Check the new WhoseFlorida for updates
With April 15 fast approaching, all thoughts turn to taxes. I entered
the American workforce over thirty years ago. Since then, my tax dollars
have been used to support, in no particular order:
* The Cold War
* The War against Palestinians by Israelis
* The death of hundreds of thousands in Indonesia,
Chile, Kosovo, El Salvador, Iraq, Columbia,
Afghanistan, Chechnya
* The bailout of multi-billion dollar multi-national
corporations
* The War in Vietnam
* The "Peace Process" with emphasis on preventing
actual peace
* The sending of weapons to Iran via Israel for
"hostages" - when there were no hostages until later
* The consideration of an Iraqi invasion of Iran after
the 1979 revolution that rejected US Middle East
policy
* The flow of wealth from the Middle East to the upper
one percent of the US population
* The ethnic cleansing of countless indigenous
peoples, their societies and cultures
* The presidential pardoning of thiefs and other
criminals
* The continued US addiction to fossil fuels
* The neglect of millions of senior citizens and
children with no healthcare or sufficient income to
pay for prescription medicines
* The War on Drugs
* The research and development units (as much as 40-50
per cent of their budgets) of multi-national
corporations
* The Supreme Court selection of a US president
* The use of fear and threats to civil liberties to
ensure citizen conformity
* The salaries of already wealthy public officials
* The doctrine that if someone else does it, it's
terrorism. If the US does it, it's self defense or a
desire for peace
* The War on Terrorism
* The funding of a $400 billion a year defense budget
($400 billion a year!)
* The growth of prisons for hundreds of thousands of
minority males
* The destruction of our public education system
* The threat to Social Security
* The repeal of long-standing environmental laws
* The repeal of laws relating to workers, the disabled
and affirmative action
* The continued discrimination against women, African
Americans and people of different sexual and religious
orientation
* The elimination of jobs and job security
* The predatory lending practices of multi-national
corporations
* The marginalization of those who question any the
above mentioned policies
* Various other distractions and attention grabbing
scandals
* The growing disparity between who pays taxes and who
does not.
Frankly, I'm warred out. In the sixties, young men burned their draft
cards. In the seventies, women burned their bras. In the eighties, many
of affluence burned US currency to light their cigars. Today, maybe it's
time to burn our tax returns. Time to respectfully demand more from our
leaders. Time to respectfully demand more thought and purpose to evolve
beyond the sicknesses of greed, of "might is right" and of
"us versus them." It's time, in
the words of US Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, to
"Think peace. Speak peace. Act peace. Peace."
...Jacob Lerner, Tallahassee, 4/10/02
The Cleaning Lady
She works hard for her money, as the song relates. She's the
cleaning lady, the one who gets on her knees and scrubs your toilet of
all the things that none of us would ever wish to look at, let alone
touch. She mops and dusts and vacuums your house for $40-$50
bucks, then hurries off to her next job, if she's so lucky. Does this
5 days a week, pulling in anywhere from $400 -$500 , minus her
supplies and gas, and sweat and aches. Then she has to
factor in the nanny who watches her boy so she can work at all. That's
another $150 off the top. Even still, her 2 year college degree could
never get her that much in some white collar job- not with today's
economy. So, she's the "cleaning lady", trading in
respectability for some green.
She's got a husband and a baby boy. The husband works too; the
baby laughs and cries a lot. Sometimes her husband cries about not
having health insurance. He's a craftsman, skilled enough to
pull in the same as his wife; not skilled enough to get his boss to
pay for health insurance for the crew. Not too many craftsman jobs out
there now, so his bargaining power is reduced to a whimper. Like most
Florida businesses, its a non- union shop, so the benefits are one
week a year paid vacation, and a few sick days and holidays, and
that's it.
The cleaning lady joins her husband in having no health insurance.
Simply cannot afford $400 a month for decent coverage. They did
get some for the baby, thank goodness. She, however, was not so
lucky. Had a stomach attack a few months back. Between the
emergency room, the tests and the specialist, cost her $1500 bucks,
money she did not have. She pays it off, the bill, a little each
month, and curses a system that does not look out for the little
people, the one's who clean our toilets.
The other day, one of her clients told her some startling information.
She could not believe it, until she saw it right there in the Business
Week magazine. It said that, on average, top executives in U.S.
corporations earn over 500 times more than their lowest paid full-time
employee! 500 times! She could not comprehend how someone could make
that much money, and not care that she and her husband could not
afford health coverage. She wondered if rich people could even
go to church and worship a Jesus who spoke of sharing
one's wealth, not hoarding it. "Easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to heaven!"
