Comment on Julie's Blog

My classmate, Julie wrote an edditorial entitled, "Keeping Students Safe in Texas." I think that this was a good post, both from a structured standpoint and that the author's opinion was based on the facts she collected. I'm not the best speller and a marginal grammarian, but nothing jumped out at me regarding those items. In addition, I think that her structure of the piece was clear and easy to follow. Finally, the author easily demonstrated that her opinion was based on data she collected and not just anecdotal. Great work.

No Harm, No Foul

The State Board of Education voted 10-5 to give preliminary approval of a plan to increase the credit received for playing sports in high school. This was a response to the idea that athletics could be in jeopardy following an increase in the requirements of other core curricula. With dropout rates hovering around 11.5%, and some school districts changing to an eight period school day, it could be difficult to retain students in the future. This move makes sense to me in an effort to keep students interested in their education.

Currently, a student must complete 4 electives in order to graduate, with only 1 1/2 credits given to physical education. In addition, students are required to complete 2 1/2 other electives to receive their diploma; the new standard is only going to effect those credits. While taking art, band, or choir are certainly healthy pursuits and deserve encouraging, some students are just not interested or talented in those areas. I say that if sports will keep a student learning, it's a good thing to the person full credit for participating.

This move by the State Board of education seems both reasonable and proactive to me if they are implementing increased standards for core curriculum. So long as the students must maintain passing grades in their classes to participate in sports, I think that extracurricular activities should be fully rewarded. Since the only classes being affected by this move are other extracurricular activities, I support this idea.

Great work in giving the facts behind your opinion-money. You have definitely fleshed out the history behind your argument, as well. Very thoughtful and timely post. Editorial found in 3-2-1836.

To Strike or not to Strike

With negotiations falling apart and Capital Metro employees talking strike, it becomes imperative for the union to consider what its options are. While striking may be the most immediate way to get what union members want, there are other ways of dealing with an impasse in negotiations that do not ignore the public interests in the process. I would like to propose an alternative that could avert public service being disrupted and achieve the goals of both management and labor.

Management has an interest in keeping the same service levels intact, while dealing with the economic realities of a downturn in sales tax revenue. It is reacting to these factors by proposing a lower level of pay for new drivers, increased deductibles on health insurance, and a $1000 bonus for existing employees in lieu of a pay scale increase for 2007. Since the union and management have not had an existing contract, the deductible increases have already been unilaterally imposed. By my math, that means that the net bonus actually received would be $900 for one employee and $800 for a family. In addition, management plans to triple the deductible amount over the next three years, resulting in a wash.

From the union's point of view, they have been operating without a raise for two years. I'm not sure what the pay scale of the non-unionized administrative staff is, but it is a good guess that it is significantly higher that the rank-and-file of Capital Metro. As with most labor contracts this is an unspoken factor in the minds of employees when looking at their pay being broadcast to the public, while the top-tier managers keep their pay-scales under wraps. In addition, it is my experience that it is the top pay possible of a unionized employee is almost always presented to the public in an effort by management to create an impression that the members are being paid at a higher rate than is actually the case.

Another factor in the negotiations is the economic uncertainty that is surrounding the timing of this particular contract period. Housing prices are down, and obviously the 3% sales tax revenue decrease is reflective of the ability for the organization to generate the revenue it needs to maintain service levels. It should always be in the minds of public employees that their customers are the citizens and the employees' welfare is based on the perception that the public has of the service being provided. While a strike may be the most expeditious way to achieve a pay and benefits increase, the ramifications for the future may outweigh the benefit.

Given all the factors involved, it is my opinion that every one's interests would be better served by having management give the $1000 bonus without a contract and the two parties settle on a one year contract for the 3% increase to which they have already agreed. I also think that it would be in the union's best interest to have a public relations campaign during the next year, detailing the pay of management and touting the service that the employees provide to the public. While this might be out of the union's pocket, it would appear to me that it would generate much more good will from the taxpayers and could lead to better pay and benefits down the line.

It is unclear, at this time, how long the economy will continue to slow. It is clear, however, that the Capital Metro management has gotten their message out to the public. I don't believe that the union has been effective in this regard. Striking under these conditions is probably not the best course of action, because it is counter-productive to the long-term goals of the union. Public perception, not management coercion is the enemy in this fight.

