Coming Down to the Wire

The court case challenging the legality of the CompLite process will be heard on Friday, March 2 at 10 a.m. at the Circuit Court which is in the old courthouse in Ellicott City. 

Judge Becker will hear the arguments.

Direction:  Route 40 East to right onto Rogers Avenue. Continue straight where Rogers becomes Courthouse Drive.  Proceed straight past the County office buildings on your right.  Proceed straigt to parking lot which is at end of this road. Park and walk into courthouse and ask for Judge Becker’s courtroom.

Wordbones, just in time for St. Patrick Day!

Heartbreaking Juxtapositions

Sunday Morning we watched the snow fall – and the names of the troops killed in Iraq scroll down the tube. I make a point of reading the names and ages, a masochistic personal exercise. This week there were several 18 and 19 year olds.

Around the same time these “babies” were losing their lives – some other 18 year olds and their buddies were busy beating each others brains out with baseball bats in the Mount Hebron High School parking lot.

Howard teen charged in fatal baseball-bat beating
18-year-old allegedly involved in fight at Mt. Hebron High School (11:34 AM)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard

Thinking about this heartbreaking juxtaposition reminded me of a little family lore. My mother was called to school to speak to the “vice” principal about something stupid involving senior week and toilet paper . She was finding both the vice principal and the conversation very tedious – particularly when he started ranting about how “when he was in high school he had to worry about going to war” and how spoiled American kids were “nowadays” .

As the story goes….. she quoted Thomas Paine:

“If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

When he didn’t understand her point she clarifed with her own little rant about “that’s why their fathers went to war … so they could worry about throwing toilet paper in the trees….” and then something about a bumbling idiot.

Thinking about this 30 year old exchange – I mentally drifted to some other “the more things change the more they stay the same” quotes and quips that seem as relevant today as they did when they were first uttered.

Hermann Goering:

Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. quote verified at snopes.com

or: Theodore Roosevelt:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)

Cindy Vaillancourt

Litigation Based Decisions – Myth?

The HoCo Conservancy and the HoCo Dept of Recreation and Parks cosponsored a talk by Richard Louv, author of a book called LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS ,  about what he calls “Nature Deficit Disorder”  on February 4.

Basically Mr. Louv talked about “how the healthy development of today’s children is hampered by limited exposure to nature,”  designing more natural playgrounds and play areas in urban areas, and encouraging today’s crop of young parents, who may not have been exposed to the outdoors as children either, to get out – get moving – and interact with nature.    If you missed the presentation – check it out in reruns on the HoCo Government Channel (if you can find it).

The really interesting thing came in the question period.  A woman was trying to make a point about parental fears and inexperience with nature interfering with kids getting exposure to available opportunities, like scout camping opportunities – particularly in bad weather.  She then began a mini rant about the “efforts to fence in Lake Elkhorn” and how appalling the entire concept was.

[For the record --- the problem with Lake Elhorn and fencing is not the anti-nature, overzealous,  no personal responsibility movement this woman and others like to get hyperplectic about.

It is a question of whether a community that decides to build a playground to attract very small children on the banks of a body of water should also make reasonable provisions to secure the area designated for the small children.     I think the proposal was to fence in the play area ---- not necessarily the lake.  But hey, if it gets people overheated to focus on the extreme .... have a ball. ]

Mr. Louv – in a most impressive display of thoughtfulness and  insight (imho) latched on to what I consider the more important theme —- the “myth” of an overly litigious society which fuels decision making in the name of fear of litigation instead of sound risk management.

Mr. Louv suggested that choosing not to do certain things using fears of exposure to litigation is often a baseless excuse.

I think he is right.  Not just when it comes to fences and playgrounds, but school and education issues — you name it.  It is soooo easy to say, “oh, we shouldn’t try that, we might get sued….”

Heaven forbid we take a good look at the proposal, weigh the pros and cons, calculate the costs and the risks and make every effort to be reasonably cautious while living a full life.

People don’t really sue willy nilly over every little thing —- and those who try  get the boot out of court pretty quickly.   “Baseless claims”  being baseless, and all.

Using the Lake Elkhorn example again — instead of taking a reasonable look at the particular playground, in  light of the “true fact” that a child did, in fact, wander away and drown (even though all other applicable rules and laws were being followed) …. and come to a reasonable conclusion about how to address this particular site and particular circumstances — analysis paralysis set in.