It was getting late. She had to get to the sitter and pick up
the kid, go to Publix and grab something for dinner. Mustn't forget
the Pampers too. Then she began to laugh, the laugh one creates
to push aside the anger, and the frustration. This was Tuesday,
cleaning day. She never got to do her house. It would simply have to
wait, like everything else it seemed.
...Philip Farruggio brooklynphilly@aol.com , 6/1/02 Turning social services over to Lockheed is cause for worry
By Dorothy Inman-Crews
And what are the qualifications of this military contractor to deliver social services? None worth mentioning. In a 1998 article in The Nation, titled "Lockheed Martin: From Warfare to Welfare," authors William Hartung and Jennifer Washburn offered a scathing description of the company. Perhaps the company has transformed itself, but at the time Lockheed was described as "one of the companies whose fondness for doling out bribes moved Congress to pass the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977; whose multibillion-dollar overcharges made 'cost overrun' a household phrase; and whose 1971 $250 million government bailout inspired former U.S. Senator William Proxmire to coin the phrase 'corporate welfare'. Lockheed Martin's spectacular ineptitude, cost overruns, and influence peddling raises serious questions about whether the rush to privatize is going too far too fast." Though I find it incredible that this is the corporation Jeb Bush's administration has selected to demonstrate how to run social services like a business, I am certainly not surprised. He is emulating his big brother. In 1995, Texas Gov. George Bush's legislative liaison Dan Shelley slipped a provision into the Texas welfare reform bill requiring a study on privatizing public assistance with W's blessing. Soon after the bill passed, Shelley left the administration to open a private lobbying office and guess who one of his first clients was. If you guessed Lockheed Martin, you would be absolutely right. Further The Nation article points out, total secrecy surrounded Lockheed's bid to privatize the Texas welfare program. "From 1996 to 1997 no member of the legislature or public was allowed to see revised requests for bids, which meant even basic questions couldn't be asked: Would Lockheed try to squeeze profits by denying needy Texans welfare? What kind of government oversight was being planned? Would access to public information be denied because a private company considers it proprietary?" These are all good questions that Floridians ought to ask Jeb Bush and the legislature in light of bills passed this session to privatize government services, eliminate employee protections, close access to government meetings and relocate school readiness to the Agency for Workforce Innovation under Lockheed. All appear to be part of a master plan to move as many of our tax dollars into the deep pockets of Republican corporate campaign donors as possible. If these changes are really about creating efficiencies in delivering government services, then the governor and legislature should have approved oversight boards to ensure appropriate quality services, protect against the misuse of our taxes and annually complete a cost-benefit analysis of the privatized services. There are plenty of reasons to worry about handing over essential services for our state's most vulnerable citizens to a company that has proven repeatedly that it is willing to do anything to make a profit. In two other states in which Lockheed has won privatization contracts, the results have been disastrous. In 1992, it won the contract to build California's computer system to track child-support payments. The projected cost was $99 million. It ended up costing more than $277 million for a system that never worked. The contract was cancelled, with Lockheed protected by a contract clause limiting its liability to just $3 million of the $178 million overrun. Connecticut, likewise, cancelled a $14.3 million Lockheed contract for the state's foster-care computer system after state employees caught a Lockheed mistake that would have resulted in $8 million in overpayments. Rational people might wonder how the heck Lockheed qualifies to be awarded almost all of the government services formerly managed by the Florida Department of Labor. The answer is easy: Just follow the money. .... Opinion - in Tallahassee Democrat 6/3/01 Purging system gets a (no) vote
By HARRIET M. LUDWIG
Gainesville Sun Sunday,
June 10, 2001
Harriet M. Ludwig is a retired journalist who lives in
Gainesville.
Slowly, the word is seeping out. It was more than the wrong kind
of voting machines that caused the Election 2000 debacle.
The headline on a report by the Los Angeles Times, printed (May
21) in The Gainesville Sun, says "Florida voter rolls purge
was inaccurate."
Those conclusions are documented in detail in a master's degree
project done by Gainesville resident Deb Cupples, who graduated
in political science at the University of Florida last month.
Her study backs the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's preliminary
report (March 9, 2000).
It states that "key state officials (no names) made
decisions before and during the election that tipped it to
George W. Bush." Their final report is due this month.
The studies have become politically explosive because the
decisions and inaccuracies targeted large numbers of black
non-felons and ex-felons of all races whose rights had been
restored-and the majority would likely have voted Democrat.
