Jack & Jill Went Up The Hill …

Looking for a Leader

The election is over; the new Congress began the duties of leading the country last week. The partisan gridlock of the 112th Congress is history (there is little doubt history will not be kind to the 112^th Congress).

Speaker Boehner was reaffirmed and the Senate Majority Leader remains Harry Reid. Finger pointing and political posturing may yield, for a while to allow something to actually get done! Is there a significant change in Congress where progress will prevail?

Did Jack and Jill go up the hill to practice partisan politics or to actually lead the country?

Jack and Jill went up the hill

Looking for congressional leaders

They found Boehner and Reid

Gave a Tug on the Sleeve

And The Action They Just Couldn’t Believe

There is a need for open and honest dialogue for the nation to move forward. The complexity of social, economic, and political issues cannot be resolved with gridlock and political ideology. There is no single political ideology fitting every situation, thus, a need to cooperate and compromise is essential to a country for progress. There are severe economic concerns for the United States, concerns tied to various facets of the government’s powers and global impact.

The tragedy in Newtown, CT renewed the opportunity for dialogue to find a balance of protection of rights for all. Job creation and

gcpower.net

health care are concerns of many in the United States. These and many other important issues require involvement of the people, not just the politicians and political action committees. One look at the We The People link on the White House Website (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/introduction) reaffirms the concerns of Americans. The website provides an opportunity to exercise your rights to petition the government and a response is provided for petitions with over 25,000 signatures.

Of course any website attempting to provide transparency is subject to misuse; for example, a petition for state secession from the union. People from each state have submitted a petition to secede from the Union with Texas having the most signatures collected at 125,000 (nextgov.com). In perspective, there are 25.6 million residents in Texas (quickfacts.census.gov) and thus, an attempt to misuse a privilege—the privilege to vote.

Another apparent misuse is the call to deport Piers Morgan of CNN for his view on gun control.  Think about this: if someone does not have the same viewpoint as others, there is no free speech, no rights to one’s view, the response is to deport? There is a need to actually listen to dialogue, yet it appears listening is not practiced (nor patience or tolerance). The petitions may provide a view into congressional thinking – the 112^th Congress could not get anything done because of a lack of respect for others rights and views. The need to have open debates and establish a national priority for progress of the country cannot be accomplished if the view of others is not met with openness. If the people are acting with disregard and responding to opposing views with talk of secession, deportation, recall of elected officials without cause, then how can we expect anything from the officials elected to congress?

theweek.com

Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid and members of congress: are we in for more of the same partisan gridlock and political posturing? Remember, Jack and Jill went up the Hill with aspirations of finding and learning from leaders. Of course, Jack and Jill may tumble, but at least there is action. It is time to be accountable to the people – dialogue, discourse, decision, compromise, and compassion are needed for a progressive nation.

Hope Against Hopelessness

http://myfootpath.com

In higher education, December is a rush of end-of-the-semester activities: reading papers, proctoring and grading final exams, and helping students manage their overwhelming end-of-the-semester wishes and regrets. In the nonprofit sector, the months of November and December are frenzies of a different sort: Giving Trees, Adopt-a-Family programs, food baskets, toy collections, increased client crises, and helping staff manage their own holiday stressors.  Consequently, as a professor AND a nonprofit administrator, maintaining the “holiday spirit” is always struggle. Looking at the sea of disoriented expressions on the faces of those around me, I can see that I am not alone this year.

It’s no wonder. The past two months have had all the makings of a horror movie. An October storm ravaged the east coast, taking lives and devastating survivors. A December storm has pummeled the midwest and is unleashing destruction on the south. Senseless shootings in New York, Pennsylvania and Newton, Connecticut rocked our nation.  And we are standing on the edge of a cliff that threatens our economic survival.

A cursory glance at trending news articles might lead you to believe that the most important loss of the season is in retail growth. As an indicator of the mood of the nation, it is certainly significant. However, I am worried about a more enduring loss—the loss of hope.

When we are without hope, we feel powerless. We are loath to take action because we believe it won’t matter anyway. Not taking action contributes to the feeling of powerlessness, which exacerbates feelings of hopelessness. It becomes, in essence, a self-fulfilling prophecy because in our despair we forget that there is a salve for hopelessness right at our fingertips:

Do something.

Even in this time of great uncertainty and despondency the solution to hopelessness is action. Write or call your legislators so that your voice is heard. Make a budget for 2013—a Plan A and a Plan B. Commit a random act of kindness, or two. Or 27. Hug your kids more.  Let them hug you, too. Just do something.

