educational process is a secondary concern. Remember, unions vote Democratic.
Second, the ability to beat a union into submission is different from the ability to manage labor relations. Once Ms. Rhee had won her contract, the smart move would have been to make sure that she had buy-in on her evaluation process. By so quickly dismissing so many teachers and putting twice as many in the doghouse, Ms. Rhee has accomplished at least two things. She has guaranteed that D.C. will be paying a lot of legal bills for a long time (so much for low cost reform), and she has guaranteed that any union faced with a similar proposed contract in future will fight it even harder than they did before.
But I believe the biggest lesson for New Jersey is the reality of government under idealogues. Ms Rhee negotiated safeguards into the teacher evaluation process and then just disregarded them for what I'm sure she believes is the greater good. In all fairness to Ms. Rhee, I'm not sure she is too concerned about the voting power of the teachers' union in D.C., since D.C. does not elect national legislators, but in the hands of someone who does care (like Chris Christie) this idealogical union busting, sold as being in the best interest of children but then administered so as to weaken the unions as much as possible, could go from problematic to dangerous.
If we're not careful, someone following Ms. Rhee's lead will be firing teachers first and asking questions later, hoping that a more Republican state government will be able to clean up the mess. The mess that students will be stuck with in the interim.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Quote of Note: It's Still The Checks and Balances, Stupid
Governor Christie chose to honor the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S Supreme Court by reminding New Jerseyans that our State Supreme Court remains shy one Justice. Said Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak:
“From nomination by President Obama to Senate confirmation yesterday, it took just 88 days for Elena Kagan to become the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court. Back at home, after 96 days without a hearing, there is no good and valid reason for the failure to give [New Jersey Supreme Court nominee] Anne Patterson the same consideration and deference.”
What Drewniak fails to mention is that there is no good and valid reason why there is a vacancy on the State Supreme Court to begin with.
Governor Christie chose not to re-nominate Justice John Wallace to the Court because the Governor wants to pack the Court with Justices who will overturn Abbott v. Burke and the line of cases that followed it. These cases require the State to re-allocate suburban property taxes to urban school districts. Had he been re-nominated, Wallace would have been able to serve for a little over 2 years before reaching the mandatory retirement age.
In response to charges that Governor Christie was politicizing the court by failing to consider Justice Wallace’s candidacy solely on his qualifications and not on his politics, the Governor claimed to have the right under the State constitution to boot Wallace. The Governor is a firm believer in using every arm of government as a political tool, just as Karl Rove used the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzalez as a political tool.
So how is it that Wallace has not been replaced yet? It seems that the same State constitution that allowed the Governor to sack Justice Wallace lacks a requirement for the Senate to confirm any replacement nominated by the Governor. Senate President Steve Sweeney says he will not consider swearing in a replacement until Wallace’s term has expired. i.e., for about 2 years.
Moreover, it seems that the Constitution was drafted with this type of stand-off in mind. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has the right to leave Wallace’s seat open or temporarily elevate the most senior Superior Court judge or a retired state Supreme Court judge. In other words, the Constitution includes a check on the Governor’s power over the judiciary.
So, if the Governor wants to exercise the full range of his Constitutional powers, he has no right to cry fowl when the legislature and the judiciary follow suit.
And what of Anne Patterson? At first glance, she seems to be an innocent victim. However, it is clear that she has promised the Governor that she will vote to overturn Abbott v. Burke and its progeny. In other words, she is prepared to decide cases on political factors and not solely on the facts of the case itself. Which means she has proven herself unworthy to sit on any bench anywhere.
“From nomination by President Obama to Senate confirmation yesterday, it took just 88 days for Elena Kagan to become the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court. Back at home, after 96 days without a hearing, there is no good and valid reason for the failure to give [New Jersey Supreme Court nominee] Anne Patterson the same consideration and deference.”
What Drewniak fails to mention is that there is no good and valid reason why there is a vacancy on the State Supreme Court to begin with.
Governor Christie chose not to re-nominate Justice John Wallace to the Court because the Governor wants to pack the Court with Justices who will overturn Abbott v. Burke and the line of cases that followed it. These cases require the State to re-allocate suburban property taxes to urban school districts. Had he been re-nominated, Wallace would have been able to serve for a little over 2 years before reaching the mandatory retirement age.
In response to charges that Governor Christie was politicizing the court by failing to consider Justice Wallace’s candidacy solely on his qualifications and not on his politics, the Governor claimed to have the right under the State constitution to boot Wallace. The Governor is a firm believer in using every arm of government as a political tool, just as Karl Rove used the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzalez as a political tool.
So how is it that Wallace has not been replaced yet? It seems that the same State constitution that allowed the Governor to sack Justice Wallace lacks a requirement for the Senate to confirm any replacement nominated by the Governor. Senate President Steve Sweeney says he will not consider swearing in a replacement until Wallace’s term has expired. i.e., for about 2 years.
Moreover, it seems that the Constitution was drafted with this type of stand-off in mind. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has the right to leave Wallace’s seat open or temporarily elevate the most senior Superior Court judge or a retired state Supreme Court judge. In other words, the Constitution includes a check on the Governor’s power over the judiciary.
So, if the Governor wants to exercise the full range of his Constitutional powers, he has no right to cry fowl when the legislature and the judiciary follow suit.
And what of Anne Patterson? At first glance, she seems to be an innocent victim. However, it is clear that she has promised the Governor that she will vote to overturn Abbott v. Burke and its progeny. In other words, she is prepared to decide cases on political factors and not solely on the facts of the case itself. Which means she has proven herself unworthy to sit on any bench anywhere.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The FMAP Train Comes In
Seems like the Governor, and the State, just caught a little bit of a break, thanks to Senate Democrats (and Maine Republicans).
New Jersey's budget depended on about $570 million in emergency Medicaid money -- more than half the states in the country also relied on the money -- which was to be made available by maintaining a temporary increase in the FMAP, or the percentage of Medicaid money the Federal government reimburses to the states. However, just before New Jersey passed its budget in late June, Senate Republicans in D.C. filibustered a bill extending the FMAP increase for another year (as well as extending unemployment benefits), now that national Republicans are all election year deficit hawks.
The filibuster meant that a whole lot of states had holes in their budgets. New Jersey's budget hole was about $570 million. However, Senate Democrats finally got Senators Snowe and Collins to vote for the bill, breaking the filibuster and freeing up the money for the states.
What's interesting is that the Governor continues to show a willingness to use Federal funds in a manner opposed by his national party. Nationally, Republicans are proposing to rescind ObamaCare; in New Jersey, the Governor is relying on ObamaCare to pay for pharmaceuticals for the elderly, the disabled and the HIV+. Nationally, the Republicans want the Federal government to spend less; in New Jersey, the Governor is taking the increased FMAP money without reservation.
By contrast, Tim Pawlenty wouldn't take Federal money to finance Minnesota's health care programs for the poor. Pawlenty would not allow an increased number of Minnesotans to enter Medicaid before they would otherwise be able (in 2014) because it would have been an approval of the type of big government with which Pawlenty does not agree.
Perhaps all it means is that when Christie seeks higher office, he will be running against Washington. Or as a "maverick," if that term has not been tarnished beyond repair.
In any event, since the budget already assumes the FMAP money will be available, the action by Senate Democrats won't fund anything new. It will just keep next year's deficit down.
UPDATE: The FMAP train came in about $200 million short, which means there's still a pretty sizable hole in the budget.
New Jersey's budget depended on about $570 million in emergency Medicaid money -- more than half the states in the country also relied on the money -- which was to be made available by maintaining a temporary increase in the FMAP, or the percentage of Medicaid money the Federal government reimburses to the states. However, just before New Jersey passed its budget in late June, Senate Republicans in D.C. filibustered a bill extending the FMAP increase for another year (as well as extending unemployment benefits), now that national Republicans are all election year deficit hawks.
The filibuster meant that a whole lot of states had holes in their budgets. New Jersey's budget hole was about $570 million. However, Senate Democrats finally got Senators Snowe and Collins to vote for the bill, breaking the filibuster and freeing up the money for the states.