Sociologists Christopher Uggen (University of Minnesota) and
Jeff Manza (Northwestern University) confirmed this in studies
of ex-felon voting patterns based on class, income, race and
other factors.
Minorities and poor people who can't afford private attorneys
have historically voted Democrat.
A class-action lawsuit against Florida, filed by the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University Law College, alleges
that more than 500,000 ex-felons are denied the vote in Florida.
One in four of them are black.
All but 14 states automatically restore voting rights when a
felon's sentence is completed, but Florida has a cumbersome
clemency process requiring a hearing before the governor.
The ACLU of Florida is suing the Department of Corrections for
not informing prison inmates of the process before they return
to citizen life. The national ACLU labels Election 2000 "a
threat to democracy."
An NAACP lawsuit charges the state with violating the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and asks an order of surveillance to prevent
discrimination in future elections in Florida.
Cupples traces the history of Florida voter purges from 1998
legislation passed in response to voter fraud in the Miami
mayoral election of 1997. That program (Florida statute 98) is
aimed to cleanse Florida's central voter file of voters who had
become ineligible by death, moving from the state, or were
ex-felons whose voting rights had not been restored.
The state Division of Elections was to conduct the purge with
help from county election supervisors and a private firm.
Florida is the only state to require the use of a private firm.
The multi-year contract with DataBase Technologies, Inc., now
part of Atlanta-based ChoicePoint Inc., cost Florida taxpayers
$4 million. It was awarded to DBT by then under-Secretary of
State Sandra Mortham.
DBT was told to cross-check the 8.6 million names of Florida's
registered voters with law enforcement and other records. Over
the next two years, DBT compiled a database to identify-and
often misidentify-about 100,000 felons and dead people still on
the voter rolls.
At an early 2001 hearing in Miami, DBT spokesman George Bruder
told the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that Florida officials
"cast too wide a net" to ensure accuracy in the voter
check. He said state officials were warned, but chose to
stick with that format.
Bruder also talked of "false positives," where DBT
lists matched felons and non-felons who had similar but not
identical names.
Examples of "false positives" included a Hillsborough
County judge and the Madison County elections supervisor. Both
were on a possible-felon list, but neither were felons.
An example of wrong identification is Patricia Lassiter, a
former Gainesville resident who now lives in Atlanta. During a
trip to Tampa, she learned that she had been purged as a felon,
though she has no such conviction.
Fortunately, she knew poll workers there who allowed her to
vote, but many were not so lucky.
DBT got its Election 2000 instructions from DOE, which reported
to Secretary of State Katherine Harris. One DBT list included
12,000 state residents with felony convictions in Texas,
Illinois, Ohio and Florida-although the first three states
restore voting rights on completion of sentences.
Also, a South Florida Court of Appeals ruled in 1998 that
ex-felons whose rights were restored in other states could vote
in Florida without going through the clemency process (Schlenther
vs. Florida Department of State.)
Alachua County Elections Supervisor Beverly Hill says the Bureau
of Clemency instructed elections offices not to register
ex-felons unless they had written proof of restoration of
rights. Such proof is not usually issued in states with
automatic restoration.
Cupples' research shows that for more than two years, citizens
were wrongly placed on purge lists. Statistics for less than 10
percent of Florida counties showed more than 3,790 errors before
election 1998 and more than 11,000 errors before election 2000.
She lists likely causes of error as poor data quality, DOE's
choice of purging method, and the legally questionable directive
from the Office of Executive Clemency regarding ex-felons with
restored voting rights.
Statistics show in 2001 that Florida's purge program is still
going strong. A move to pass laws for automatic restoration of
ex-felons' voting rights failed in the recent Legislature.
Hillsborough County's elections supervisor said the state sent
out a "fatally" flawed list earlier in 2000 and a
"fairly inaccurate" one in June 2000. Palm Beach
County and Treasure Coast reported a combined 657 errors,
including "people erroneously identified as muggers,
burglars and car thieves." Leon County's supervisor said
only 34 of 690 voters targeted for removal proved to be felons.
The Associated Press reported that of the 58,000 voters targeted
for purging, about 12,000 were listed as felons, though many had
been convicted only of misdemeanors.
In Hillsborough County, of the 551 voters who appealed their
alleged ineligibility to vote, 245 succeeded, a more than 40
percent error rate.
Of the 7,837 appeals filed with the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, 3,729 were mistakes resolved in the voter's favor.
