The New Era of Voter Suppression

It is another election year.

Unfortunately, come this November, millions of US citizens who are eligible to vote will find it extremely hard to exercise that right. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, was a landmark legislation that outlawed all discriminatory voting practices that would otherwise be responsible for widespread disenfranchisement of voters.

Despite having such an historic and prominent legislative act in place, during each election year lawmakers introduces bills that claim not to exclude a specific class of citizen.  However, these proposed legislations create a series of bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote. These types of tactics are used for voter suppression.

Some political leaders use voter suppression as a strategy to influence the outcome of an election. With November around the corner, state legislators in approximately 34 states have introduced an estimated 150 voter suppression bills.

The most common include:

• Requirement of photo ID
• Limiting early voting
• Restriction of registration drives and
• Imposition of onerous residency requirement

These tactics are usually geared towards the poor, elderly, minorities and young people.

One such state that has attempted the imposition of harsh voter suppression laws is the Republican-controlled state legislature of Florida. In 2011, state legislature passed HB 1355, which places a restriction on third-party voter registration groups. The bill requires that these third party groups submit completed registration forms within 48 hours of registration or be subject to fines. During any election year these third party groups, like the League of Women Voters, would often register hundreds of people to vote. However, the new bill forces these groups to ultimately stop voter registration drives. The matter was recently taken to the Federal Court, where a federal judge blocked the voter suppression bill claiming that it is the unconstitutional infringement on speech and voting rights. Other states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Mississippi have also imposed strict new voter suppression laws.

Obviously, the right to vote in the United States is under attack as our state legislators nationwide pass voter suppression laws in an attempt to prevent voter fraud. However, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, “voter fraud is irrational and it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.” Furthermore, after close analysis of the 2004 election in Ohio, the Brennan Center revealed that approximately 0.0009% of votes were fraudulent.

The numerous voter suppression laws that have been introduced by our state legislatures are of all different variation, but together lead to a considerable amount of problems for eligible voters to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. Unfortunately, this current wave of infringement on US citizen’s civil liberty is the latest chapter of a not so heartening story of American voting rights. It is evident that members from both political parties have sometimes rejected fair democratic processes in hopes of controlling the outcome of elections. Acknowledging this reality has made many Americans cynical of laws that obstruct, what according to President Johnson is “the basic right, without which all others are meaningless”.

Undoubtedly, more will be at stake in the 2012 elections, as we question the democratic process of electing our new President, which just may be the result of the enactment of laws which ironically restrict this process.  In reality, these laws limit our fundamental voting rights and infringe on our civil liberties, which goes against the very principles of democracy which this country is based on.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Photo Credit: zmblackhistorymonth2012.blogspot.com, politico.com, ldjackson.net

80% of Success is Showing Up

This quote, attributed to Woody Allen, is often used as part of a pep talk, rallying a work team towards excellence and encouraging commitment. But is it true?

The topic of student attendance in college courses is an interesting debate. Among my esteemed colleagues there seems to be two schools of thought.

One philosophy subscribes to the belief that college students are adults, and therefore are entitled to all the rights, responsibilities and decisions that accompany this status.  The decision to attend or not attend class is up to them, and as educators we cannot and should not have more responsibility for student learning than the student.

The other viewpoint believes, with no less conviction, that educators who want students to succeed must institute strong policies that encourage attendance and punish absenteeism. In doing so, the argument continues, we teach students important life lessons. An oft-repeated sentiment sums up the position: “Will employers tolerate continual absence?  Not likely.”

Each perspective seems to be supported by research. In a study reported at the 25^th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Psychology (Motivational Correlates of Academic Success in an Educational Psychology Course, William E. Herman, Department of Psychology State University of NY College at Potsdam; March 2011) the relationship between attendance and course grade was found to be positive and statistically significant. Another recent study[1] found that the link between attendance and academic performance is weak. Additionally, the study concluded that a student’s ability to use substitute material (such as online lecture notes) is a more significant factor.

Both studies noted that today’s college student has competing interests that may interfere with attendance such as work (or lack thereof), housing crises and family issues. As a faculty advisor and instructor I’ve worked with many students who desperately wanted to be in every class but they just couldn’t make it work.  We also learn that students resent strict attendance policies. That, too, can interfere with learning.