What's interesting is that the Governor continues to show a willingness to use Federal funds in a manner opposed by his national party. Nationally, Republicans are proposing to rescind ObamaCare; in New Jersey, the Governor is relying on ObamaCare to pay for pharmaceuticals for the elderly, the disabled and the HIV+. Nationally, the Republicans want the Federal government to spend less; in New Jersey, the Governor is taking the increased FMAP money without reservation.
By contrast, Tim Pawlenty wouldn't take Federal money to finance Minnesota's health care programs for the poor. Pawlenty would not allow an increased number of Minnesotans to enter Medicaid before they would otherwise be able (in 2014) because it would have been an approval of the type of big government with which Pawlenty does not agree.
Perhaps all it means is that when Christie seeks higher office, he will be running against Washington. Or as a "maverick," if that term has not been tarnished beyond repair.
In any event, since the budget already assumes the FMAP money will be available, the action by Senate Democrats won't fund anything new. It will just keep next year's deficit down.
UPDATE: The FMAP train came in about $200 million short, which means there's still a pretty sizable hole in the budget.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Right Choice For The Wrong Reason
The Governor is, by and large, a pretty predictable guy. Since the Governor is trying to fashion himself as a textbook conservative -- smaller government, no new taxes, family values -- it's usually pretty easy to guess where the Governor will land on any given issue.
$7.5 million for women's health? It was never going to happen, because there was a scintilla of a hint that the money would support (but not fund) abortions.
Millionaires' Tax? No brainer. It was never going to happen.
But this predictability makes the exceptions stand out all the more. It was surprising when the Governor dropped his insistence on a Constitutional amendment to cap property tax increases. Pragmatic and effective, yes, but surprising.
And when a pattern starts to emerge in the Governor's surprises, I grab onto them like tea leaves in a very dry cup. And here's what has my attention now.
1. After initially proposing to cut it, the Governor found $55.5 million dollars to fund the Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled program. The money came from changes to Medicare Part D under ObamaCare, higher rebates from drug manufacturers to the State and increased use of generic drugs by seniors.
2. When 950 people were dropped from New Jersey's AIDS Drugs Assistance Program, the Governor found a way to replace the $7.9 million needed to allow these people to continue to receive their life-saving drugs, $2.9 million from a new Federal grant program and $5 million from additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies. While this proposal would cover AIDS drugs, it would not cover any other drugs AIDS patients may need to counter the side effects of treatment.
What do these two things have in common? On the political front, both moves by the Governor allowed him to score points against Democrats. One of the stated rationales for the Millionaires' Tax was to fund the Pharamceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled program. By finding the money for the program, the Governor removed that piece of the Democrat's argument.
The Governor's announcement regarding AIDS drugs came a day after Sen. Joseph Vitale, a member of the Governor’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, issued a public statement asserting that the expected increase in pharmaceutical rebates would be enough to maintain the ADAP program, meaning that AIDS patients would continue to receive all their current medications. In making his announcement, the Governor accused Sen. Vitale of playing politics with people's lives, saying that had the Sen. picked up the phone to call the Governor, the Sen. could have saved the paper the letter was written on. Of course, if the Governor had told the Governor's Advisory Council on HIV/ AIDS that a fix was in the works, things also would have been different. And if the Governor had found the fix BEFORE sending out letters to patients telling them they were being cut off at the end of July, this whole brouhaha could have been avoided.
So, it seems that the Governor will find the money for pharmaceuticals if it means he gets to score political points against Democratic legislators.
Also, while women's health is a decidedly liberal cause, prescriptions for seniors is neither conservative nor liberal. So funding prescriptions for seniors is politically productive for the Governor. And support for AIDS patients plays well in communities of color and in the churches of Camden and Newark, where the AIDS epidemic is thriving in New Jersey.
So, it seems that the Governor will find the money for health care if it is for a key voting bloc, such as seniors and communities of color, but not for anything associated with abortion.
Another coincidence is how the Governor funded both initiatives -- federal funds plus pharmaceutical rebates. And in both instances, the Governor claims to have "found" new Federal funds and "negotiated" increased rebates.
But at least with respect to AIDS drugs, the increased rebates were negotiated by the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors -- not the Governor. That's how Sen. Vitale and the Advisory Committee knew about them. And as for new Federal grants for AIDS meds, that was announced in early July. In other words, the Governor didn't do anything except admit that cuts to ADAP were unnecessary.
And with respect to PAAD, the ObamaCare money was available before the Governor decided to cut the program. I can't say for sure about the pharmaceutical rebates, but clearly to some extent the Governor merely acknowledged the existence of money he had previously chosen to ignore.
So, it seems that the Governor is not telling the truth about how he funded these pharmaceutical access programs, or why. And what remains totally unclear is why both of these "surprises" had to do with pharmaceuticals. I mean, isn't there anything else the Governor has found a way to save, something that does not rely on ObamaCare and pharmaceutical company rebates?
Personally, I'm happy that seniors are getting their PAAD benefits and that AIDS patients are getting some of the medication they need. I just wish that the Governor was doing the right thing for the right reason. Because being able to consistantly expect the Governor to do the right thing for the right reason would restore my faith in government, which is being sorely tested these days.
$7.5 million for women's health? It was never going to happen, because there was a scintilla of a hint that the money would support (but not fund) abortions.
Millionaires' Tax? No brainer. It was never going to happen.
But this predictability makes the exceptions stand out all the more. It was surprising when the Governor dropped his insistence on a Constitutional amendment to cap property tax increases. Pragmatic and effective, yes, but surprising.
And when a pattern starts to emerge in the Governor's surprises, I grab onto them like tea leaves in a very dry cup. And here's what has my attention now.
1. After initially proposing to cut it, the Governor found $55.5 million dollars to fund the Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled program. The money came from changes to Medicare Part D under ObamaCare, higher rebates from drug manufacturers to the State and increased use of generic drugs by seniors.
2. When 950 people were dropped from New Jersey's AIDS Drugs Assistance Program, the Governor found a way to replace the $7.9 million needed to allow these people to continue to receive their life-saving drugs, $2.9 million from a new Federal grant program and $5 million from additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies. While this proposal would cover AIDS drugs, it would not cover any other drugs AIDS patients may need to counter the side effects of treatment.
What do these two things have in common? On the political front, both moves by the Governor allowed him to score points against Democrats. One of the stated rationales for the Millionaires' Tax was to fund the Pharamceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled program. By finding the money for the program, the Governor removed that piece of the Democrat's argument.
The Governor's announcement regarding AIDS drugs came a day after Sen. Joseph Vitale, a member of the Governor’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, issued a public statement asserting that the expected increase in pharmaceutical rebates would be enough to maintain the ADAP program, meaning that AIDS patients would continue to receive all their current medications. In making his announcement, the Governor accused Sen. Vitale of playing politics with people's lives, saying that had the Sen. picked up the phone to call the Governor, the Sen. could have saved the paper the letter was written on. Of course, if the Governor had told the Governor's Advisory Council on HIV/ AIDS that a fix was in the works, things also would have been different. And if the Governor had found the fix BEFORE sending out letters to patients telling them they were being cut off at the end of July, this whole brouhaha could have been avoided.
So, it seems that the Governor will find the money for pharmaceuticals if it means he gets to score political points against Democratic legislators.
Also, while women's health is a decidedly liberal cause, prescriptions for seniors is neither conservative nor liberal. So funding prescriptions for seniors is politically productive for the Governor. And support for AIDS patients plays well in communities of color and in the churches of Camden and Newark, where the AIDS epidemic is thriving in New Jersey.
So, it seems that the Governor will find the money for health care if it is for a key voting bloc, such as seniors and communities of color, but not for anything associated with abortion.
Another coincidence is how the Governor funded both initiatives -- federal funds plus pharmaceutical rebates. And in both instances, the Governor claims to have "found" new Federal funds and "negotiated" increased rebates.