The hand wringers worrying about the “message” or the “precedent” putting a fence around the tot lot “might” set got it in their heads that if one fence went up hundreds of fences would have to be put up, and eventually we’d have to bubble wrap all kids… at tax payer expense.

Not just ridiculous — but a good example of the myth of an overly litigious society fueling namby pamby decisions and policies.  Yes, I said namby pamby.

Cindy Vaillancourt

Phone for Rent

Is there anyone out there who actually enjoys getting calls from telephone solicitors, or computers, or advertisers …. or automated calls from political campaigns? OK, the calls from Cheryl Crow and Lance Armstrong were kind of amusing – the first time.

Does anyone actually respond to these calls? Buy the product? Apply for the mortgage? Well – someone must, or they would have stopped making them by now. To those folks I say – stop that! It’s like giving-in to a whining child. It only encourages them to continue or even escalate. I can speak from personal experience here —- every time I give-in to my whining children I regret it… and pay for it.

Unfortunately, since we can’t seem to get everyone to play from the same telephone solicitor rearing handbook, we have been forced to turn to legislation and no call lists and rules to try to halt these annoying behaviors without interfering with the rights of free speech. I’m not sure why we have to give Canadians freedom of speech (lots of telephone solicitors are based in Canada) — though I’d be tempted to reconsider my no tolerance policy for torture of foreign nationals in this case. But I digress.

Using the “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” theory of government — the folks in Annapolis are going to try to stop these annoying phone calls through the “no call list” by removing the exemption for political users. This might be considered “self-policing” but if it works, I’d be happy – and surprised.

Legislation would ban automated political calls

Proposed bills would end candidates’ exemption from no-call registry rules

By Kristen Wyatt

Sun Reporter

Originally published February 22, 2007, 4:03 PM EST

ANNAPOLIS // Annoyed by pre-recorded phone calls from political candidates? Maryland lawmakers have heard the complaints, and now they’re considering getting rid of a political exemption from the do-not-call registry.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I have a different approach based on a fundamentally capitalist argument.

My phone is my tool — my personal property. I pay for it. I pay for its’ acquisition, its’ maintenance, its’ connection, its’ service. It is a device and a service I purchase and pay for for MY convenience. (this is the same argument I use for my daughter’s cell phone – which I assert when I want her to turn it off and not answer it during dinner – but again, I digress).

I would like to develop a device which charges people who use my tool without my permission or agreement.

We have come close with the devices and services which block “private numbers” from ringing through — (which strikes me as another annoying pay for protection scheme — I pay the phone company for a service for my convenience, then they allow/facilitate the unauthorized and annoying use of my tool by telemarketers, then offer to protect me from these people for a fee)—- but the telemarketers figured out ways around that, and people with very real privacy concerns are penalized.

I heard about a device which would answer your phone and if it detected a computer on the line would send out a tone which would disable the computer — I think it was wishful thinking, but I want one.

It is my proposal that we stop thinking about our personal tools – our telephones – as some kind of community property that unauthorized folks have unlimited rights to use without compensation to the owner.

I would like a device attached to my phone which could be programmed to automatically allow pre-approved numbers through…. and would issue a warning to others —- “there is a $5 per connection charge for ringing this number which can only be waived by the owner of this number…. do you wish to proceed with connection?” Then – when I answer, I have the ability to either process the charge or not. If “not”, I may add that new number to my approved database. If “process the charge” – I’ll just let them keep calling and collect my $5 — or put them on the permanent do not ring list.

Of course, the telephone company would want a cut of the action — they are accomplices in the whole “scheme” of things, after all.

Unfortunately, the problem with this device is that once it becomes a success, it will become obsolete almost immediately. Once the privilege of being annoying begins to carry a price tag, it will stop.

Maybe I should concentrate on the device that enables us to zap the computer – that would be more satisfying. Investors welcome.

Cindy Vailancourt

Law Enforcement – It Takes A Village

Ok, “it takes a village” is on my list of tired and tiresome slogans – but in this case it does evoke the image I am looking for, particularly in the context of HoCo and Columbia.

We may not be plagued by the scope of the crime problem in our neighboring metropoli, but our police face some of the same frustrations in their efforts to keep the streets safe for all of us — scared and reluctant witnesses.