My interest has always been in encouraging students to attend each class, recognizing that for some there are lessons to learn and for others, life gets in the way. Herman (2011) offers suggestions that I can attest to because I have practiced them. First, Herman proposes, be certain that attendance actually makes a difference in whether or not students succeed in your class. If it does not, what remains the rationale for a strong policy? You might want to take a new look at your position.

Attendance does make a difference in my classes, as the classroom discussion and the activities we engage in facilitate learning. Students who show up clearly do better than students who do not. I inform my new students of this on the very first day.

Herman further says that you should explicitly discuss attendance at the start of the semester. This should include not only a statement about your policy, but a conversation about the rational for it. As a teacher of business and management courses, I tell them that I run my classroom like a microcosm of the business environment.

Would you just “no show, no call” for work?

What happens if you do?

What happens if you are absent or tardy excessively?

This approach seems to resonate with students, as many of them understand they cannot put their jobs at risk. Students who have other life commitments grow to understand their education as an additional obligation and many are able to reexamine the choices they make. I also offer ample help in this regard, and can refer students to numerous community resources to help them manage their priorities better.

In my opinion, another strategy that seems to have an impact on absenteeism is simply a focus on the work. In my classrooms, some of the assignments are completed during class with my help. Students do not have my help in the same way if they miss class and need to make the work up. For many students, these “in-class graded assignments” have a substantial impact on their learning and their course grade. Consequently they come to class to take advantage of this opportunity.

The debate regarding attendance in higher education will certainly continue. With the research unable to offer a definitive answer, each educator’s experience, values and teaching style will ultimately determine the approached he or she uses in the classroom.

What is your policy? Does it work for your students? Does it work for you?

---

[1] Assessment outcome is weakly correlated with lecture attendance: influence of learning style and use of alternative materials.

Horton DM, Wiederman SD, Saint DA. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012 Jun;36(2):108-15.

Urban Renewal through Smart Technology

Could we see the end to taxis in this country?  Picking your destination as car sharing programs and other alternatives begin sweetening the pot of transportation. 

By David M Chapinski

Pedestrian safety is an emerging concept in our modern cities. Two years ago, Washington, D.C. attempted to include the pedestrian when city leaders created the Pedestrian Advisory Council. The Council meets regularly to discuss issues of walking and safety and testifies before the D.C. Council. It also engages the community on how to make the District a more walkable place.

As a city, D.C. has hundreds of pedestrian crashes a year that result in deaths. Leaders are still sorting out all the causes and solutions.

In some parts of D.C. about half of all households lack any personal automobiles and instead rely on alternative modes — first and foremost their own two feet.

People often emphasize the importance of “livable, walkable” cities and in recent years, technology has developed to help achieve this.

But how are cities adjusting to this change?

Individuals who don’t own a vehicle can skip the hassles of waiting for a cab or conventional car rental with advanced rent-by-the hour transport technology like car2go or ZipCars.  Pay a one-time membership fee and you are on your merry way with a vehicle for how long you need it.

Reserve a car ahead of time or simply pick one up automatically and spontaneously in your city (if the service is available).  When you are done, simply park the car at the location where you initiated the coverage and the service team takes care of the rest.  Parking, refueling, cleaning, and all other services are all included.

Car sharing programs and the technologies that allow it would have their challenges in a city like New York where taxis are somewhat of a ‘way of life’ and have been for over a century. Dismantling that infrastructure and mentality is an arduous task indeed.  Who would want the burden of that?

Not any mayor I can find.

However, the numbers do not lie.  By the end of the summer, it will cost more to take a taxi in New York than to rent a car from one of these car sharing programs.

If you are following New York’s recent policy conversations, cab rates are going up. The Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) is considering a fare hike on cabs. It’s been 8 years since the last overall fare hike. Conversations are ongoing for a 20-25 percent increase that would raise a typical cab ride to $14 from $12. This request is fraught with concerns, but that’s for another blog.

What’s remarkable about most car-sharing programs is the flexibility and concept of urban mobility.