But at least with respect to AIDS drugs, the increased rebates were negotiated by the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors -- not the Governor. That's how Sen. Vitale and the Advisory Committee knew about them. And as for new Federal grants for AIDS meds, that was announced in early July. In other words, the Governor didn't do anything except admit that cuts to ADAP were unnecessary.
And with respect to PAAD, the ObamaCare money was available before the Governor decided to cut the program. I can't say for sure about the pharmaceutical rebates, but clearly to some extent the Governor merely acknowledged the existence of money he had previously chosen to ignore.
So, it seems that the Governor is not telling the truth about how he funded these pharmaceutical access programs, or why. And what remains totally unclear is why both of these "surprises" had to do with pharmaceuticals. I mean, isn't there anything else the Governor has found a way to save, something that does not rely on ObamaCare and pharmaceutical company rebates?
Personally, I'm happy that seniors are getting their PAAD benefits and that AIDS patients are getting some of the medication they need. I just wish that the Governor was doing the right thing for the right reason. Because being able to consistantly expect the Governor to do the right thing for the right reason would restore my faith in government, which is being sorely tested these days.
Monday, July 26, 2010
It's The Cover-Up, Stupid
It was just a few days ago that the results of Federal Prosecutor Nora Dannehy's investigation into the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys closed up shop, finding no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Not so fast.
Questions about the report were immediate. Why did Dannehy only focus on the firing of David Iglesias, and not on the fact pattern(s) pertaining to all 9 terminations? Why didn't Dannehy investigate what the other U.S. Attorney's were doing to keep their jobs in the politicized environment at Justice under Alberto Gonzalez? And why was Nora Dannehy chosen to run this probe in the first place?
The answers to these questions are not pretty.
Four days before Dannehy's appointment by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to head the DOJ probe into the allegedly politically-motivated terminations, a Federal appeals court ruled that a team of Federal prosecutors led by Dannehy suppressed evidence in a political bribery case involving Connecticut Treasurer Paul Silvester. This ruling resulted in the reversal of seven convictions against Charles B. Spadoni. Spadoni still faced a charge for obstruction of justice.
Normally, a Federal prosecutor found guilty of suppressing evidence in a political prosecution, or any prosecution, would face some sort of internal investigation. But Dannehy was instead given a high profile national assignment. A national investigation into the firing of Federal prosecutors who refused to bring politically motivated prosecutions. And an investigations into the politically motivated prosecutions being brought by the Federal prosecutors who were keeping their jobs.
Simply put, Dannehy was assigned to investigate herself. There was no way she could implicate any Federal prosecutor for their conduct in political cases without implicating herself.
And in an odd coincidence, Dannenhy's supervisor on the Spadoni case, John H. Durham, was also appointed to run a national investigation by Mukasey -- the suspected destruction of dozens of recordings of interrogations of alleged terrorists by CIA personnel. Not only is that investigation still on-going, it has been expanded by Attorney General Holder to include DOJ decision makers.
Conventional wisdom since Watergate has been that it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up. So now the question becomes whether or not Dannehy's investigation, with its extremely limited focus, was itself part of a cover-up.
And there are a lot of people who want to know the answer to that question. Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who claims to have been the victim of politically motivated prosecution, wants to know the answer. Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens wants to know the answer.
And right here in New Jersey, Louis Manzo wants to know the answer. Former Assemblyman and Jersey City mayoral candidate Manzo was indicted along with 46 others in what Manzo claims was a politically motivated case aimed at bolstering the campaign of then-candidate and Federal prosecutor Chris Christie.
And I'll bet Senator Robert Menendez wants to know the answer. Then Federal prosecutor Chris Christie brought an indictment against a Bergen county anti-poverty agency with ties to Menendez that almost threw the 2006 election to Tom Keane, Jr. Menendez wants his name cleared, as the investigation is over and no charges have been brought.
So it looks like a few people are asking what Chris Christie was doing that not only kept him in his job as a Federal prosecutor under Alberto Gonzalez, but actually got Christie appointed as a member of Gonzalez' advisory panel.
Not so fast.
Questions about the report were immediate. Why did Dannehy only focus on the firing of David Iglesias, and not on the fact pattern(s) pertaining to all 9 terminations? Why didn't Dannehy investigate what the other U.S. Attorney's were doing to keep their jobs in the politicized environment at Justice under Alberto Gonzalez? And why was Nora Dannehy chosen to run this probe in the first place?
The answers to these questions are not pretty.
Four days before Dannehy's appointment by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to head the DOJ probe into the allegedly politically-motivated terminations, a Federal appeals court ruled that a team of Federal prosecutors led by Dannehy suppressed evidence in a political bribery case involving Connecticut Treasurer Paul Silvester. This ruling resulted in the reversal of seven convictions against Charles B. Spadoni. Spadoni still faced a charge for obstruction of justice.
Normally, a Federal prosecutor found guilty of suppressing evidence in a political prosecution, or any prosecution, would face some sort of internal investigation. But Dannehy was instead given a high profile national assignment. A national investigation into the firing of Federal prosecutors who refused to bring politically motivated prosecutions. And an investigations into the politically motivated prosecutions being brought by the Federal prosecutors who were keeping their jobs.
Simply put, Dannehy was assigned to investigate herself. There was no way she could implicate any Federal prosecutor for their conduct in political cases without implicating herself.
And in an odd coincidence, Dannenhy's supervisor on the Spadoni case, John H. Durham, was also appointed to run a national investigation by Mukasey -- the suspected destruction of dozens of recordings of interrogations of alleged terrorists by CIA personnel. Not only is that investigation still on-going, it has been expanded by Attorney General Holder to include DOJ decision makers.
Conventional wisdom since Watergate has been that it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up. So now the question becomes whether or not Dannehy's investigation, with its extremely limited focus, was itself part of a cover-up.
And there are a lot of people who want to know the answer to that question. Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who claims to have been the victim of politically motivated prosecution, wants to know the answer. Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens wants to know the answer.
And right here in New Jersey, Louis Manzo wants to know the answer. Former Assemblyman and Jersey City mayoral candidate Manzo was indicted along with 46 others in what Manzo claims was a politically motivated case aimed at bolstering the campaign of then-candidate and Federal prosecutor Chris Christie.
And I'll bet Senator Robert Menendez wants to know the answer. Then Federal prosecutor Chris Christie brought an indictment against a Bergen county anti-poverty agency with ties to Menendez that almost threw the 2006 election to Tom Keane, Jr. Menendez wants his name cleared, as the investigation is over and no charges have been brought.
So it looks like a few people are asking what Chris Christie was doing that not only kept him in his job as a Federal prosecutor under Alberto Gonzalez, but actually got Christie appointed as a member of Gonzalez' advisory panel.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Does A Refusal To Indict Mean Everything Is Alright?
The U.S. Justice Department has issued a report on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. To be specific, the report looked for evidence of public corruption, obstruction of justice, wire fraud and mail fraud in the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys.
The report, submitted by Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, found that Iglesias was fired for political reasons. The head of New Mexico's Republican Party complained to the White House about Iglesias' refusal to bring voter fraud charges against the liberal group Acorn and his refusal to indict a local Democratic official. Former Senator Pete Domenici also made calls to the White House to complain about Iglesias.
Initially, Justice claimed that it had fired Iglesias for poor performance, but internal White House documents proved this not to be true. Iglesias was removed without anyone at Justice bothering to figure out if Iglesias had actually done anything wrong.
But, concludes Dannehy, that's not a crime, and it was not an effort to influence prosecutions. Apparently, there were no prosecutions to influence. Also, there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with lying to Congress or to investigators, or evidence of any indictable wrongdoing. Which is what happens when the most frequent answer given is "I cannot recall."
This report is relevant to New Jersey today because Chris Christie was a U.S. Attorney at the time Iglesias was fired, and he was also an advisor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. As such, Christie had a front row seat to the politicization of the Justice Department, if not an active role. Certainly he had a role in announcing an investigation that hurt Robert Menendez in the final months of the 2006 campaign -- an investigation that remains open while never resulting in a single charge.
