Guarino

Say Nay to Kay

Via Tony Wilkins:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has a new website inviting visitors to join in the effort to Say Nay to Kay.  It points out her legacy-- excessively taxing, spending and accumulating debt at the state level. 

And Tony points out that the state legislative Democratic leadership, during the time Hagan served as an influential committee chair in the Senate, routinely cut off debate on the state budget, and refused amendments from the minority. 

It seems we may not want the Best of Raleigh to gain a foothold in the United States Senate. 

Thoughts on Energy

Regardless of what the price of gasoline or the price of oil may be over the next 12 months, I think energy is bound to be a major issue in terms of the future of our nation.  It is not just a political issue.  What we are facing is a major national challenge. 

When energy prices become more prohibitive, prices are impacted throughout the economy, economic growth is blunted, and those in the lower half of the socioeconomic scale are hurt because energy prices consume a greater portion of their disposable income.  And, of course, adequate energy supplies at affordable prices enable the lifestyle we enjoy as Americans.

A couple of plans have been floated over the last week.  Al Gore said we should engage in an endeavor not unlike the space race emphasizing renewables.  T. Boone Pickens wants a massive undertaking that promotes wind power and natural gas vehicles; but he emphasizes the need for American sources of energy.

During our visit to California last month, I had the opportunity to see a couple of wind farms with quite a number of turbines in operation at two locations.  One was in a mountainous area that marked the transition between the San Joaquin valley and the Mohave Desert.  Another was seen in the region of the San Bernardino/ San Jacinto mountains just west of the Mojave.  I understand wind farms are also in operation in west Texas.

One must surmise that these can be done economically.  But they are not without their impacts.  They do mar the natural landscape and the vista that would otherwise be enjoyed.  In fact, this became a matter of controversy when a wind farm was proposed for the Cape Cod vicinity-- in Massachusetts, the land of John Kerry and the Kennedy's.  This wind farm was apparently opposed by Ted Kennedy and "eco-activist" RFK, Jr.  Progressive impulses on renewables apparently were not sufficient to overcome concerns over spoiling scenic beauty.

Natural gas vehicles might sound like a good idea.  However, I seem to recall that there have been some concerns regarding the supply of natural gas.  We have seen gas bills in our region spike upward certain winters because of supply issues.

And as we attempt to transition vehicles away from gasoline, we have to consider consumer acceptance.  If we devise a vehicle that only has a range of a very limited number of miles because of its energy source, it will be less acceptable to the public.  In addition, if the technology requires that owners connect their vehicle to its energy source at home each day using some type of apparatus, it will diminish consumer acceptance depending on how labor intensive that activity turns out to be.  These are potentially issues for natural gas vehicles as well as electric cars.

We have in place an elaborate oil/gas distribution infrastructure.  Alternative technologies would possibly require the development of a new infrastructure, and a gradual dismantling of the old one.  That would potentially have some serious economic impacts.

I do not claim scientific insight into which technologies will prove to be most workable in the long run.  It is possible that we will need to be willing to make significant adjustments, in various ways, if conditions worsen dramatically.

But there is one approach on which I am a bit dubious-- the idea of focused national 10-year plans on the part of the federal government and the like.  It seems profoundly unwise to have the federal government attempt to push the private energy markets in certain directions.  The markets need to produce the most economically efficient alternatives.  And if that market response based on sound economics includes increased drilling, that should be permitted.  Red Clay has an excellent analysis on this point.

I am also a bit dubious that global warming concerns should prompt us to "give away the store" as a matter of public policy.  Bubba and Sam Spagnola have done a good job highlighting at their blogs all the reasons we should harbor some degree of skepticism regarding the global warming juggernaut.

Solar energy can be a great idea, but the up-front investment continues to be a disincentive for most people. 

Yesterday, we saw a prominently highlighted article by Thomas Friedman in the News and Record.  He takes the position that reducing the price of oil or gasoline should not be our objective.  If I were a Republican strategist, that is precisely where I would want the Democrats to be.  And Friedman's position, of course, is the natural conclusion of the progressive/Democratic perspective on these matters.   Let them defend before the poor and the working class and the lower middle class their desire to have high energy prices and reduced gasoline supplies.

What does the market likely need, in the long run? 