In the article, "Sagging Pants and First Class Flights: The Priorities of Mayor Moncrief," the North Texas Conservative blog brings to light the Ft. Worth mayor's excesses in office. The title pretty much tells the story to follow. In reality, it is two stories in one; the first being the privately funded fight against baggy trousers and the second being publicly funded, first class flights to Dubai.

The first story is the ridiculous fight against sagging pants that Mayor Moncrief has embarked on. According to the blog, it is basically a public awareness campaign attempting to convince young people to refrain from wearing pants that reveal their under drawers. This part of the article is fairly well written, with plenty of information to back up the writer's opinion that this campaign is a waste of the Mayor's attention.

The second part of the article, concerning the Mayor's trip, is a could have used a little information regarding the purpose of his trip. I believe that this would have provided the reader with more facts to interpret the contended wastefulness on Mr. Moncrief's part. While the travel accommodations seemed excessive, it would have been helpful to assess the cost vs. benefit of his travels. The writer also mentions the travel of DFW directors without explaining the relevance to the story.

I believe that the writer would have been more effective had he split this story into two separate ones; the difference between a privately funded public awareness campaign and a publicly funded trip warrant separate consideration. It seems that the most convincing arguments regarding the misplaced priorities of Mayor Moncrief were made on the sagging pants aspects of the article. The second half merely criticises the excesses of his travel arrangements, but does not effectively argue that the agenda was wrong. The conclusion of the article, that the needs of Ft Worth's residences are not being met, is a completely unsupported contention.

Union Busting

In the Austin American Statesman editorial page, police chief Acevedo is praised for establishing a "discipline matrix" for the rank and file of the Austin Police Department. With one story to back up their arguments and a quote from Acevedo that the officers of the department, "support the direction in which we're (the department) is headed," the editorial is definately lean on facts and long on bias. With no facts to back up their claim that the departments reputation is "tainted," and ignoring the impartial judgement of the arbiter in the Griffin case, they tow the company line of city management.

On the surface, a uniform code of discipline seems like a good thing, however, the fact that the police chief uses his "discression" to enforse his own matrix shows that the system is completely scewed in city managements favor, something that the editorial board of the Statesman convienly overlooks. It also ignores years of negotiated contracts between the police union and management. The silence from the police union on the discipline matrix is deafening.

In addition, the supporting argument that the city lawyers handed out $55,000 for the alleged "suffering" of Mr Cruz implies that the city would have lost in court. It may well have been that the city simplied bowed to political pressure or made a desision not to back its own officer based on the financial cost of that option.

The history of discipline is also short of data. The Statesman cites one example: the inconsistencies of punishment for giving "false statements on official reports." No support is given, however, to prove that the false statements ever existed, let alone that they ever created a "loophole" in the appeals process. The solution supported by the Statesman editorial board certainly does not fix the "reinstatements based on favoritism." In fact, it is ensures that the Chief's descresion is the ultimate arbiter of reinstatement.

The bottom line of this edititorial is that they have, in essensce, sided with City management on the issue of police discipline. While it is an opinion, and they are entitled to it, nothing is written to make obvious this underlying theme. With thin arguments and few facts, they have written a splended piece of propaganda for the police chief. On top of all that, no arguments are given that even support their own contention, that the department's reputation is tainted.

Double Standard?

In the case of a former Georgetown police sgt, Jimmy Fennell, procecuters were accused of applying a double standard. Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights project alledged that the procecuting attorney used favoritism in dropping the most serious charges. The procecuting attorney defended his actions, stating that the Georgetown police department will have to, "answer some questions from the community."

Fennell was accused of forcing a woman in custody to dance for him and then sexually assaulting her. If convicted of the most serious crimes, he would have faced two 99 year prison terms. Instead, he will be facing 10 years and a $10,000 fine. Harrington said that the relatively light sentencing was an indication that officers accused of crimes are treated differently in Williamson county than ordinary citizens. The procecutor has tried two other officers accused of crimes; one recieved 20 years in prision, and another received 10.

This story was published in the Austin American Statesman. It can be read in its entirety at the Statesman.com