And as the Governor seeks to collapse all State investigative power into the executive branch, seeks to bring all county prosecutors under the control of Trenton, intimidates the Judiciary by refusing to reappoint Supreme Court Justices who won't promise to decide school funding cases in the way the Governor chooses, seeks to purge experienced school administrators from the public school system, seeks to destroy failing public schools and replace them with taxpayer supported private schools (secular and non-secular), and seizes control of one of the States premiere tourist attractions, it is important to remember that this Governor knows how to politicize what are supposed to be independent entities within the bounds of the law.
There is a difference between saying that there is no indictable crime and saying that nothing wrong happened. But our Governor does not appear to acknowledge that he did anything wrong, or saw anything wrong, in the Alberto Gonzalez Justice Department. That is evident in the way the Governor continues to use every State agency as a means to a political end.
And while that may not be criminal, that's just plain wrong.
The report, submitted by Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, found that Iglesias was fired for political reasons. The head of New Mexico's Republican Party complained to the White House about Iglesias' refusal to bring voter fraud charges against the liberal group Acorn and his refusal to indict a local Democratic official. Former Senator Pete Domenici also made calls to the White House to complain about Iglesias.
Initially, Justice claimed that it had fired Iglesias for poor performance, but internal White House documents proved this not to be true. Iglesias was removed without anyone at Justice bothering to figure out if Iglesias had actually done anything wrong.
But, concludes Dannehy, that's not a crime, and it was not an effort to influence prosecutions. Apparently, there were no prosecutions to influence. Also, there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with lying to Congress or to investigators, or evidence of any indictable wrongdoing. Which is what happens when the most frequent answer given is "I cannot recall."
This report is relevant to New Jersey today because Chris Christie was a U.S. Attorney at the time Iglesias was fired, and he was also an advisor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. As such, Christie had a front row seat to the politicization of the Justice Department, if not an active role. Certainly he had a role in announcing an investigation that hurt Robert Menendez in the final months of the 2006 campaign -- an investigation that remains open while never resulting in a single charge.
And as the Governor seeks to collapse all State investigative power into the executive branch, seeks to bring all county prosecutors under the control of Trenton, intimidates the Judiciary by refusing to reappoint Supreme Court Justices who won't promise to decide school funding cases in the way the Governor chooses, seeks to purge experienced school administrators from the public school system, seeks to destroy failing public schools and replace them with taxpayer supported private schools (secular and non-secular), and seizes control of one of the States premiere tourist attractions, it is important to remember that this Governor knows how to politicize what are supposed to be independent entities within the bounds of the law.
There is a difference between saying that there is no indictable crime and saying that nothing wrong happened. But our Governor does not appear to acknowledge that he did anything wrong, or saw anything wrong, in the Alberto Gonzalez Justice Department. That is evident in the way the Governor continues to use every State agency as a means to a political end.
And while that may not be criminal, that's just plain wrong.
Governor Christie Finds Something Else To Take Over
The Governor has announced a plan to bring the Atlantic City boardwalk, including the casinos and entertainment facilities, under State control. Seeing as how the recently ended State takeover of Camden is generally viewed as a failure, one has to wonder why the Governor thinks this is a good idea.
There is the report of the Governor's Advisory Commission on New Jersey Gaming, Sports and Entertainment, which is the apparent impetus for the State takeover. But while that report recommended State oversight of Atlantic City, it did not recommend an outright takeover. The stated rationale for the takeover is that Atlantic City's local government is too inefficient and corrupt to effect change.
What is clear is that there is a definite trend of consolidating power in Trenton. All of the State's investigative power, with the exception of the State Commission of Investigation, is now in the executive branch. The State Commission was almost merged into the executive branch as well. It's entirely likely that before long control of county prosecutors will rest in the executive branch, under the auspices of the Attorney General. And now control of one of the State's premiere tourist attractions lies in Trenton. All of which has me turning into a bone fide conspiracy theorist.
Here's my latest totally unfounded conspiracy theory. Many people have wondered why Steve Sweeney and Chris Christie have formed such a tight bond. Perhaps a deal was made -- Sweeney's support for a 2% cap in exchange for an agreement to restrict all gaming to Atlantic City and to deny the State's racetracks the ability to operate slot machines, as they do in neighboring states. And now maybe the Governor has taken control of Atlantic City as a means to keep the state's most powerful Democrat in check.
And if there was a deal, how would taxpayers ever find out about it? In years past, perhaps the Inspector General would have investigated the Governor's actions. But now the Inspector General works for the Governor. Certainly the State Commission of Investigation could investigate. But seeing as how it just escaped the budget knife, would the SCI actively investigate the Governor now?
Perhaps the New Jersey Racing Commission or the Division of Gaming Enforcement would investigate. But those entities are within the Office of the Attorney General, who is about to have her power increased by gaining control over all the county prosecutors. Surely the Attorney General is not going to attack the Governor at this time.
If nothing else, this plan for the takeover of the Atlantic City casinos is a terrific illustration of the danger of allowing a Governor to concentrate State power to the extent this Governor has. It means the end of transparency and accountability in government.
So I admit it, my conspiracy theory is unfounded. But the impact of the consolidation of power in Trenton is real.
There is the report of the Governor's Advisory Commission on New Jersey Gaming, Sports and Entertainment, which is the apparent impetus for the State takeover. But while that report recommended State oversight of Atlantic City, it did not recommend an outright takeover. The stated rationale for the takeover is that Atlantic City's local government is too inefficient and corrupt to effect change.
What is clear is that there is a definite trend of consolidating power in Trenton. All of the State's investigative power, with the exception of the State Commission of Investigation, is now in the executive branch. The State Commission was almost merged into the executive branch as well. It's entirely likely that before long control of county prosecutors will rest in the executive branch, under the auspices of the Attorney General. And now control of one of the State's premiere tourist attractions lies in Trenton. All of which has me turning into a bone fide conspiracy theorist.
Here's my latest totally unfounded conspiracy theory. Many people have wondered why Steve Sweeney and Chris Christie have formed such a tight bond. Perhaps a deal was made -- Sweeney's support for a 2% cap in exchange for an agreement to restrict all gaming to Atlantic City and to deny the State's racetracks the ability to operate slot machines, as they do in neighboring states. And now maybe the Governor has taken control of Atlantic City as a means to keep the state's most powerful Democrat in check.
And if there was a deal, how would taxpayers ever find out about it? In years past, perhaps the Inspector General would have investigated the Governor's actions. But now the Inspector General works for the Governor. Certainly the State Commission of Investigation could investigate. But seeing as how it just escaped the budget knife, would the SCI actively investigate the Governor now?
Perhaps the New Jersey Racing Commission or the Division of Gaming Enforcement would investigate. But those entities are within the Office of the Attorney General, who is about to have her power increased by gaining control over all the county prosecutors. Surely the Attorney General is not going to attack the Governor at this time.
If nothing else, this plan for the takeover of the Atlantic City casinos is a terrific illustration of the danger of allowing a Governor to concentrate State power to the extent this Governor has. It means the end of transparency and accountability in government.
So I admit it, my conspiracy theory is unfounded. But the impact of the consolidation of power in Trenton is real.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Quote of Note: The Campaign Against Competence Continues
Governor Christie has announced a plan to cap the salaries of public school administrators outside of the 16 largest school districts at $175,000, the same amount as the Governor makes. That means that 70% of the superintendents in the system are looking at a pay cut. The State aims to save local municipalities $10 million.
Salary limits would also apply to nontenured assistant superintendents and business administrators. In addition, Education Commissioner Bret Schundler suggests that this may encourage districts to share superintendents and staff. Both of these facts would yield additional savings.
Although merit-based pay increases will be possible, the bulk of compensation will be based on the number of students served, and merit pay would not be count towards pensions.