Car2Go is the only car sharing service I’ve encountered that charges by the minute. Their tiny 41-miles-a-gallon blue-and-white cars are intended for casual point-to-point trips within a designated operating area of the city.

The idea of convenience rings throughout their service. This year, the company will launch a new smartphone app, a vehicle finder on the website and an improved customer call center. There’s also always the classic method of just finding a car on the street.

The convenience matches a population and cities that have grown accustomed to using a smartphone for most daily activities.

As a cohesive city, D.C. has built a diverse transportation network and has been smart about putting jobs, shopping, and schools together in walkable neighborhoods.

While there is still work to do and mistakes to correct, especially in underserved neighborhoods, D.C.’s metropolis remains highly attractive to employers, businesses and new residents.

What makes me a believer in alternative driving methods in cities like D.C. is that pedestrian crashes have gone up in the past two years. Consider these numbers, provided by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD):

On average, around 650 people[i] are hit by a car each year.

In 2010, 753 people were hit by a vehicle.

2011 saw an astonishing 942 people in 2011.

This is too way high. We can do better with technology.

If a safer city is our goal, we have to get these numbers down.  For it to work, it would require prioritization and redirection of resources. There is a difference between pedestrian safety and a pedestrian society and those of us, like me, that are concerned citizens, need to improve upon rather than stretch.  Stretching pedestrian traffic does not benefit a city’s appeal.

The good infrastructure trends in D.C.’s core would need to spread aggressively to the outer neighborhoods.

• More capital spending would need to be leveraged to fully complete the city’s walking and biking networks.
• A robust “share the road” media campaign and consistent enforcement of traffic laws would be critical.
• Other agencies’ roles would need to be defined and the mayor’s office would have to manage the execution of the full plan, holding everyone accountable.

All this requires a visionary leader who will make something like zero traffic fatalities a city wide initiative.

I don’t see the right ingredients right now for D.C. to join the ranks of Chicago and NYC, unfortunately. If proven wrong, that leader is still going to find a lot of support from neighborhood leaders everywhere.  I believe in programs like car2go because they were not created with the intent and purpose to act solely as a cash source.

Car2go offers a practical and affordable alternative to the rising costs and hassles associated with vehicle ownership.

---

[i] National Safety Council
Photo Credit: notopramen.com, treehugger.com, santacruztrail.org

Can You Hear the Whistle?

Michael Pilato, creator of the Penn State mural “Inspiration,” made a change to his painting Saturday, removing the halo over former football coach Joe Paterno.  This visual fall from glory was preceded by the July 12 release of a damning, 267-page investigative report on the on-going child abuse scandal, compiled by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

Presented with the stark facts of the case, commentator after commentator has asked how years and years of abuse at a state institution occurred without action to stop it.

The magnitude and repulsive nature of the offenses are so severe; it’s hard to imagine.  But wrong doing does occur.  And if it does for the horrific, what is the prognosis for waste, fraud or less repugnant lapses?

The Freeh report concluded that Penn State officials engaged in a cover up because they were afraid of “bad publicity.”  Officials knew they were vulnerable but did it anyway.

According to Chris Gavagan, an expert on sexual abuse in sports:

“More often than not, a literal or figurative cost benefit analysis is done, an institution tabulates the price of potential lawsuits, and the decision is made to do all that is within their power to make the problem go away without reporting it to the police.”   Gavagan continues, “If there were a fire on campus, there would have been no debate as to “how are we going to handle this?”

Some Penn State staff did not report the abuse for fear of losing their jobs.  Whistleblower laws should have protected these employees but the prognosis is not good for whistleblowers.  A stunning number are subjected to retaliation.  Even when an employee does prevail it’s often after substantial personal and financial damage has occurred.

In 1992 and 2010 surveys of federal workers, approximately one-third of the individuals who felt they had been identified as a source of a report of wrongdoing also perceived either threats or acts of reprisal, or both.  Yet, fear of reprisal is NOT the number one reason people fail to report wrong doing.   The number one reason is employees do not believe anything will be done.  Multiple surveys show a lack of faith in management to act.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 2011 survey data indicate those reporting wrongdoing do not place the personal consequences first.  Saving lives is more important to respondents than whether they will experience punishment or a reward, and whether the agency will act on a report of wrongdoing matters more than any fear of an unpleasant consequence for the employee making the report.