This
XPress section of Monday's St. Pete Times has some good
reporting on youth involvement in the Tampa Bush protest, and
features an online interview with 17 year-old activist
Sarah Skowronski. Sarah's words of wisdom are worth sharing with
Greens of all ages:
Conversation with an
activist
By SARAH WHEATON
St. Petersburg Times - June
18, 2001
Below is a transcript of an AOL Instant Message conversation
between X-Team member Sarah Wheaton
(Sarahnyc83) and Sarah Skowronski (Shakantala),
a Palm Harbor teenager who is politically active.
* * *
Sarahnyc83: ok, i
need to "interview' u for my article. ... do u have time?
Shakantala: yeah,
it's no problem
Sarahnyc83: y were
u protesting?
Shakantala: I was
protesting Bush for a number of reasons, environmental, social
and humanitarian. ... but ultimately, it really comes down to
the fact that Bush is out to protect corporate interests and not
the interests of the average American people, and I think that
influences every aspect of his policies
Sarahnyc83: what do
u think u accomplished?
Shakantala: I think
we were able to effectively voice our opposition to his policies
and to raise awareness about some of his ideas, like his tax
plan, his offshore drilling plan, and his refusal to fund
research for clean power. Since we had to stay in the designated
protest zone, of course, I think we weren't able to accomplish
quite as much as we could have, but that wasn't our fault.
Sarahnyc83: for how
long have u been following politics?
Shakantala: I've
been following politics for a long time -- since middle school
-- but it wasn't until recently that I actually became involved
in political activism
Sarahnyc83: y did u
become involved?
Shakantala: When I
saw Ralph Nader speak in St. Petersburg, he spoke about civic
participation and public involvement in politics in a way which
inspired me to become active, rather than just expecting someone
else to fix political and social problems for me
Sarahnyc83: how
have u been active aside from the protest on monday?
Shakantala: I've
been involved with the local Green Party and other progressive
organizations
Sarahnyc83: why is
it important for youth to become active?
Shakantala: Even
though the mistakes that politicians make are not caused by our
generation, they directly impact our futures. For instance,
Bush's shortsighted emphasis on drilling rather than on
developing clean power will affect the environment for years to
come in the future -- that's going to impact us, the future
generation, not Bush. So we need to be active in order to
preserve our futures and our children's futures. And even if we
can't vote, we can make our views known in other ways, like
protests.
Sarahnyc83: how
would u assess our generation's level of involvement? i mean, do
u think that we are generally well-informed and adequately
active, or do u feel that not enough of us care and that we are
basically ignorant of what's going on in gov't today?
Shakantala: I think
a lot of youth are well-informed and most of them have pretty
good instincts about political issues. But I think a lot of us
are reluctant and maybe a bit afraid to get involved in activism
-- afraid that our parents might get angry, afraid that we just
aren't mature enough to know anything about politics, afraid
that we won't really make a difference in the world. But we need
to stop listening to the cynics and the apathetic bystanders,
and start acting on our political instincts.
Sarahnyc83: how did
u feel about the arrest of those three protesters?
Shakantala: I
thought that was outrageous. I mean, this was a public event
that involved governmental figures, so people should have been
allowed to exercise their free speech rights. But apparently the
First Amendment was only meant to apply in special zones, not
throughout America -- or anyway, that's what the police seemed
to think that day.
Sarahnyc83: do u
think stuff like that discourages kids from getting involved?
does it promote cynicism?
Shakantala: Yes, I
think when peaceful protesters at Bush rallies are ... arrested
..., kids are definitely scared away from political activism and
become cynical about the possibility of speaking truth to power.
And their parents also aren't exactly encouraged to let their
kids get involved.
Sarahnyc83:
speaking of which, r u you gonna to get in trouble when i quote
u and ur parents find out u did actually demonstrate?
Shakantala: Well,
my mom knows I protested, but my dad doesn't, so I hope none of
his coworkers show him the article.