At its core, this legislation seeks to stop the bidding war among school districts for administrators. Says the Governor:
"People are bouncing around like free agents in baseball, and getting higher and higher salaries as they go. What we're trying to do here is to shift the paradigm."
For their part, superintendents say that they deserve their salaries through their specialized understanding of personnel, finance, curriculum, administration and school-construction issues. New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Frank Belluscio says that the cap will put the State at a disadvantage in attracting qualified candidates.
In response, the Governor has said that if the sole reason an administrator is working in public education is the money, we don't want that administrator anyway.
And therein lies the theme here. As we saw in the Governor's treatment of Clifford Janey, as echoed on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the Governor does not believe in public education "careerists." This is nothing short of an attempt to purge senior administrators from New Jersey's public education system. And since this plan can be implemented by the Governor without a need for legislative approval, it's a done deal.
So add this to the Governor's attempts to undermine public education in this State. The Governor seeks to make private school more viable through a voucher system that pulls money out of failing public schools, has already instigated a landslide of public teacher retirements through changes to pension benefits, and now seeks to limit the pool of experienced and qualified public school administrators.
Salary limits would also apply to nontenured assistant superintendents and business administrators. In addition, Education Commissioner Bret Schundler suggests that this may encourage districts to share superintendents and staff. Both of these facts would yield additional savings.
Although merit-based pay increases will be possible, the bulk of compensation will be based on the number of students served, and merit pay would not be count towards pensions.
At its core, this legislation seeks to stop the bidding war among school districts for administrators. Says the Governor:
"People are bouncing around like free agents in baseball, and getting higher and higher salaries as they go. What we're trying to do here is to shift the paradigm."
For their part, superintendents say that they deserve their salaries through their specialized understanding of personnel, finance, curriculum, administration and school-construction issues. New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Frank Belluscio says that the cap will put the State at a disadvantage in attracting qualified candidates.
In response, the Governor has said that if the sole reason an administrator is working in public education is the money, we don't want that administrator anyway.
And therein lies the theme here. As we saw in the Governor's treatment of Clifford Janey, as echoed on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the Governor does not believe in public education "careerists." This is nothing short of an attempt to purge senior administrators from New Jersey's public education system. And since this plan can be implemented by the Governor without a need for legislative approval, it's a done deal.
So add this to the Governor's attempts to undermine public education in this State. The Governor seeks to make private school more viable through a voucher system that pulls money out of failing public schools, has already instigated a landslide of public teacher retirements through changes to pension benefits, and now seeks to limit the pool of experienced and qualified public school administrators.
Christie's Karl Rove Style Power Grab Continues
Showing a mastery of the Friday press release, on Friday the 16th the Governor announced a task force to study a State takeover of county prosecutors. The Governor is questioning whether or not the state needs 21 sex crimes units and 21 gangs units. State Attorney General Paula Dow will make the final recommendation.
On its face, this is a rational cost saving measure. In context, however, this is another step in a march towards consolidating investigative power in the executive branch, i.e., in the hands of New Jersey's Governor, who is already the most powerful Governor in the country by means of the New Jersey Constitution.
By way of reminder, as a Federal prosecutor Chris Christie was one of seventeen members of an advisory council to Alberto Gonzalez. As such, Christie had a front row seat to the politicization of the Justice Department.
And in 2006, shortly before the 2006 election, Federal prosecutor Christie brought an indictment against an anti-poverty organization in Bergen County with ties to Senator Robert Menendez. The indictment was announced a month or so before voters went to the polls to choose between re-electing Menendez or voting for his Republican rival, State Senator Tom Keane, Jr. Menendez and Kean were in a very tight race. Four years later, no charges have been brought as a result of the indictment, yet the indictment remains open and Menendez cannot clear his name.
Finally, this year the Governor moved to bring almost all of the State's investigative control under the wing of the executive branch. The Public Advocate has been eliminated, and both the independent Inspector General and the independent Medicaid Inspector General have been merged into the State Comptrollers Office, which is in the executive branch. The sole holdout is the State Commission of Investigation, which is housed in the legislature.
So will the county prosecutors be merged into a State agency similar to the Department of Justice? It depends on whether or not Paula Dow will choose to vastly expand her personal power and influence. In other words, there's a very good chance.
Which means that this Governor, who has a history of using the investigative power of the State and the power of the indictment for purely political motives is amassing a frightening amount of power.
On its face, this is a rational cost saving measure. In context, however, this is another step in a march towards consolidating investigative power in the executive branch, i.e., in the hands of New Jersey's Governor, who is already the most powerful Governor in the country by means of the New Jersey Constitution.
By way of reminder, as a Federal prosecutor Chris Christie was one of seventeen members of an advisory council to Alberto Gonzalez. As such, Christie had a front row seat to the politicization of the Justice Department.
And in 2006, shortly before the 2006 election, Federal prosecutor Christie brought an indictment against an anti-poverty organization in Bergen County with ties to Senator Robert Menendez. The indictment was announced a month or so before voters went to the polls to choose between re-electing Menendez or voting for his Republican rival, State Senator Tom Keane, Jr. Menendez and Kean were in a very tight race. Four years later, no charges have been brought as a result of the indictment, yet the indictment remains open and Menendez cannot clear his name.
Finally, this year the Governor moved to bring almost all of the State's investigative control under the wing of the executive branch. The Public Advocate has been eliminated, and both the independent Inspector General and the independent Medicaid Inspector General have been merged into the State Comptrollers Office, which is in the executive branch. The sole holdout is the State Commission of Investigation, which is housed in the legislature.
So will the county prosecutors be merged into a State agency similar to the Department of Justice? It depends on whether or not Paula Dow will choose to vastly expand her personal power and influence. In other words, there's a very good chance.
Which means that this Governor, who has a history of using the investigative power of the State and the power of the indictment for purely political motives is amassing a frightening amount of power.
Monday, July 12, 2010
News Flash: Republican Privatization Task Force Supports Chris Christie
A great deal of press attention has been given to the report issued by the New Jersey Privatization Task Force. In a nutshell, the report says that by engaging private contractors to provide for multiple services currently provided by public employees, the State could save about $210 million.
Now, the State budget is $29.4 billion dollars. This report is highlighting ways to save less than 1% of the State's annual costs. So at first blush, this seemed like much ado about nothing. But as I read the report, certain aspects of the analysis and certain facts leapt out at me.
First of all, this was a study about the privatization of services, not assets. While couched in terms about bringing competition into the provision of public services, it would be fair to say that this was a report analyzing how to take jobs away from public employees, i.e., another salvo in the Governor's war on public employee unions. In fact, the Civil Service laws and the Displaced Workers Pool are cited as impediments to privatization.
Second, there were 5 members of the task force. Dick Zimmer is a former Republican Congressman (and State Assemblyman and Senator). Todd Caligone is President of ANW/ Crestwood, a New Jersey paper company. Kathleen Davis is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Chamber of Commerce of South Jersey. John Galadank is President of the Commerce & Industry Association of New Jersey, a free enterprise advocacy group. P. Kelly Hatfield is a former Republican candidate for Congress.
The fact that this group issued a pro-privatization report is about as surprising as Donald Trump issuing a statement in favor of beauty pageants. In fact, this group is so pro-privatization that it is proposing privatization as a solution to problems created by privatization.
Third, this report makes clear that not every private service provider would be eligible to bid in this public service marketplace. Only qualified bidders with strong balance sheets would be eligible; contracts would be awarded based on merit-based criteria and follow a documented scoring system. So not only would there be no preference for minority owned businesses which have been locked out of certain industries for or small businesses, there would be an institutionalized bias against such bidders.
So make no mistake about it, this Report is a not a fact-finding endeavor, it is a means to promote Governor Christie's pre-existing policy goals.
For example, one privatization proposal is a school voucher program. It's a 5 year "pilot" program that starts providing 3,200 scholarships a year, and ramps up to 16,000 scholarships in year 5. Scholarships would be provided by private corporations and would be capped at the amount the scholarship-recipients' school spends per pupil. The scholarships can be used for public and private schools. Exactly what public service is to be provided by private service providers under this proposal is unclear. What is clear is that this same program has already been proposed by Governor Christie.