With the 24-hour media cycle and the popular anti-government narrative, even when management does the right thing the agency will still be subject to negative media as the story unfolds.  A good scandal sells papers (or internet ads) and calling out an agency head is fun sport for select elected officials.

Tom Fox of the Partnership for Public Service, notes:

“Federal workers are the perfect punching bag in an election year. The scandals offer an opportunity for some in Congress to suggest that wrongdoing exposed in the past few weeks is standard government practice.”

Federal, state, local and school public agencies employ over 21 million people.  There will be some bad apples and their scandalous acts will make headlines.  But these cases are not representative of the nation’s government employees. In fact, they are far from the norm.

What Can Be Done?

Georgetown Professor Marcia Miceli, author of several books on whistleblowing, offers ideas for managers seeking to root out those few engaged in wrong doing, including selecting a visible, highly trusted arbiter.

Other practical steps suggested by Miceli and Fox include:

1. Provide clear reporting processes and evidence requirements, in writing, with input from all levels.             
2. Act in a timely way.
3. When not confidential, communicate what has occurred, actions taken and why.
4. Ensure whistleblowers are viewed as moral heroes (not tattletales) and rewarded when appropriate.
5. Make clear the rights and shared ethical responsibilities of organizational members.
6. Acknowledge bad news created by scandals and encourage employees to raise questions in staff meetings and appropriate settings.  Rest assured they are already talking about it.  It is better for the discussion to be based on facts and addressed candidly.
7. Look for the good that comes from the spotlight.  In some cases the status quo does not work well.  This may be an opportunity for needed change.
8. Focus on supervisors and managers to support them in responding constructively.  When staff replacement is needed move forward as quickly as practicable.
9. Keep your eye on the mission.  Remind staff that their work is still important and the buzz surrounding scandal should not distract from the real services they provide.
10. Be an ethics role model.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Photo Captions: hosted2.ap.org; amitmenghani.wordpress.com; hahnloeser.com.

Evolving Language Yields New Forms of Insults

By Elaine Orr

In 1985, ASPA’s Section for Women in Public Administration (SWPA) sponsored publication of the book, The Right Word: Guidelines for Avoiding Sex-Biased Language. It was written by me and Marie Rosenberg Dishman.

The goal was not to beat people over the head with a pound of political correctness (in fact the PC term was not yet in use), but to offer alternatives to those who wanted to replace some long outdated terms.

I have written several other articles on the topic, and my favorite anecdote remains one from the first female astronaut, Dr. Sally Ride.

Dr. Ride was a commentator when Discovery astronaut Margaret Rhea Seddon, a physician, helped craft a device used in an attempt to retrieve a satellite.  It entailed several stitches made with a string and a sail maker’s needle. A male astronaut, acting as mission control communicator with the shuttle, complimented Dr. Seddon on her “seamstress” work.  Ride said she wanted to correct that comment, and did so with a smile.  “That was the work of a surgeon,” she said.

Gentle humor is an aid in many situations.

When it comes to sex-biased terms, some changes were just plain easier.  There is no longer a need to call a female aviator an aviatrix or an usher an usherette, and you would probably be locked out of the office if you called your administrative assistant a ‘gal Friday.’

There are other terms in relatively common use that could be offensive and we don’t think about it.  Someone who has deviated from a long-held tradition or office policy might be said to be “off the reservation.”

Think about it.

That term undoubtedly arose when Native Americans were forced onto reservations more than a century ago.

And what about the term “white trash?”

We know it’s meant to be insulting.  Is a user saying people who are not white are more likely to “be trashy” and only some especially sloppy white people are?  Ninety-nine times out of one-hundred that insult is hurled with no racial intent, but it’s still a hurtful term.