Sarahnyc83:
coolness ... thanx, sarah :)
Shakantala: okay,
thanks
There is more about the Bush
protests at http://www.sptimes.com/Xpress.shtml
(Top)Wave hello to countess of chadBy
Diane
Carman Coloradans, please welcome that darling of disenfranchisement, one of the country's leading supporters of airline travel at public expense, the countess of chad herself, Katherine Harris. The secretary of state of Florida will be the keynote speaker for the Restoration Weekend, a public policy conference at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. In some circles - including that one - she's a national hero. This is the woman who brought her skills as a commercial real estate broker and granddaughter of a cattle and citrus mogul to the office charged with managing the state's elections and developing historical and cultural exhibitions. Her record speaks for itself. Harris was first elected to the state Senate six years ago in one of the most expensive campaigns in Florida history. Among her contributors was the insurance company Riscorp, which gave $20,000 in employee funds that were "bundled" in a manner prohibited by campaign finance laws. The company founder, William Griffin, later pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy to violate election laws. Harris returned the money. She was never charged. In 1998, Harris was elected Florida secretary of state and oversaw the operation to remove "ineligible" voters from the registration rolls prior to the 2000 election. The secretary of state's office had contracted with the private firm of Database Technologies to purge the lists. An estimated 50,000 to 100,000 were removed from voter lists or blocked from registering over the objections of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections. The way it worked, according to Gregory Palast, writing for The Observer in Britain and The Nation magazine, was that the names of people who moved to Florida and had felony convictions in their past were removed from voting lists. Florida courts previously had ruled that this is unlawful since most states automatically restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and Florida does not have the power to abridge those rights. As a result, Harris' office is being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection. Meanwhile, the Florida Association of Court Clerks has offered to clean up the mess at a cost of $750,000. Harris' office, which paid $4 million to the private firm that inappropriately purged the lists, rejected the offer, according to news reports. But while ensuring voting rights is dismissed as too expensive, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Harris considers lavish international travel essential. During her first two years in office, Harris took 10 trips to eight foreign countries. She spent more than $106,000 - more than any state Cabinet officer or the governor. Her trips took her to Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, Panama, Mexico and Barbados. Her office budget for "international relations" jumped from $783,000 in 1999 to $3.4 million in 2001. Now Harris hopes to bring this same style of leadership to the national stage. She is expected to announce plans to run for Congress from Florida's 13th District. And given all that she's done for the elections system in Florida, she's considered a shoo-in. Diane Carman's commentaries appear here Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: dcarman@denverpost.com. LESS IS MORE!Less is more, according to Governor Jeb Bush. Less government is what the people of Florida want and he is going to give it to them. The Governor has proposed a 25% reduction in state employees over a 5-year period, starting with 4,233 jobs this next fiscal year. Has the governor possibly misinterpreted what the people want, could it be that what the people really want is simply less government… regulation? I know the governor himself felt that his staff was to small, one of his first acts in office was to create three new deputy secretary positions, the Deputy Secretary for Regulatory Programs, the Deputy Secretary for Land and Recreation, and the Deputy Secretary for Planning and Management. These new positions were created under the heading of a "reorganization". Call it what you will, they are positions that never existed before. These positions were created to reduce the number of direct reports coming to the Secretary. These positions only serve to reduce the workload of the Governor and his Secretaries. If he thought he was understaffed, he should go down and stand in line to register his car, file for unemployment, get a drivers license, or apply for some type of permit. Most people that I know already think that even getting the simplest things done is agonizingly slow when it comes to state government. How many of you have ever had to do something as simple as registering your car, or getting a drivers license. How about any of you homeowners, builders or contractors, ever have to apply for a permit of one type or another. What about you retailers, merchants or businesses that have had experience in dealing with the enormous delays when trying to do business with the state. Just think about all of the agencies that effect our daily lives, that have already long lines to stand in, long turn around times to process the paperwork, and how frustrating it can be, and heaven forbid should there be a clerical error! It is not just about a bunch of state employees losing their jobs. It is about the poor services that already exist (which is due to understaffing) and how all our lives will be affected by these cutbacks. This is one of the fastest growing states in the nation (fact) and
these overburdened agencies can not keep up with the pace as it is. I
understand that the Governors proposal does include increasing the
Workforce Innovation Agency. This agency would increase from a staff of 3
employees to 1,599 next fiscal year. It is my understanding that this
office would be responsible for updating and streamlining state
government, mainly through the use of computer technology. Such as on-line
permitting and automated phone systems, anyone ever try shopping on-line,
only to find that you can’t log on because of too much Internet traffic.
Maybe you were able to log on but in the middle of your transaction you
were kicked off or the computer just dumped on you? As a registered republican (at least for now), I do not believe anyone wants less government service (employees) only less government regulation. I do believe that our legislators are smart enough to understand this, that it will also be political suicide and will not allow this proposal to pass. Just remember LESS IS MORE, the only question is more of what? "Florida, Where Dead Children Pave the Roads!" I am angered about the 20,000 pregnant women of working families that will be excluded from Medicaid coverage in his budget. By lowering Medicaid eligibility from 185% of poverty level to 150% the Jeb will cut 20,000 pregnant women from Medicaid and save $37 million. This money will be paid later by mothers and children in intensive care and again hundreds more dead and damaged babies and mothers.