The police will tell you that for most of the crimes they investigate, there are plenty of folks who know the who and why answers – they just won’t share. Unlike the “feds” most local jurisdictions do not have the funding or the programs in place to provide adequate witness protection.

Our own Congressman Cummings has “reintroduced” legislation to help state and local prosecutors (and police) provide a measure of protection for witnesses to homicides or other major violent crimes – which should result in better cooperation and incentives for community members to come forward with information.

Cummings Reintroduces the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007”

Congressman Cummings has reintroduced the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, (H.R. 933)” which would expand state and local witness protection programs. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has introduced a companion bill, S. 79.

The bill would establish a short-term State Witness Protection Program within the U.S. Marshals Service to provide protection for witnesses in state and local trials involving homicide or other major violent crimes. The legislation would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to make grants to eligible prosecutor’s offices for the purpose of providing short term protection to witnesses in trials involving homicide or other serious violent felonies.

….State and local prosecutors often must choose between funding investigations or funding costly, but necessary witness protection programs. This often leads to some jurisdictions providing no witness protection at all.

“No one wins when law enforcement officials are forced to choose between funding investigations and funding witness protection programs,” Congressman Cummings said, “That is why I have reintroduced the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.’” (from Cummings E-Newsletter).

Witness intimidation, the impediments to investigation and enforcement, and the cost to local jurisdictions may not be a significant problem in HoCo right now (unless you have been a victim of an unsolved or unpunished crime – then it probably seems significant). It may also be true that this legislation may have been more motivated by concerns about other counties, but I don’t care. HoCo should be the recipient of its’ benefits. Having tools in place before a crisis is a much better plan than “management by crisis”.

Now, if you are interested in giving law enforcement a much needed tool for its’ toolbelt – write to your other elected officials and urge support for this legislation.

Cindy Vaillancourt

It’s Oscar Time

With our celebrity obsessed culture – maybe this would be a good time to mention the method used by Hollywood to choose the Oscar winners –choice voting, also known a proportional voting  – and suggest we adopt this method in HoCo for our electoral contests which involve more than two candidates or more than one spot (like the HoCo Board of Education).

There are lots of really good reasons to consider this method – but before we can debate it – we have to understand it.  Or not.

Maybe we should just put together a slick marketing plan :

“If it’s good enough for Hollywood, It’s good enough for us”

For more information you can check out sites like http://www.fairvote.org.

Give it some thought, we’ll come back to it later.

Cindy V.

Freedom of Speech? (re:folks behaving badly)

Well, it seems I hit a nerve when I (partly in jest) suggested an internet site to post video of people behaving badly.

We seem to be a nation of extremes lately — even otherwise “normal” people seem to be unable to distinguish between reasonable and “taken to the absurd conclusion”. But then, I can see why.

Do you remember the girls videotaped beating up a younger girl? They were not only violent bullies – but stupid enough to post the video. Voila, “proof” of the crime.

Students video a teacher cursing at students in class or other students performing lewd dance moves in a class with a substitute – and post them. Proof of bad behavior — someone will be punished…. but whom?

The cursing teacher or the disruptive students? NO.

The kids who videotaped the incidents and posted them are the ones in trouble – suspended from school, and in some cases facing charges from authorities.

Most schools have rules against kids bringing cameras to school, and of course there are rules about cellphones, so images taken on cellphone cameras are also problematic. Some schools have rules against audio-recording devices as well —- and most seem more concerned with the internet posting than with the means of recording. We are apparently very concerned about “unauthorized” documentation of what goes on at school.

The common theme is schools struggling to live up to a motto of “what happens at school stays at school”.

In fact – check out the National School Boards Association web site for an eye-opener for what school boards/school systems are concerned about – and how they are being advised to approach this issue.

http://boardbuzz.nsba.org/discussions/archive/session.110806.onlinehangouts.php

Our HCPSS/BOE has been working on the general issue of bullying, and the more technical “cyber-bullying” —- though more work needs to be done, the heart is in the right place. School should be a “safe and nurturing” place. Though I think they are supposed to be safe and nurturing for the kids first – I agree the adults should be safe and respected too.

Why is the possibility of having one’s actions broadcast such a threat to teachers and administrators?