1. Alternatives that are cost-effective and priced reasonably

2. Automobile technologies that are convenient to access and that will attain user acceptance

3. Technologies that, at the level of the individual user, do not require a substantial up-front investment

4. Technologies that capitalize upon a source of energy that is vast and nearly inexhaustible

Achieving all of these conditions may seem idealistic and utopian.  But American ingenuity and innovation, and the capitalistic system, prompted with the right incentives, can produce remarkable results in the free market.

In the meantime, perhaps John McCain has a good idea.  Perhaps governmental entities can lavishly reward private individuals (and/or entities) who develop alternative technologies that achieve widespread acceptance in the marketplace.  Maybe that will get people thinking creatively. 

Steele on Obama's Appeal

The noted social/political commentator, Shelby Steele, has some interesting observations about one of the key reasons Obama holds so much appeal for certain Americans:

Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?

I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.

But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.

So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.) It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.

This, no doubt, is what Barack Obama means by "change." He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.

But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

I think Shelby Steele nails it.

Sowell on the Lending Crisis

Much political hay has been made of the current difficulties with respect to banking, lending, mortgages and foreclosures, including the recent Freddie Mac episode.  There has been a more-than-implicit attempt to place the blame at the feet of the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans.

Noted economist and columnist Thomas Sowell, however, has a different interpretation.  He traces the lenient lending practices that precipitated these difficulties to certain laws and regulations. These measures were enacted years ago to counteract the practice of so-called "redlining", which had been repeatedly highlighted by the media as a major problem to be remedied:

It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan applications from whites.

All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money...

It was government intervention in the financial markets, which is now supposed to save the situation, that created the problem in the first place.

Laws and regulations pressured lending institutions to lend to people that they were not lending to, given the economic realities. The Community Reinvestment Act forced them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money, and where neither they nor the politicians wanted to walk.

Now that this whole situation has blown up in everybody’s face, the government intervention that brought on this disaster in the first place is supposed to save the day.

Dole, McCain lead in NC

Via Under the Dome, it appears that Elizabeth Dole has a significant polling lead over Kay Hagan in spite of the Obama phenomenon. 

This is a very important race.  The nomination of judges depends on the orientation of individual senators.

On what I regard as the single most important domestic issue, Dole is the leader.  Kay Hagan is being supported by pro-choice forces because of the intransigence of her pro-abortion stance over the years. 

But the contrast between the two candidates could not be more clear.  Elizabeth Dole is unabashedly pro-life.

In addition, Dome reports the consistency of John McCain's lead in North Carolina. 

We had been hearing that North Carolina might be in play for Hagan and Obama, but that does not appear to be reflected in the polls-- as least, not as of yet.

Proof of a Mainstream Media Pro-Obama Bias?

The Washington Times reports the results of a Rasmussen Poll on citizen perceptions regarding the fairness of media coverage of the presidential campaign:

"...a new Rasmussen Reports survey showed nearly 60 percent of voters say Mr. Obama gets better treatment from journalists. Nearly half of voters - 49 percent - said reporters would help Mr. Obama, compared with 14 percent who said Mr. McCain benefited from friendly coverage.

"The Rasmussen survey suggested the perceived trend is intensifying, with those seeing a pro-Obama slant jumping 5 percentage points from last month while views regarding Mr. McCain stayed the same."

A margin of that magnitude is fairly compelling evidence of the bias in favor of Obama that most of us know exists. 

One of the problems for the mainstream media is that, as Obama continues to attract increasing amounts of scrutiny-- as he should-- more citizens will become aware that he is not what he has represented himself to be, nor is he what the media portrays him to be. 

Island GOP Meltdown

A couple of months ago, I discussed on this blog the fall of Rep. Vito Fossella of New York.  Soon thereafter, his story would receive some degree of national media attention.  He ultimately made the decision not to run for reelection.

I had considerable interest in this particular congressional seat because it is the same one that was held by two of my cousins.  It was won from the Democrats in 1980; and a couple of years ago I related the account of how I had played a role on that particular campaign.  The seat has been in Republican hands since then.

I have been following the situation since the revelations about Fossella became public.  The Democrats have nominated a candidate, Mike McMahon, who currently is serving in elective office, and thereby has name recognition; and who is having considerable success with fund-raising.  The Republicans, however, have had various difficulties.

There are some popular GOP incumbents in elective office on Staten Island.  But none wanted to run.  Most cited family responsibilities.  But I wonder about whether other factors may have also been deterrents-- the necessity to give up well-paying careers, the difficulties with maintaining residences in two top-dollar real estate markets; and the likelihood that this will be a Democratic year at the polls.