Tort reform now being considered in the legislature (SB 1202, Long-Term
Care Facilities, sponsored by Republican Senator Ginny Brown-Waite)
would place “stiffer requirements” on persons seeking damages from
negligent, abusive or outright malicious actions by nursing homes.
I am not a lawyer, but how many private or small-firm attorneys will be
willing to take cases that could result in hundreds of thousands of
dollars or more in expenses for them, while there is a cap on the amount
of punitive damages that might be awarded to their client; and then,
only if the plaintiffs meet the new industry-favorable lawsuit standards
built into the reforms. (Never mind that we can hear the
proponents of the bill whispering among themselves, “But that’s
exactly what we want to happen!”)
In the grand scheme of things, who will hold the nursing home industry
accountable if the Governor succeeds in reducing the state workforce and
ensuring that his “new and improved” state government favors
corporate entities such as those represented by the Florida Health Care
Association. I suppose the monitoring of nursing homes will be
“outsourced” to private firms (subsidiaries of corporations that
also own the nursing homes?) much like those now responsible for
monitoring the state’s private prisons.
To restate Senator Skip Campbell’s question to the FHCA lobbyist who
stood before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "Do you think
the greedy trial lawyers are the ones who caused the subcutaneous skin
ulcers to go to the bone?" [of nursing home patients]: Torts are
neither responsible for corporate mismanagement and incompetence nor for
its medical malpractice, negligence or outright abuse. Reform
advocates such as Governor Bush, Senator Brown-Waite and industry
lobbyists would argue, however, that it is because of torts that their
mismanagement, incompetence, malpractice or negligence occurs - due to
fiscal constraints they encounter that result from excessive damage
awards. This circular, chicken-or-the-egg argument is nothing more
than proponents’ avoidance of the core issue of maintaining every
consumer’s right to seek redress of complaint in court; with final
awards decisions where they should be - in the hands of a jury.
No ill wishes intended, but what if one of the individuals fighting so
strongly for reforms suddenly found himself or herself or a senior
family member incapacitated, on life support, or worse. What if
their medical bills were mounting into the hundreds of thousands, even
millions of dollars, or their survivors were seeking compensation as a
result of malpractice, incompetence, abuse or negligence. Where
then would they turn if the very laws they helped amend or abolish were
no longer available? Does this sound like “common sense?”
(Top) If Not Now, WhenIt seems as if the ability of our power elite to redefine history, to proclaim "this or that" to be true wholly on the basis on their having said it is true, grows easier every year. And I imagine it will continue that way for some time to come - at least until we wake up to the responsibility inherent in living in a free society, in determining our own fate. Every day this legislature meets brings another assault on our personal
freedom and dignity, on our health and well being, and our ability to
discern what is from what we are told it is. I shudder to think how much suffering we will have to endure before we come together in our own defense. The Police and Correctional Officers want more yet condone other
government worker's getting less. The workers who feel secure in their
positions, step back and pretend nothing is happening - everything will be
OK. This is how we as a people lose. This is how we have always lost. A wise man once asked these questions: If not now, when? wf 4/18/01 No shortage of arrogance with Jeb Bush & Co. By Dorothy Inman CrewsJust how arrogant can Gov. Jeb Bush be? Obviously plenty. How else could he explain his request that state workers take annual leave to come to the Capitol to support his political position? When I was a city commissioner I would have been brought before the Ethics Commission had I sent such a directive out to city employees. And I would have really been in trouble if I dared to pressure an employee into engaging in partisan politics while on the city payroll. I guess becoming governor placed him above the law, along with his Republican colleagues in the Legislature who feel a judge's order does not apply to them. Bush's "Service First" plan, which a special master described as "Service Worst," is an all-out war on innocent state workers for political reasons only. Anyone who thinks this has any connection to improving state services or government might also be interesting in buying a little land in the Everglades. What scares these Republicans so much about "just cause"? It's as American as apple pie and baseball, and ensures that employees are protected against arbitrary, unjust and unwarranted actions by supervisors. It has never been difficult to dismiss an employee who was performing poorly or truly in violation of state policy for any state supervisor worth his or her pay. It simply requires a supervisor to be able to provide proof to justify the action. In other words, the managers might really have to do their jobs and provide meaningful oversight, supervision, support and evaluations. This "sound discretion" bull is just a different way to spell "good ol' boy" system all over again. Bush and