Certainly the same privacy concerns which would have overriding control in any part of life should prevail — third parties secretly recording others – recording obviously private moments — are just wrong. But isn’t teaching a class a public event?

How to deal with web sites and posts that are bullying in nature, or libelous (as in untrue/lying and mean) is one thing.

But how to deal with recordings of events that are true, accurate, and still embarrassing —- especially to the adults — is another.

I am rather torn. I would be interested in hearing how HoCoMD readers feel about regulations which prohibit recording of public performances by teachers – and the broadcast of such actions.

For the record – I have been very displeased by images of my own child posted to the internet by her friends – and have required her to request the friends remove her from their sites. I would not be happy to see either of my children broadcast during their school day – particularly in a way that might cause them embarrassment.

On the other hand — when the kids come home and tell a wild story about a teacher behaving badly, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to “see for yourself”?

Cindy Vaillancourt

Gender Politics

HoCoMD readers who have been monitoring the appointments and replacements made by Mr. Ulman commented on a couple of observed trends weeks ago. “Where are the grey hairs?” “Where are the ladies?”

Now the Baltimore Sun has reported on the possible disparity between men and women in the new administration.

A gender shift in filling jobs raises eyebrows; county executive defends his appointments

 

Originally published February 18, 2007

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard/bal-ho.politics18feb18,0,2302112.story?coll=bal-local-howard

As a woman, I make every effort to “support the team”.   We have a female pediatrician.  She has a male nurse.  I like the idea of both my children (boy and girl) seeing men and women in “non-traditional” roles.  Sometimes that does not coincide with the more dogmatic agenda of some feminists.   I also have male doctors,  and have supported male political candidates.  I have been chastised for that by folks who thought I should be supporting female candidates.

I do not exclude based on sex, race or creed.  Given equal choices, I also have a soft spot for the underdog. Again, that does not always mean a woman.  Sometimes the chosen one is a middle aged white male.   I actually consider the options, the requirements, and the position – and weigh the relative pros and cons – and strive for a degree of diversity because I think it enriches our lives.

Ken Ulman says that is what he is doing.  I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

While it is true that some positions which were formerly held by women are now going to be held by men – I cannot jump on the “that’s a bad thing” bandwagon. There are many women in decision making positions —  let’s not forget the three on the county council.

I like the approach being taken by Wendy Royalty of Ellicott City,  co-chair of the Women’s Leadership Network of the Maryland Democratic Party . “We need to keep an eye on him. I’m just not happy about what I’m seeing.”

We should all “keep an eye on” our elected officials, and let them know when we don’t like what we are seeing. In this case, it means reminding Ulman that folks are watching the gender as well as the ethnic diversity of those appointed to positions of power and decision.

But I would caution folks who are eager to keep score with the numbers and particular positions.  Once we start keeping score the next step is to establish a certain ratio then  designated gender roles for particular offices.

Then, if there really were a plan to diminish the relative power or representation of a particular sex or group – it would be as easy as whittling away at the scope of the designated office.  For example – if  Health “becomes” the designated “woman’s” position … and we really do want to limit the authority and power of women — we systematically reduce the scope and power of the office of Health.  Now we can claim to have the “correct” number of women appointed …. but what do we really have?

What we really need is the best people in the right offices  – and given a choice among qualified candidates making every effort to make sure as many views and perspectives as possible are given adequate representation.

Frankly – I’d rather see political appointments reach across party lines than gender lines on occasion.   Everyone in the community ought to feel represented.  We should all keep an eye out for that.

Cindy Vaillancourt

HoCo Dem State Legislators Seeking to Reduce Pay of 900 School Employees

The Democrats in the Howard State Delegation are seeking to reduce the pay of about 900 school employees with House Bill 881 . Okay, that’s not the way they portray it, but that will be the effect.  The bill will enable the Howard County Education Association to collect mandatory fees from employees that are not union members. The voting on the bill was along party lines.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun, “Union officials were jubilant. Ann DeLacy, the union president, I think this is a great achievement”

Section 5, part (v) of the bill states:

1. The agency or representation fee shall be based only on the expenses incurred by the employee organization in its representation in negotiations, contract administration, including the handling of grievances, and other activities, as required under this section.

2. Any political activities of the employee organization designated as the exclusive representative may not be financed by the funds collected from the agency or representation fee.