I wish you peace, love, health, and happiness throughout this holiday season. May hope motivate all of us through despair and toward action.

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.

America in an Orwellian State of Mind

An Orwellian society, as describe by George Orwell, is the destruction of the welfare of a free society in which there is an invasion of privacy by constantly monitoring its citizens. Moreover, it is the encouragement of “doublespeak” which refers to misleading the masses to accept inconsistent policies. A great example of this is seen when the American people gave up their civil liberties and freedom in the name of national security.

On December 31, 2011, while many Americans celebrated bringing in the New Year, President Obama was busy signing into law the $662 billion funded National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which focuses on the defense of the United States and its overseas interests.  Although the NDAA addresses US national security programs and the Department of Defense health care costs, it becomes controversial when addressing counter-terrorism. Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1021 of the NDAA, which is labeled counter-terrorism, authorizes the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial if the government suspects their involvement with terrorism or connection to a terrorist organization. To date, there has been no law in the legislative history of the United States other than the Patriot Act which has given the President such unlimited power.

As a result of this provision the act has been seen as both a violation of international law and the laws of war. In defense of the Act, the President has assured that his Administration will not engage in any sort of unjust citizen detention. At the signing of NDAA the President stated, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He further went on to state, “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” However, such statements do not prevent future Heads of State from acting in a different manner, and may result in America in fact being one step closer to becoming an Orwellian society, whereby a totalitarian government will dominate and oppress our civil liberties by fighting an endless war on terror.

The NDAA also gives the military the power to exercise firm and repressive control over the population, which in turn gives the military the power to operate outside the boundaries of our Constitution by constantly monitoring citizens’ activities to seek out persons of suspicion. Similarly, during the Bush Administration’s war on terror, the issue of detaining suspected terrorist for an indefinite period of time was brought before the US Supreme Court.  The Court held that no government has the power or the legal premise to hold a person for an indefinite period of time.

It becomes apparent that the signing of the NDAA goes against the very philosophy of our Founding Fathers who purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one governmental branch supersedes the other. With the NDAA authorizing the President and military to exercise an unprecedented amount of power unopposed, that system is rendered ineffective.  Realizing that such legislation is unjust, the Virginia Senate has taken the opportunity to stand up against the unreasonable application of government authority by passing a bill that prevents state agency from participating or assisting in the detention of US citizens.

Ultimately, although the NDAA was designed with national security in mind, it may be a grave mistake to allow the executive branch of the government to have such an unprecedented amount of power and authority. If such legislation remains, one can only imagine the abuse of power of future leaders who would allow America to closely mimic countries that use policies and mass surveillance to control their citizens. Thus, if this Act is left unchallenged we can only expect the slow destruction of our welfare, and the systematic eradication of our basic freedom and civil liberties, inevitably leading us closer to becoming an Orwellian society.

Top 10 WWWD (What Would Washington Do?)

Nearly daily a political figure or commentator demands a return to the principles of America’s founding fathers.  For a few of these speakers, incorporating colonial ideas on civility & decent behavior in company and conversation, might be very worthwhile.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, operator of the world’s largest living history museum in Williamsburg, Virginia holds a treasure trove of founding father wisdom.  A paper on civility, with 110 rules of behavior, prepared by George Washington, sometime before the age of 16, is on the Foundation website.

The ten page list begins with rules of conversation, then discusses behavior among different classes (“people of quality,” servants, masters, etc.).  A significant part of the list addresses table manners and still other sections discuss public presence, including how to act when observing misfortune or punishment of others.  Many rules prescribe modulation in demeanor and keeping one’s business to oneself.

Today, many bemoan the state of public discourse.  Given that a common best practice for effective meetings is use of ground rules, I wondered, what would happen if Washington’s mid 1700’s ground rules were adopted today?  We, of course, would need a different method for enforcing ground rules as duels are not practical or legal.