However, the proposal that pushes this report into the area of farce pertains to special education students. Those disabled students who are not making progress in their public schools could get a scholarship to attend either another public school or a private school. The scholarship would be capped at the lesser of the amount the unacceptable school spent on that student or the tuition and fees at a private school. There is no mention of the cost of transporting the child to and from the new school.
The problem is that, under current law, all students are entitled to a free appropriate public education. Which means that disabled students who are not making progress in their public school are entitled to attend private school on the public dime, i.e., at no cost to the student for tuition or travel. In other words, special education has already been privatized in this State.
But private schools charge too much. And private bus companies charge too much. So this particular venture into privatization has proven to be a budget buster for school districts, which are obligated to pay what the private service providers charge.
And so the solution is to partially privatize the payment of private school tuition, and shift the remainder of those costs plus the cost of transportation to the disabled student. Yes, this privatization proposal would increase the cost to the taxpayer of educating special needs students. A Special Needs Student Tax, if you will.
Clearly, this proposal is not about bringing competition into the special education services market. This is about reducing property taxes for the majority by making special needs students pay more for their own education.
Other privatization proposals suggest introducing the profit motive into areas that impact public health and safety. For example, the report suggests privatizing the investigation of Workmen's Compensation claims. I can just imagine the compensation of investigators being based on keeping awarded claims under a certain financial benchmark -- the way private insurance companies work. The report also suggests water and waste treatment facilities should be privatized, which gives rise to visions of accountants balancing the cost of completely purifying water against the cost of paying claims to the people who get sick from tainted water. And the report also suggests that hospital debt collection should be privatized. Which means people who cannot afford health care will now be hounded by private debt collectors.
This report is so blatantly biased and so transparent in its political motivation that one has to wonder whether or not the point was to actually promote privatization. Surely, the Governor knows that no proposals from so partisan a task force will be taken up by the Democratic-controlled legilature.
The only reasonable interpretation of this report is as a piece of campaign literature. This is Chris Christie polishing his far right credentials on the taxpayers' dime.
Now if we could only get Chris Christie to privatize his endless self-promotional activities and stop using the resources of the State to further his personal agenda and career.
Now, the State budget is $29.4 billion dollars. This report is highlighting ways to save less than 1% of the State's annual costs. So at first blush, this seemed like much ado about nothing. But as I read the report, certain aspects of the analysis and certain facts leapt out at me.
First of all, this was a study about the privatization of services, not assets. While couched in terms about bringing competition into the provision of public services, it would be fair to say that this was a report analyzing how to take jobs away from public employees, i.e., another salvo in the Governor's war on public employee unions. In fact, the Civil Service laws and the Displaced Workers Pool are cited as impediments to privatization.
Second, there were 5 members of the task force. Dick Zimmer is a former Republican Congressman (and State Assemblyman and Senator). Todd Caligone is President of ANW/ Crestwood, a New Jersey paper company. Kathleen Davis is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Chamber of Commerce of South Jersey. John Galadank is President of the Commerce & Industry Association of New Jersey, a free enterprise advocacy group. P. Kelly Hatfield is a former Republican candidate for Congress.
The fact that this group issued a pro-privatization report is about as surprising as Donald Trump issuing a statement in favor of beauty pageants. In fact, this group is so pro-privatization that it is proposing privatization as a solution to problems created by privatization.
Third, this report makes clear that not every private service provider would be eligible to bid in this public service marketplace. Only qualified bidders with strong balance sheets would be eligible; contracts would be awarded based on merit-based criteria and follow a documented scoring system. So not only would there be no preference for minority owned businesses which have been locked out of certain industries for or small businesses, there would be an institutionalized bias against such bidders.
So make no mistake about it, this Report is a not a fact-finding endeavor, it is a means to promote Governor Christie's pre-existing policy goals.
For example, one privatization proposal is a school voucher program. It's a 5 year "pilot" program that starts providing 3,200 scholarships a year, and ramps up to 16,000 scholarships in year 5. Scholarships would be provided by private corporations and would be capped at the amount the scholarship-recipients' school spends per pupil. The scholarships can be used for public and private schools. Exactly what public service is to be provided by private service providers under this proposal is unclear. What is clear is that this same program has already been proposed by Governor Christie.
However, the proposal that pushes this report into the area of farce pertains to special education students. Those disabled students who are not making progress in their public schools could get a scholarship to attend either another public school or a private school. The scholarship would be capped at the lesser of the amount the unacceptable school spent on that student or the tuition and fees at a private school. There is no mention of the cost of transporting the child to and from the new school.
The problem is that, under current law, all students are entitled to a free appropriate public education. Which means that disabled students who are not making progress in their public school are entitled to attend private school on the public dime, i.e., at no cost to the student for tuition or travel. In other words, special education has already been privatized in this State.
But private schools charge too much. And private bus companies charge too much. So this particular venture into privatization has proven to be a budget buster for school districts, which are obligated to pay what the private service providers charge.
And so the solution is to partially privatize the payment of private school tuition, and shift the remainder of those costs plus the cost of transportation to the disabled student. Yes, this privatization proposal would increase the cost to the taxpayer of educating special needs students. A Special Needs Student Tax, if you will.
Clearly, this proposal is not about bringing competition into the special education services market. This is about reducing property taxes for the majority by making special needs students pay more for their own education.
Other privatization proposals suggest introducing the profit motive into areas that impact public health and safety. For example, the report suggests privatizing the investigation of Workmen's Compensation claims. I can just imagine the compensation of investigators being based on keeping awarded claims under a certain financial benchmark -- the way private insurance companies work. The report also suggests water and waste treatment facilities should be privatized, which gives rise to visions of accountants balancing the cost of completely purifying water against the cost of paying claims to the people who get sick from tainted water. And the report also suggests that hospital debt collection should be privatized. Which means people who cannot afford health care will now be hounded by private debt collectors.
This report is so blatantly biased and so transparent in its political motivation that one has to wonder whether or not the point was to actually promote privatization. Surely, the Governor knows that no proposals from so partisan a task force will be taken up by the Democratic-controlled legilature.
The only reasonable interpretation of this report is as a piece of campaign literature. This is Chris Christie polishing his far right credentials on the taxpayers' dime.
Now if we could only get Chris Christie to privatize his endless self-promotional activities and stop using the resources of the State to further his personal agenda and career.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Throwing Out The Baby With The Bathwater
Today's Sunday news programs were eye opening on a number of levels. First, on Meet The Press, I got to hear both Ed Gillespie and David Brooks discuss Chris Christie's austerity budget and his fight with public employee unions with approval. Clearly, what's happening in New Jersey is going to be discussed in 2010 elections across the country.
And on New Jersey Now I got to hear Marie Tasy speak in favor of the Governor's elimination of $7.5 million in funding for womens' health services.
Ms. Tasy is the Executive Director of New Jersey Right To Life-PAC, the State's largest pro-life political action committee. Ms. Tasy, and NJRTL-PAC, were not always supporters of Chris Christie. The PAC did not endorse either Christie or Lonegan in the Republican primary, as both were pro-life. And initially, NJRTL-PAC declined to endorse Republican candidate Christie because he selected a pro-choice running mate, Kim Guadagno.
However, in the late days of the election, as Governor Corzine closed to within a statistical dead heat with Christie, Ms. Tasy finally did endorse the Republican. Apparently, a pro-life Governor with a pro-choice Lieutenant Governor was better than a pro-choice Governor. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
So, with the eyes of the nation on New Jersey, Chris Christie found himself in need of stronger ties to the pro-life community. Hence his elimination of $7.5 million in womens' health funding.
The money would go to support reproductive health services at 58 facilities throughout the State operated by Planned Parenthood. While 3 of those facilities provide abortions, none of this money would be used for abortions. While the Governor and Ms. Tasy claim that uninsured women can get their health care at other facilities, the fact is that many will be forced to go to hospitals for their care. As the Planned Parenthood facilities conducted 70,000 breast cancer screenings and 65,000 Pap smears last year, the liklihood that hospitals could pick up the slack is small.