Seems reasonable, for those employees that may object to union activities, these provisions appear to provide some restrictions. Right?  Well, what does the union say:

“DeLacy said the extra money could be used in several ways, including more professional development support to help teachers advance their careers, for hiring staff members and perhaps for expanding union office space.”

The bottom line, the union gets more money from 900 school employees whether they like it or not.

Vere are your papers?

I don’t routinely carry my passport around with me – truth be told I don’t always have my driver’s license unless I am driving (ok, sometimes not then either).

But then, here in America we don’t have to produce our papers on demand by the authorities to walk the streets …. or do we?

You all may be familiar with a Supreme Court decision a few years ago that upheld the notion that an individual may be required to produce identification when asked by law enforcement … even without having any cause to be arrested. (the case was about telling the police your name – but the notion of providing identification is the underlying theme)

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf

I have my doubts about that decision — but that’s for another day. In the mean time “we” are building on that notion with the proposed “National Driver’s License/ID Card”.

Fortunately, some states are beginning to balk at some of the excesses and over-zealousness of the frighteningly named “Office of HOMELAND Security” (other suggested names probably included “Fatherland” Security Office but was overruled by the Ministry of Propaganda).

I am proud to say Maryland is at least considering being part of the opposition:

“Md. lawmakers debate federal Real ID Act

Costly plan target of growing opposition by state legislatures nationwide”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400261.html (real id)

Maybe on it’s face it is not a terrible idea … unless you don’t like the idea of being randomly asked “vere are your papers?”

Too much power with too little accountability is frightening. But you know what? We already have that , too.

Who else has too much power and too little accountability?

Credit Reporting/Scoring Companies.

If you have not yet thought about the extraordinary power these companies wield – now is the time. This is a fascinating exercise. The credit bureaus started off being repositories of information which lenders could use as part of an overall credit worthiness examination .

Over the years they have turned into enormously powerful regulatory agencies with virtually unlimited abilities to intervene in the financial and personal lives of Americans without due process or effective recourse.

They have pretty much created the problem of identity theft – and now offer to “protect you” for a variety of fees —- is it just me, or does the idea of paying to be protected from the person you are paying sound vaguely familiar … and illegal?

Legislation is also being debated about how to “protect” us from our “protectors” (I have attached some links to some recent local articles). Basically, the question is whether individuals should have any way to protect themselves from identity theft and fraudulent credit seeking activities by essentially “opting out” of quickie credit approvals. Seems reasonable — a note on my “computerized credit file” that I do not want to be approved for anything without significant documentation. Seems like I’m the only one who would be inconvenienced by this – and yet, there is opposition.

There are two threads here which could easily have been two separate posts —- but I am not simply “reporting” on these two pending legislative issues. I have a theory to share for comment.

What is the connection between the National ID “problem” and the “Credit Bureau” problem?

Laziness.

That’s the hook. We need these streamlined processes to keep things simple, make things easier. My question is, why do they need to be that easy?

Do you really need to have a mortgage approved in 15 minutes? I don’t – and I’m happy to trade that “convenience” for added security. I have no problem with any lender I deal with actually doing their homework on me. Most of them have gotten fat and lazy, though. They’re happy to leave it to the credit reporting company – right or wrong. If they give the wrong person your credit – oh well. If they have incorrect negative info on you – too bad for you, on to the next customer.

But the police – that’s different, right?

They should be able to have immediate access to everyone’s ID…. (actually the argument should be they should have immediate access to ACCURATE info – but why quibble?). They don’t have that right now? The only thing scarier than having the police/authorities randomly asking me for my valid “papers” …. is the very real possibility that they might accept the fake ID of a truly dangerous person because they were too complacent (or lazy) relying on the “secure” National ID. I’m not sure I want to make establishing the identity of suspicious people too easy.

We spend so much time in this country looking for the “easy” way…. the one size fits all solution …. The Answer. That is an error.

I suppose in the future there may be some fool-proof way to guarantee ID, and the record linked to that ID —- but we aren’t there yet. As long as there are people involved, and criminals or “evil doers” in the world , there will be errors and manipulations — and it will take effort and vigilance to make good, safe, decisions.

Cindy V.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020701849.html (credit freeze)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.notebook15feb15,0,2833340.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.security06feb06,0,4153217.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5573414.html (national id card)