I sifted through the list to find key guidelines.  Picking a top 10 from the original 110 rules wasn’t easy.  A few of the rules that didn’t make the final cut are still great for staff meetings, such as rule #5, use a handkerchief when you cough or sneeze, or #6, “Sleep not when others Speak, Sit not when others stand, Speak not when you Should hold your Peace …”

Still, a top ten WWWD (what would Washington do?) list for public meetings follows:

• Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.
• When in Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body, not usually Discovered.
• Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile.
• Speak not injurious Words neither in Jest nor Earnest Scoff at none although they give Occasion.
• If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained; and be not obstinate in your own Opinion, in Things indifferent be of the Major Side.
• While you are talking, Point not with your Finger at him of Whom you Discourse nor Approach too near him to whom you talk especially to his face.
• In Disputes, be not So Desirous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion and Submit to the Judgment of the Major Part especially if they are Judges of the Dispute.
• Let thy carriage be such as becomes a Man Grave Settled and attentive to that which is spoken. Contradict not at every turn what others Say.
• Be not tedious in Discourse, make not many Digressions, nor repeat often the Same manner of Discourse.
• Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust.

These ground rules echo ones I use in public meetings today.  Civility in the public dialogue is practical for the efficient functioning of governance and respectful of those who engage in it.  Calls for civility are not new or partisan.

Some may accuse me of being selective, cherry picking a list to prove a point.  This is true.  As an example, the WWWD list doesn’t include #13, “Kill no Vermin as Fleas, lice or ticks in the Sight of Others. If you See any filth or thick Spittle put your foot Dexterously upon it. If it be upon the Cloths of your Companions, Put it off privately, and if it be upon your own Cloths return Thanks to him who puts it off.”    (Although, in retrospect I should rethink this, as it seems to be good advice.)

In fact most forays to the past are selective.  Context does matter.  What need not change is a foundational belief in a form of government strong enough to consider multiple points of view.   Knowing this, we can affirm that respectful listening and civil exchange are worthwhile endeavors.

The Problem of Campaign Finances – Artificial Persons vs. Natural Persons

By Wiha Powell

With the 2012 Presidential Election around the corner, candidates are traveling around the nation raising as much money as possible for their campaigns while securing voters. Receiving donations from both individuals and corporations/unions alike, the presidential candidates have already raised more than $186 million for the upcoming 2012 election, reported recently by the Federal Election Commission. However, the dilemma that the majority of Americans are once again faced with is the unlimited amount of funds which corporations donate to a particular candidate for purposes of influencing the outcome of the election. Hence, the question still remains, should a corporation (an artificial person’s) rights have precedence over individuals’ rights.

Over the years, the role of the American people has been drastically reduced in the democratic process of an election, which mostly stems from the 1886 US Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, granting corporations the same rights as natural persons under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same free speech protection as a U.S. citizen under the First Amendement of the U.S. Constitution; therefore, making it unconstitutional for the government to restrict the amount of money a corporation spends to influence elections. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the floodgates were opened allowing an unlimited amount of corporate funds to engulf elections, thereby lessening the amount of power the American people have to actually choose their elected officials.

Soon after the court’s ruling U.S. House Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic House Representative of Maryland District 8, introduced the Democracy is Strengthen by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE), which was passed in the House of Representatives but later failed in the Senate. The goal of DISCLOSE was to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by creating a transparent apparatus that gives the general public more information regarding corporation and special interest campaign expenditures; moreover, placing a ban on U.S. corporations from using campaign contributions to influence elections.

On November 1, 2011, nine senators introduced a subsequent constitutional amendment to the Senate. The amendment, if passed, would overturn the ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, by granting Congress and states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Thus, Congress and individual states would have the power to limit both corporate contributions and independent expenditures.

In a press release Senator Mark Udall, one of the nine senators stated, “As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

It is evident that the landmark cases of 1886 and 2010, in which the Supreme Court granted private corporations the same legal rights and protection under the Constitutions as citizens, has allowed corporations to use money as a form of expression and influence in elections.

It is now more apparent than ever that the American people are tired of the influence that the big corporations have on politics and our political leaders. Furthermore, with the Supreme Court refusing to allow Congress and states to control the role corporations play in influencing the outcome of elections, it is evident that there is a need for a drastic change. However, amending the constitution is not an easy process, but a handful of congressmen, Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans, are stepping up in hopes of overturning the court’s decision.  Moreover, several polls have indicated that the majority of Americans are in support of a legislation that places restrictions on corporate contributions influencing elections.

As we see, the dilemma American voters are faced with is simple. The candidate with the most campaign cash wins the election, and with the ruling of the Supreme Court, corporations can now control the outcome of elections to the extent that our electorates become corporate stooges and eventually the future of America will becomes a pun to big corporations.

It is clear that the answer to the problem of campaign finance is for candidates to limit the corporate contributions and independent expenditures that will influence the outcome of an election, thereby giving the power back the American people to choose their elected officials through a democratic process of election.