In any event, the Republicans had to come up with a candidate quickly.  They settled on Frank Powers, a big contributor and Wall Street retiree who had never held elective office.

But even stranger things began to happen.  Powers' son announced he was going to run for the same office on the Libertarian line-- against his own father.  And then a couple of weeks later, the elder Powers died.

Yes, he died.

And so, the Republicans were left without a candidate once again.  Time elapsed, and an impending deadline for filing petitions with the Board of Elections approached.  At this point, my cousin Guy-- who is almost 80 years old-- began to verbalize public concern about the party's failure to find a good candidate.  He had not only held that particular office for ten years, but also had built the local party into a powerhouse.  And it was now failing.

Ultimately, the party selected Robert Straniere, a former state legislator with a decidedly checkered reputation locally.  Tom Wrobleski of the Staten Island Advance tells the whole story.

In any event, it is a bit sad to see something for which we had all worked so hard to build, over a period of years, slip away.  What is at risk is not only a congressional seat, but also the viability of a previously formidable local party.

 

Thank Goodness for Ted Kennedy

A drama unfolded on the floor of the United States Senate last week.  Senator Ted Kennedy, ailing from brain cancer, was brought in to cast the deciding vote on a piece of Medicare legislation.  Physicians around the country had been threatened with a 10% fee cut; but thanks to the Senator, that possibility was averted.

Concerns had been expressed that ever-increasing numbers of physicians would refrain from accepting Medicare patients if the pay cut had become effective.  Various organizations representing physicians attempted to influence the outcome.

But the issue was much larger than that.  The planned cut in reimbursement was to be the first in a series to take place over the next several years.  A reduction in fees of 5% planned for January was also discarded with Kennedy's vote.  And a 21% cut is slated for 2010.

These fee reductions had been planned in anticipation of the financial crisis that will be unleashed when obligations associated the Medicare program become most severe.  This impending crisis threatens the United States from a fiscal standpoint-- and also from a competitive standpoint-- in coming years.  Enormous tax increases that would harm us economically, and place young families in a stranglehold, would become necessary to keep the program in its current form.  Or we would end up spending our way into oblivion if we keep the program in its current form without raising taxes. 

The current presidential campaign does not adequately address this problem-- which is perhaps the most significant issue facing Americans today along with the war on terror and energy.  Barack Obama, staring the Medicare crisis in the face, proposes to add more Americans to a broken federal health insurance system on the brink of bankruptcy. 

There seems to be little acknowledgment that rationing of services, through regulation or reduced access, is the only way that the federal government can keep adding entitled individuals while keeping the system afloat financially.  Instead, we see a plethora of various micro-initiatives peddled by both parties under the delusion that the same quality of care-- and access to care-- will be maintained under Medicare, but at lower cost.

The action in the United States Senate was greeted with a sigh of relief by many physicians and the organizations representing them.  It was a strange irony when Ted Kennedy became the hero of the day.  But in many respects, the Senate action merely kicked the Medicare problem further down the field. 

With that vote, Democrats sharply restricted the Medicare Advantage plans that had recently been introduced.  These were private, fee-for-service plans under the Medicare system designed to constrain costs.  That was too much for the national Democrats, for whom it is unthinkable that any deviation from an entirely public system could be permitted.

And meanwhile, physicians were reduced to the position of hoping and praying and lobbying so that the federal government will favor them with the same earnings they made the previous year.  This is a grotesque, pathetic state of affairs, but it is the reality.

On issues like Medicare and energy, it is quite easy to maintain a political posture feigning concern while evading the types of measures that will lead to solutions.  For those of us concerned that the nation is facing a precarious future because of our inability and unwillingness to deal seriously with these problems, that is a grim reality as November approaches.

In the meantime, fellow physicians, thank goodness for Ted Kennedy.

The GPD Firings (or recommended-to-be Firings)

We learn this evening that two GPD TSET officers are being fired over the sexual assault matter; or at least, that they are being "recommended to be fired", with various appeal mechanisms available to them.  It appears the announcement might have been timed for Friday afternoon to minimize public attention.

I do not know whether the Buracker report had anything to do with the city arriving at this decision.  I suppose it may have provided them with some cover to bring the thing to a conclusion after seven dreadfully long months.  The News and Record, the Rhino and the blogs deserve credit for placing this issue at the forefront, and assuring it would not be forgotten.

The process is not over.  There is still ample opportunity for various individuals to monkey with the outcome.