What brought such uses to mind recently was a series of emails among some fiction author friends.  One had circulated a draft of a new book cover, and several of us tossed humorous darts at the publisher (who since revised the cover – it was really awful!).  A couple of the others referred to the man on the cover as “gay.”  It was a traditional romance novel, so the man was clearly meant to be heterosexual.

These were comments made among friends, not meant as hateful barbs.

Maybe the term was so ‘neutral’ to a couple of the other authors that they would use the expression around gay or lesbian friends.  However, I’m not sure a gay young man who was bullied in high school would find it funny, nor, likely, would his parents.

Taking the term away from a discussion of someone’s appearance, it’s impossible to ignore that the term “that’s so gay” is now used to refer to something that is dumb or an excuse that is poor.  Clearly, it’s an insult.  Why do we ignore the use when we would call out a colleague who uses terms such as ‘spic’ or ‘kike’?

The thinking is likely, ‘gee, I know they don’t mean any harm,’ or ‘I don’t want to be a spoil sport.’

It can be uncomfortable to be a ‘language police officer,’ and sometimes you have to pick your battles.  The best lesson can be in the form of a question.

When you ask someone why they use a term or phrase, it makes them think.  They may come to understand that language can offend whether it is intended to be demeaning or not.

Five Questions For Fact Building

More and more, public administrators must address polarizing issues daily.

At the same time, combatants question the traditional tools of analysis and fact finding. In a recent post (just the facts m’aam) I shared how an agency faced with some difficult decisions was pressed on its use of science.

Conflict surfaces when decisions are values choices not factual decisions.

The test for values decisions is simple.  Values questions center on what should be.  For example, one public debate involves end of life issues.  Many opinions exist on what should be the policies for elder care and terminal illness.  This is a values debate.

A technical or scientific inquiry centers on what is.   One end of life discussion based on facts might be, “What is the best course of pain medication given specific criteria?”  The criteria used (a should be choice) involves values.

Once an Administrator knows an issue involves a values choice, five questions can help untangle the facts.  Working with the stakeholders early in the process to answer these questions can also deescalate polarization.

1. What system are you making a choice about?

For end of life issues, a system may be families, hospitals, hospice, medical researchers, social workers, and many more. Define the relationships of the system and how a decision about one element or another may create a cascade of other issues.

2. What decisions need to be made?

Issues are often obscured by the solutions being proposed. When this happens you may not even be asking the right question.  For example, if someone is not breathing, the solution might be to administer Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR).  This is sensible if someone is found in a swimming pool.

However, at the of end of life, calling for CPR as a solution obscures questions about the desires of the patient, potential for injury, and dignity.    Once those values decisions are made, technical questions about what is the best method to use can be answered.

3. What are the bookends (boundaries – time, spatial & values)?

• Is this decision expected to last for a few weeks or for years?
• Will it only be in one location?
• Have decision makers outlined any values that are simply not negotiable?

In the end of life example, decisions might relate to a time frame (defined life expectancy, age group, etc.) or location of care (hospital, home, etc.)..  A non-negotiable issue might be something like values related to physician aid-in-dying.

4.  What are the options and tradeoffs?

Trade off’s and options are framed by values.  In end of life discussions, control of pain (a value) may involve trade-offs related to allowing patients to remain lucid enough to engage with loved ones (a value).  Once the value is determined, selecting a pain medication might include criteria for patient lucidity.

5. What questions do you need answered to decide?

Answering the questions above informs what technical or scientific findings are needed.  Stakeholders can then identify the questions they need answered from a shared understanding of the decision to be made.

Posing yet more questions may seem counter intuitive to getting to the facts, yet values choices are not arrived at via reasoning.

Multiple studies indicate factual arguments before empathetic understanding escalates conflict.

Escalation is a psychological process causing proponents to use more and more extreme arguments to try to “beat” their opponents. Communications with the other side are cut off and the parties begin to associate only with their own side. The lack of communication then causes more misunderstanding and distrust of the other side.

While confrontation is inevitable, the destructiveness that comes with it is not.

Working with stakeholders to answer the five questions allows an Administrator to:

• create more options;
• define common ground;
• clearly outline the decisions to be made.

This, plus creating a different relationship among the parties, sets the stage for conducting less assailable scientific and technical studies.