the Legislature admitted as much when they caved and carved certain employees, like law enforcement, out of the plan after they argued they would be afraid to carry out their duty against powerful state officials for fear of retribution. If they are willing to admit that the elimination of just cause for employee discipline will leave these law enforcement officers vulnerable to abuse of power, how could they have any credibility arguing the same would not be true for all other employees? Further evidence that this attack on state employees is pure politics is the change facing the Public Employees Relations Commission. It is Bush's intent to remove any affordable means for employees to seek justice after he has made them hostage to a system that encourages patronage and firing at will. This isn't just an assault on state employees. It's an assault on the democratic ideals of fairness and justice. They would even deny poor state employees a measly $3 meal allowance while traveling on state business. How petty can they be? The logic is that if the state employee was working in town, the state would not pay for the meal. Well, duh! If the employee were home, there would be no need to eat out. He or she could bring lunch from home, if desired. And in what hotel restaurant have these geniuses eaten where breakfast costs $3? The $3 for breakfast, $6 for lunch and $12 for dinner were meant to serve only as a supplement to defray the employee's expense for meals away from home. Maybe if these guys making the laws ever ate a meal that wasn't paid for by some lobbyist, they would have a better understanding of the real world. Who says there's no free lunch? Governor Bush's 4/19/01 response Thursday 19 April 2001 Examining the facts of civil service reform Re: “No shortage of arrogance with Jeb Bush & Co.,” by Dorothy Inman-Crews (contributing columnist, April 17).I suppose we should no longer be surprised at the sheer volume of bile Dorothy Inman-Crews is able to generate, especially when she doesn't waste precious energy checking the facts. Our reform plan was vetted with state employees beforehand, and incorporated many of their suggestions.
Responses:To: flgovernor@myflorida.comSubject: Bush's letter to Editor TDO Cc: info@whoseflorida.com
First, I have a copy of those e-mails PLEASE let me know where I can
find
some in support of your plan. Second, the Lottery is a private
enterprise
that makes money and does not regulate any industry. Third, these
changes
are not new they are back to the past, when political hacks ran the
show.
Your regime requires all 'at will' employees to resign when a Secretary
of
Department or Division Director is replaced. RIGHT? Private workers have
the
right to STRIKE, should not that provision be added to your plan?
Brown Bag
Lunchs are not a change in the field either we have one everyday just to
save a few dollars. Having said that in closing, there is one change I
will
make after 32 years of voting Republican, it will not be so next time.
(Top)
...dogsrunning 4/20/01 Jacob Lerner: 4/19/01
I don't know where to begin to respond to Governor Bush's criticism of
Dorothy Inman-Crews's remarks about him and his efforts to "bring
out the best in us." My first question is, to which
"us" is he referring? Certainly he means the populace of
"his" Florida, and not the "us" of his
administration and its dwindling supporters.
Secondly, under what durress were state employees "vetted" and
their suggestions incorporated into "his" plan? The standing
mandate by appointed supervisors is to "smile", "don't
say anything bad", and "just do your job." It's easy to
understand why the Lottery does not have any problems.
I take great exception to the Governor's attempts at suppression of
productive, dedicated employees' protections against patronage,
favoritism, and "merit." What is more American than laws and
rules that currently exist in the state to review, evaluate, reward and
recognize or reprimand and dismiss state employees at all levels? But
the chaos created by this administration to reorganize state agencies
has tied the hands of supervisors who would speak up for their employees
and constrained them to merely putting out the latest of the Governor's
fires. (But what are these fires if not distractions from what is really
happening somewhere else?) Performance reviews occur all too
infrequently in state government these days.
If the "vast majority of private sector employees do not enjoy
stiff protections against accountability," it is because their
rights to speak, their benefits and their working conditions have been
undermined and are gradually being abolished. Increasingly, they are
threatened with immediate replacement if they do not conform, "buy
in" without question, keep constructive criticism to themselves and
"just do their jobs."
Change IS fearful. It seems that the Governor is fearful to CHANGE his
mind, listen to others who are in the majority and know what they are
talking about, and admit that he is wrong in many ways regarding how to
treat those who have dedicated their working lives to serving the
citizens of Florida - and who do it far better than transient private
enterprise and one-term elected officials.
(Top) General
Public
Mr. Cotterell;
This is a letter directed at Jeb which I can't send because I have
already been retaliated against in my tenure with the state. Of course,
the grievance committee didn't recommend any punishment for the
retaliator, but, what would you expect...