Much more is needed to restore the department and the city to a position of widely held respect and regard. Too much has been amiss;  and too many wrongs need to be corrected.  Even the handling of this case leads one to cry out for a cogent explanation.   

But today's news represents a good start-- a baby step in the right direction.

Update 07/19: The News and Record reports this morning that both officers have requested a departmental hearing.  One hopes that the process is not dragged out for many more months.  Mitchell Johnson is quoted in the article attempting to justify the length of time--seven months-- that was required to get to this point, arguing that the process must be deliberate when officers' careers are at stake.  Concern over officers' careers did not seem to constrain the city three years ago when Wray and his men were treated as they were.

The Bledsoe series reported that certain black officers in key positions of responsibility have been able to stymie investigative or disciplinary attempts against other black officers.  We need to watch for that possibility as the appeals process unfolds.  And remember how Mitchell Johnson once reversed a decision by David Wray to terminate a certain officer.  Finally, there is always the possibility of political interference with the type of machine politics we have in Greensboro.

Cops in Black and White, Part LVII

Jerry Bledsoe continues his series in the Rhino Times today with an examination of charges of disparate treatment against David Wray and his men.  The following is a summary.

The city legal report was written by Blair Carr and ToNola Brown-Bland.  Bledsoe said they were "building a civil liability case against the city on behalf of black officers.  It would seem difficult to believe that experienced attorneys would be unaware that they were making an expensive settlement inevitable.  Considering the flimsiness of the case presented by the assistant city attorneys, the question arises as to whether such a settlement was the purpose of City Manager Mitchell Johnson and City Attorney Linda Miles, who assigned Carr and Brown-Bland to the investigation and oversaw it."

Carr and Brown-Bland raised the case of a white female officer who was discovered speaking with a woman who was a drug dealer in a bar.  The white female officer reportedly had no knowledge the woman was a drug dealer, and no other involvement.  The officer was observed over a period of time, and Internal Affairs found no evidence of wrongdoing.  She was told to stay away from the woman.

This instance was compared to the cases of James Hinson, Brian James and Julius Fulmore.  A detailed review of the controversies surrounding these three men followed.

In the case of Hinson, there were two separate criminal investigations because of discrete lines of evidence that he might have some association with a drug kingpin, other drug dealers and prostitutes; because he was suspected of working off-duty when on duty; and because of questions surrounding his advocating for a certain woman to be admitted into a halfway house.  Some of the evidence had been brought to the department by federal authorities.

Clearly, the comparison with the case of the white female comparison was invalid.  Moreover, Carr and Brown-Bland made certain errors, omissions and assertions that made the comparison even more preposterous. 

Brian James was seen to be associating with Nicole Pettiford.  Pettiford had been acting as an informant against a drug kingpin who had told federal authorities he was purchasing access to confidential police information.  She had previously bought and sold police information.  She knew James; and he was one of the first officers Pettiford affirmatively decided to contact.  They met in a vehicle in the parking lot of a retail establishment.   There were ultimately no charges against James.  Again, this is not the same as speaking with a person unknowingly in a bar.  James, who later headed Criminal Investigations, oversaw the seizure of evidence on this matter during January 2006.

Julius Fulmore had rented a hotel room adjacent to that of a prostitute where drug paraphernalia and a used condom were found.  The prostitute made certain allegations about him.  He later was polygraphed, and this showed deception.  Fulmore was investigated, but not charged.  He also had later involvement with an informant- a prostitute involved with drugs-- and the informant produced no assistance with criminal cases.  But she made certain allegations against Fulmore.  Clearly, this is not comparable to the case of the white female officer.  Brown-Bland and Carr made additional errors with this comparison.

But these two assistant city attorneys made another charge of disparate treatment in the case of  a white officer compared with those involving James Hinson, Larry Patterson and Norman Rankin, all three of whom are black. 

The white officer's brother had been caught selling drugs out of the officer's home in Graham on one occasion when the officer was not present.    Again, certain errors were made in the city legal report. 

This matter was brought to the attention of the department by an SBI agent who was adamant that the GPD officer had no involvement in his brother's activities. It was discussed at length, but there was no evidence against the white officer, and it was determined there was no need for an investigation.

Patterson's sister was married to Elton Turnbull, the drug kingpin.  Patterson had been seen entering and leaving Turnbull's house on several occasions by officers surveilling the property.   Robert White (who is black) was the chief at the time, and ordered the investigation.  Patterson was found not to have any criminal involvement.  An internal investigation was appropriate.