Photo Credit: fnsingapore.blogspot.com; empowernetwork.com

Is China the next SuperPower?

China, being the second largest economy in the world after the US and part of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China or the ‘big four’), is setting the stage to become the world’s next superpower.

Will the Chinese economy become so powerful that it will result in the fall of the US?

Since the 1980s, the fast growing market of China has been hard to ignore. By most accounts, it has become a force to be reckoned with.

The current strength of China’s economy is mainly dependent upon exports and investments in the West. This gives the Chinese government reason to build up its military to protect its interest from internal weaknesses and external enemies.

Although its military resources have been very slim over the past years, recently, China has tripled its spending on military resources. Experts assert that the Chinese government believes in the importance of devoting enormous resources to defending its territory.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Global Military Report projected that in less than a generation China will achieve military parity to that of the US.

Moreover, the Chinese military has successfully developed, tested and deployed the world’s first weaponry system that is able to target a moving carrier strike group from any range. According to Andrew Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, this is a game changer that has already affected the US strategy in the Western Pacific.

With China’s military on the rise, the question of whether there will be a peaceful passing of power from one superpower to the next begins to surface. IISS director, General John Chapman, stated:

“The United States has always said it would never let another power get parity, so in the next few years it is going to have to make a very significant decision on what it does.”

It is evident that the world’s perception of China as the next superpower is based on mounting facts. China has a broad industrial base and a well-developed nuclear-armed military. Not to mention being a grounded and powerful state and having a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, China is considered the most eligible and logical equal to the US.

The US and China have formed a partnership that addresses critical problems of other nations. Evidently, with China surging to a near double-digit economic growth since the 80s and record foreign investment, the country has transformed from an isolated impoverished society to a thriving global powerhouse; therefore, a great shift may be soon upon us.

So is China’s coming out party sooner that we think?

If China becomes the next superpower, would it promote and protect democracy and freedom?

Being one of the world’s oldest civilizations, China has being waiting patiently for its moment to shine and has apparently heeded the advice from its former leader Deng Xiaoping who said, “hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile.”

However, despite its major achievements, economists and journalist may have jumped the gun too soon in considering China as the world’s next superpower.

First, China has not yet become a major threat to the US.

Secondly in order for China to become the next superpower some major in-house cleaning has to be done. China has many internal problems that need to be addressed; such as the peasant population which has overwhelmed China’s central government for centuries.

Furthermore, there is the internal ethics stain and corruption of its elite and governing body, the over-centralization of the government and massive pollution. These internal problems need to be addressed before China can ever commit to a path of global influence.

Even though China has the capabilities of a superpower, the US is the only country in history that has maintained all the elements of a superpower on a constant basis and continues to flourish in the face of adversities.  So, if China must be considered a contender for the top spot, it must prove that it has what it takes to stay there.

Celebrating Independence AND Governance

More than 200 years ago, a group of independent-minded and progressive men decided that America should seek independence from Britain. Their goal was to seek independence for the 13 colonies that were already in existence.

The delegates in Philadelphia representing their respective colonies were convinced that the time had arrived for America to start handling its own affairs. And standing up to Big Britain, the Continental Congress  – a predecessor to our more well-known Congress of today –  authorized an army and requested assistance from the states.

This is not an unfamiliar story for many Americans and it comes to mind every year when we celebrate Fourth of July. That beginning was a rich example of a new concept of governance. Unlike Britain where the monarchy and imperialism had been the model of governance, Americans were charting a new course.

In doing so, those delegates of the Continental Congress set the stage for the evolution of the system we know today and that is modeled across the globe.

As we watch partisan gridlock take over our Congress and our states appear mired in a ‘all-for-me’ mindset, we must look back at this historical Congress and wonder ‘what happened?’

Experts may say time, progress and evolution or was it revolution?

ASPA has been watching and has been a constant voice for good governance. We believe that it is important that our leaders demonstrate professionalism and display collaboration in their acts. A time like this seems so far away…

But we are encouraged that a return to the focused, collaborative and professional governance we saw at the Continental Congress will return.

Meanwhile, have a GREAT Fourth of July!