But to Tasy, this is a war against Planned Parenthood. She claims that by distributing literature to teens and providing education about birth control and STDs, Planned Parenthood encourages underage sex, thus creating the need for abortions. To Ms. Tasy, Planned Parenthood creates the demand for its clinics by coming between children and their families, and their family values. She sees it as a self-perpetuating vicious cycle. And any money that goes to Planned Parenthood supports that cycle, even if the money itself is not used for abortion services.
So this is how $7.5 million out of a $29.4 billion dollar budget becomes a national issue. A Governor with national ambitions needs to solidify his relationship with the pro-life community, so he cuts money for womens' health and sends the head of the State's biggest pro-life PAC out as his proxy.
As of right now, the Senate has reinstated the $7.5 million in funding for womens' health services with a veto-proof majority; the Assembly has reinstated the funding but by less than a veto-proof majority. The Governor has yet to act on the bill reinstating the funding.
And the country waits to see how far Chris Christie will go to mollify the pro-life right.
And on New Jersey Now I got to hear Marie Tasy speak in favor of the Governor's elimination of $7.5 million in funding for womens' health services.
Ms. Tasy is the Executive Director of New Jersey Right To Life-PAC, the State's largest pro-life political action committee. Ms. Tasy, and NJRTL-PAC, were not always supporters of Chris Christie. The PAC did not endorse either Christie or Lonegan in the Republican primary, as both were pro-life. And initially, NJRTL-PAC declined to endorse Republican candidate Christie because he selected a pro-choice running mate, Kim Guadagno.
However, in the late days of the election, as Governor Corzine closed to within a statistical dead heat with Christie, Ms. Tasy finally did endorse the Republican. Apparently, a pro-life Governor with a pro-choice Lieutenant Governor was better than a pro-choice Governor. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
So, with the eyes of the nation on New Jersey, Chris Christie found himself in need of stronger ties to the pro-life community. Hence his elimination of $7.5 million in womens' health funding.
The money would go to support reproductive health services at 58 facilities throughout the State operated by Planned Parenthood. While 3 of those facilities provide abortions, none of this money would be used for abortions. While the Governor and Ms. Tasy claim that uninsured women can get their health care at other facilities, the fact is that many will be forced to go to hospitals for their care. As the Planned Parenthood facilities conducted 70,000 breast cancer screenings and 65,000 Pap smears last year, the liklihood that hospitals could pick up the slack is small.
But to Tasy, this is a war against Planned Parenthood. She claims that by distributing literature to teens and providing education about birth control and STDs, Planned Parenthood encourages underage sex, thus creating the need for abortions. To Ms. Tasy, Planned Parenthood creates the demand for its clinics by coming between children and their families, and their family values. She sees it as a self-perpetuating vicious cycle. And any money that goes to Planned Parenthood supports that cycle, even if the money itself is not used for abortion services.
So this is how $7.5 million out of a $29.4 billion dollar budget becomes a national issue. A Governor with national ambitions needs to solidify his relationship with the pro-life community, so he cuts money for womens' health and sends the head of the State's biggest pro-life PAC out as his proxy.
As of right now, the Senate has reinstated the $7.5 million in funding for womens' health services with a veto-proof majority; the Assembly has reinstated the funding but by less than a veto-proof majority. The Governor has yet to act on the bill reinstating the funding.
And the country waits to see how far Chris Christie will go to mollify the pro-life right.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Deal Or No Deal
This Saturday, Governor Christie and Senate President Steve Sweeney held a press conference to announce a deal on a property tax cap. The agreement is a 2% cap on property tax increases with only four exceptions: (i) rising pension and health care costs, (ii) debt payments, (iii) rising school enrollment and (iv) states of emergency.
Two facts quickly emerged from this press conference. First, Assembly President Sheila Oliver is not on board yet. This is a deal between the Governor and the Senate President only.
Second, this compromise allows municipalities to increase property taxes for pension and health care costs. Which is a big win for public employee unions, who are now free to negotiate contractual increases without the limitation imposed by a hard cap. Which is why everyone's attention now turns to the "tool kit," which will strengthen the hand of municipalities in negotiating with unions.
So it seems that Chris Christie may have fallen into exactly the trap forseen by the Wall Street Journal on its editorial page this weekend:
"One temptation for Mr. Christie would be to settle for too little reform when his political capital is at its highest, which was Arnold Schwarzenegger's original mistake in California. When Arnold proposed more far-reaching reforms later, the public mood had changed and he was routed. Mr. Christie's best reform opportunity is now, and taxpayers everywhere should hope he succeeds."
So what we have is an odd form of political theatre. The Governor wanted to announce a deal before people started showing up for 4th of July fireworks that had been cancelled. So we have a cap that has a hole big enough to drive a union contract through and a deal with half of the legislature.
What this means for the Governor who was building a national reputation as a union buster, or for the taxpayers, remains to be seen. But, from my viewpoint, it is a shocking reversal of position for the Governor, who has been making teachers the scapegoat for the State's fiscal problems for some time now. Without a hard cap, the "tool kit" better include a sledgehammer.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor was once again faced with a revolt from within his own party. And if I were Sheila Oliver I would hold out for $7.5 million for women's health before agreeing to anything.
Two facts quickly emerged from this press conference. First, Assembly President Sheila Oliver is not on board yet. This is a deal between the Governor and the Senate President only.
Second, this compromise allows municipalities to increase property taxes for pension and health care costs. Which is a big win for public employee unions, who are now free to negotiate contractual increases without the limitation imposed by a hard cap. Which is why everyone's attention now turns to the "tool kit," which will strengthen the hand of municipalities in negotiating with unions.
So it seems that Chris Christie may have fallen into exactly the trap forseen by the Wall Street Journal on its editorial page this weekend:
"One temptation for Mr. Christie would be to settle for too little reform when his political capital is at its highest, which was Arnold Schwarzenegger's original mistake in California. When Arnold proposed more far-reaching reforms later, the public mood had changed and he was routed. Mr. Christie's best reform opportunity is now, and taxpayers everywhere should hope he succeeds."
So what we have is an odd form of political theatre. The Governor wanted to announce a deal before people started showing up for 4th of July fireworks that had been cancelled. So we have a cap that has a hole big enough to drive a union contract through and a deal with half of the legislature.
What this means for the Governor who was building a national reputation as a union buster, or for the taxpayers, remains to be seen. But, from my viewpoint, it is a shocking reversal of position for the Governor, who has been making teachers the scapegoat for the State's fiscal problems for some time now. Without a hard cap, the "tool kit" better include a sledgehammer.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor was once again faced with a revolt from within his own party. And if I were Sheila Oliver I would hold out for $7.5 million for women's health before agreeing to anything.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Unitary Executive of New Jersey
This week should have been one of celebration for Governor Christie. He got a budget through the majority-Democratic legislature with close to 100% of his priorities intact. He also got a commitment from the Democratic leadership to work on property tax reform through the summer.
But the Governor is not satisfied. He used his power as Governor to call the legislature into meeting every day over the holiday weekend. And when the legislature refused, the Governor threatened to sue.
What could possibly be on the Governor's mind?
First, this July 4th weekend a lot of taxpayers are going to notice that there are no fireworks in their town, as there usually are. And parents sending their kids to summer school are about to get charged for what used to be a free service. In short, the pain from this budget will be felt in the very immediate future.
Which is why the Governor needs to be seen as doing everything he can to speed property tax reform, to show people that the pain they are feeling now will be followed shortly by gain. Hence the Governor's new willingness to forego a Constitutional Amendment. And hence the Governor's threat of legal action. Because, in all fairness, the Democratic leadership has hinted that they will be moving property tax reform forward at a measured pace, while politically the Governor needs a sprint to the finish line.