Begin transmission:
In my fifteen plus years with the State of Florida I've never been so disillusioned
as I am at present. In fact, I was going to ignore the "Modernizing
the State Workforce" issue and just keep doing my job until
whatever happens happens. But I heard your comments in Florida Public
Radio one afternoon and felt I had to do something but I'm waiting to
figure out how to do so anonymously. Why? Because I've found two things:
anonymous complaints are the only ones acted upon and, despite the fact
that you ASKED for input, I know you have already (or your subordinates
have) retaliated against several people who have expressed negative
support of your "plan."
One large misconception you have is that your plan of doing away with
career service will protect line staff from the whims of supervisory and
management staff. We aren't protected now silly boy! How will your plan
make that be any different?
Bill Cottrell of the Tallahassee Democrat made an astute comparison in
his analysis of your letter to staff as being similar in nature to
former Governor Martinez's "Lard Bricks" commentary. I might
remind you that in a sound bite last Spring (2000) you stated:
"... I would like to see fewer state employees being paid better,
with better benefits. I really do think that is something we need to
evaluate across the board..."
and
"That's [lay offs] one element of a comprehensive strategy of
increasing benefits for workers. I would hope next year we can do better
than this, than the 2.5 percent. It depends on the resources and depends
on the reforms that will allow us to free up some money to pay people
more."
If that is all true sir, then where is a 2 percent raise with a 2 or
maybe 3 percent bonus determined by SUPERVISORY level staff going to
help? Your flunky who came to my office to talk to staff said
"everyone" they had talked to supported your plan for bonuses
-- everyone but one person in my location (i.e. 50+ people to 1) thought
your plan was flawed.
In addition, attempts by you and your handlers to blame the
"Council of 100" for the idea are laughable. You appointed the
Council. Not ALL your State Employees are as stupid as some of
your managers Jeb.
But I digress. You statements in Spring 2000 were simply a sound bite,
obviously. The word liar comes to mind, but as you are a politician and
a Bush, well, redundancy comes to mind also.
I'd like to tell you a story of before your time... but if I did it
would be fairly easy to identify me. Then I would be forced into an EAP
session for my "bad attitude" as was done to a state employee
in Central Florida recently.
Suffice it to say that my employment history with the State, exemplary
in all aspects as far as job performance and statistics and even AWARDS
for said performance and statistics, has been marred by several
instances of retaliation and discrimination that were not only KNOWN by management
all the way up to the Department Secretary level but which were allowed
and in the most recent case ENCOURAGED by upper level management.
Despite excelling in my position I have gone through the stress of five
potential lay offs in the last several years due to the "reductions
in force" began by your attempts to lean down the state work force
and privatize it--to political allies I'm sure. In fact I've
actually received lay off letters after being told my position wasn't
affected. I once found out that the reason my position suddenly became
affected was because another position had been deleted and then
re-established at a lower salary level in a new division. My
understanding is that this happened in several instances.
So you see, my point is the line staff have little or no protection from
the vagaries of supervisory and management staff as it is now.
Especially when they are inspired by your actions. What good will reform
do--unless you begin the reform at the top. If the head is sick, the
body is sick.
I will close with a paragraph I dearly hope you recognize (but somehow
doubt you will) and I hope, after reading it you will come to see that
myself and the line staff (who bear the burden of management's often questionable
decisions everyday and face the public) are the brutes who do the work
of the state whether it be technologically enhanced or not. As Elbert
Hubbard so astutely said in his 1899 "Letter to Garcia:"
"My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the
"boss" is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man
who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without
asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking
it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never
gets "laid off," nor has to go on a strike for higher wages.
Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals.
Anything such a man asks shall be granted; his kind is so rare that no
employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town and
village--in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out
for such: he is needed, and needed badly--the man who can carry a
message to Garcia."
Quite frankly, I think no reform which is presented (as so often is the
case with government) as being "aimed at" the "line
staff" has any chance of success if the reform fails to start at an
upper management level.
As a very good friend and former state employee recently said to me:
"There's just no more loyalty left here. [Management] expects US to
be loyal but it just doesn't seem to work the other way around.
I'm more naive than he because I still have hope for the state of the
State. But the candle is flickering fast and sputtering now. So, as one
of the persons Mr Hubbard was speaking about who consistently delivers
the letter to Garcia, I ask a boon: Try not to let the candle go
out -- and for heaven's sake don't blow it out yourself.
Sincerely,
A soon to be former state employee, hopefully not a disgruntled one.
Letter
to State Senator Rudy Garcia copied to whoseflorida:
|
||