There is, however, a second motive at work here. The Governor is intent on exercising every single one of his Constitutional powers as Governor as a policy tool. And the Governor of New Jersey has more power than any other Governor in the nation -- all executive power in New Jersey is vested in the Governor. Our Governor even has a line item veto.
For example, the Governor gets to nominate justices to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Where, in the past, every Governor has done so on the basis of merit, this Governor decided to use this power to pack the court so as to overturn the State's court-ordered school financing formula. When the Governor exercised his veto over the Millionaires Tax, he did so with a sense of theater within minutes of the bill's passage. And now the Governor is declaring that he has the power to call a special session of the legislature over the holiday weekend, and threatening to sue if lawmakers do not show up (which they did not, in droves).
This second issue is much more about the Governor's future plans than it is about governing New Jersey. By using every arm of Government as a policy tool to the maximum extent of his Constitutional authority and beyond, the Governor is publicly aligning himself with people, such as Dick Cheney, who believe that executives must be strong executive, and that the powers of the President must be unilateral and unchecked. He is, in essence, auditioning for the far right wing of the Republican party.
So when the Governor makes an issue of his Constitutional authority, to my thinking it's almost as if he knows that his policies will cause so much pain that he will be looking for a job in a few years and he's brushing up his resume. It's a sign of weakness.
But the Governor is not satisfied. He used his power as Governor to call the legislature into meeting every day over the holiday weekend. And when the legislature refused, the Governor threatened to sue.
What could possibly be on the Governor's mind?
First, this July 4th weekend a lot of taxpayers are going to notice that there are no fireworks in their town, as there usually are. And parents sending their kids to summer school are about to get charged for what used to be a free service. In short, the pain from this budget will be felt in the very immediate future.
Which is why the Governor needs to be seen as doing everything he can to speed property tax reform, to show people that the pain they are feeling now will be followed shortly by gain. Hence the Governor's new willingness to forego a Constitutional Amendment. And hence the Governor's threat of legal action. Because, in all fairness, the Democratic leadership has hinted that they will be moving property tax reform forward at a measured pace, while politically the Governor needs a sprint to the finish line.
There is, however, a second motive at work here. The Governor is intent on exercising every single one of his Constitutional powers as Governor as a policy tool. And the Governor of New Jersey has more power than any other Governor in the nation -- all executive power in New Jersey is vested in the Governor. Our Governor even has a line item veto.
For example, the Governor gets to nominate justices to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Where, in the past, every Governor has done so on the basis of merit, this Governor decided to use this power to pack the court so as to overturn the State's court-ordered school financing formula. When the Governor exercised his veto over the Millionaires Tax, he did so with a sense of theater within minutes of the bill's passage. And now the Governor is declaring that he has the power to call a special session of the legislature over the holiday weekend, and threatening to sue if lawmakers do not show up (which they did not, in droves).
This second issue is much more about the Governor's future plans than it is about governing New Jersey. By using every arm of Government as a policy tool to the maximum extent of his Constitutional authority and beyond, the Governor is publicly aligning himself with people, such as Dick Cheney, who believe that executives must be strong executive, and that the powers of the President must be unilateral and unchecked. He is, in essence, auditioning for the far right wing of the Republican party.
So when the Governor makes an issue of his Constitutional authority, to my thinking it's almost as if he knows that his policies will cause so much pain that he will be looking for a job in a few years and he's brushing up his resume. It's a sign of weakness.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Quote Of Note: The Most Famous Careerist In All The Land
In recent days, I have heard reports that Clifford Janey, Newark’s School Superintendent, may be out of a job. Janey is 2 years into a 3 year contract. However, Newark schools are under the jurisdiction of the Governor, which means that Chris Christie is Clifford Janey’s boss. And for reasons as yet unstated, Governor Christie has let it be known that, not only may Janey’s contract not be renewed, it may be terminated early.
I had filed this fact away as an interesting yet innocuous tidbit until I read an editorial in Today’s Wall Street Journal about Michelle Rhee, Schools Chancellor for Washington, D.C. Ms. Rhee has just concluded a negotiation with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten which has resulted in a noteworthy new contract. Among other terms, this new contract includes:
1. An abolition of “lock-step” pay;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system;
3. Changes in tenure rules which allows bad teachers to be fired more easily and marginal teachers to be placed on probation for 2 years.
So what does this have to do with New Jersey? The WSJ editorial provides the following:
“Unfortunately, most school chancellors are careerists who don’t want to upset the unions because they are always looking for their next job. One example: Clifford Janey, whom Ms. Rhee replaced in D.C., went on to become the superintendent in Newark, N.J. whose schools may be worse than D.C.’s. Ms. Rhee, by contrast, came to her job as an outsider willing to endure the considerable abuse that the unions and their political backers threw at her.”
And so it seems that the Wall Street Journal has blessed, if not outright suggested, the replacement of Clifford Janey with an outsider who will take on the unions.
But here’s the thing. Newark teachers are not represented by the NJEA, which is adamantly opposed to merit pay and changes in tenure. The teachers union in Newark is the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Joseph Del Grosso, President of the NTU, has already gone on record as saying he is in favor of merit pay and is open to negotiation on tenure and seniority. In fact, Mr. Del Grosso did so in the Wall Street Journal.
So it seems to me that we have political theater in the making, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal and Chris Christie. Clifford Janey is being singled out as a “careerist” who must go to make room for an education industry novice. And when that novice reaches an agreement with the NTU that includes merit pay and changes to tenure rules, the Wall Street Journal and the Governor will trumpet a victory over the status quo, a victory over public employee unions and a victory over “careerists” everywhere -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the key concessions were made during Janey’s time on the job.
The Wall Street Journal has already proclaimed Chris Christie a national hero on its editorial page. But this incident seems to suggest a certain give and take between the editorial staff and the Governor that bears watching. I just find it difficult to believe that, of all the public school “careerists” in the land, the Wall Street Journal chose to make an example of the same superintendent the Governor wants to replace.
I had filed this fact away as an interesting yet innocuous tidbit until I read an editorial in Today’s Wall Street Journal about Michelle Rhee, Schools Chancellor for Washington, D.C. Ms. Rhee has just concluded a negotiation with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten which has resulted in a noteworthy new contract. Among other terms, this new contract includes:
1. An abolition of “lock-step” pay;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system;
3. Changes in tenure rules which allows bad teachers to be fired more easily and marginal teachers to be placed on probation for 2 years.
So what does this have to do with New Jersey? The WSJ editorial provides the following:
“Unfortunately, most school chancellors are careerists who don’t want to upset the unions because they are always looking for their next job. One example: Clifford Janey, whom Ms. Rhee replaced in D.C., went on to become the superintendent in Newark, N.J. whose schools may be worse than D.C.’s. Ms. Rhee, by contrast, came to her job as an outsider willing to endure the considerable abuse that the unions and their political backers threw at her.”
And so it seems that the Wall Street Journal has blessed, if not outright suggested, the replacement of Clifford Janey with an outsider who will take on the unions.
But here’s the thing. Newark teachers are not represented by the NJEA, which is adamantly opposed to merit pay and changes in tenure. The teachers union in Newark is the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Joseph Del Grosso, President of the NTU, has already gone on record as saying he is in favor of merit pay and is open to negotiation on tenure and seniority. In fact, Mr. Del Grosso did so in the Wall Street Journal.
So it seems to me that we have political theater in the making, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal and Chris Christie. Clifford Janey is being singled out as a “careerist” who must go to make room for an education industry novice. And when that novice reaches an agreement with the NTU that includes merit pay and changes to tenure rules, the Wall Street Journal and the Governor will trumpet a victory over the status quo, a victory over public employee unions and a victory over “careerists” everywhere -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the key concessions were made during Janey’s time on the job.
The Wall Street Journal has already proclaimed Chris Christie a national hero on its editorial page. But this incident seems to suggest a certain give and take between the editorial staff and the Governor that bears watching. I just find it difficult to believe that, of all the public school “careerists” in the land, the Wall Street Journal chose to make an example of the same superintendent the Governor wants to replace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)