Rankin had a very indirect family relationship to Bridgett Ekwensi, who worked with Turnbull on some illegal activiites.  He was never investigated by Special Intelligence or Internal Affairs.  There was no difference between the way he was treated and the way the white officer was treated. 

The report once again made certain errors regarding the investigations of Hinson.  He was initially investigated at the prompting of Chief White, who again is black.  As noted above, there was evidence against Hinson that could not be dismissed.  The comparison with the case of the white officer was poor.

Obama's Two Policies on School Choice

There has recently been a school choice program implemented in Washington, D.C  It was designed to provide alternatives for impoverished children trapped in failing public schools.  The Democratic majority in Congress, however-- including Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. representative-- wants to eliminate this program.

Barack Obama has two different policies regarding school choice. 

The first policy affects the poor.  He opposes programs that would give them alternatives other than the typical public school offerings.  He would keep them trapped in bad schools-- just as the Democratic majority would do in the case of Washington, D.C. schoolchildren.

But Obama has a different policy for his own children.  He sends them to a special "Lab School" at the University of Chicago, which is a private institution.  He refrains from sending them to the usual public schools on the south side of Chicago.

Why does he do this?  He explains, according to Gerald Bradley, that the Lab School is only five minutes from their home, thereby seeming to strike a blow in favor of neighborhood schools.

In any event, Obama's children are fortunate their parents have money.  They don't have to attend Chicago public schools-- as many children do whose parents are not as wealthy. 

Perhaps John Edwards would refer to it as presumptive proof of the existence of "two Americas".

All-Stars and Hall-of-Famers

I got to see the Hall of Famers' Parade in NYC on TV last night, as well as the pre-game ceremonies and the first couple of innings of the All-Star game.

It was a great night.  Seeing an assemblage of so many baseball stars of yesteryear was awe-inspiring. 

The parade coverage on Fox was a bit unfortunate, because much time was spent interviewing current All-Stars instead of focusing mostly on all the Hall of Famers in the parade. 

But the ceremonies at Yankee Stadium were neat.  So many of the great stars from the time of my youth were present.  With the visible effects of aging on their physical appearance, I would not have recognized some of them. 

Some wore their years better than others.  But it appeared they were all enjoying themselves.

It was a surprise to see Bob Feller, who truly is one of the last remaining from at least several generations back.  And it was somewhat of a jolt to see Willie McCovey in a wheelchair-- a man whose swing was absolutely fearsome in his day.

The Yankee Stadium crowd's affectionate response to Yogi Berra was also a big highlight for me.  Yogi managed the Mets when I was young, and Willie Mays joined the team in the twilight of his career, when he was in his early 40's.  But seeing Mays and Hank Aaron on the field last night was also pretty special.

Addendum: Local blogger Sue Polinsky was in New York this past weekend, and just happened to bump into a couple of fellows named Ernie Banks and Willie Mays at her hotel. 

The GPD Consultant's Report, Part I: Some Constructive Recommendations

I have had the opportunity to wade through the 500+ pages of the report prepared by Carroll Buracker and Associates on behalf of the city of Greensboro. 

This administrative review was ordered by the City Council in response to concerns expressed by the community on matters related to crime and the performance of the Greensboro Police Department.  A perception of increased gang-related crime, and a cluster of homicides late last year, as well as high background crime levels, led the council to issue an implicit message to Chief Bellamy-- that he might be held accountable for how his department performs.

In addition, there has been continuing concern regarding the department's handling of wrongdoing committed by police officers still on the force-- e.g., the sexual assault case.

Numerous citizens had previously spoken out in various ways.  And the issues have received considerable coverage and discussion in the Rhino Times, the Bledsoe series, the News and Record, at Ben Holder's blog, here and at other blogs as well. 

Unfortunately, the process of retaining the GPD consultant was left in the hands of Mitchell Johnson.  The effort overall represents a mixed bag.  Today I am going to concentrate on some of the positive aspects of the report, of which there are many.  It turns out that the Buracker report, explicitly or by implication, deals directly with many of the problems in the department that have been discussed here and elsewhere over the last couple of years.

While an effort was made to slant the presentation given before the City Council in a positive light,  the report directly addresses some unfortunate, unpleasant realities-- and some insufficiencies-- that have existed in the department.

I will enumerate some of the main points made, and how they deal with issues discussed previously (here and elsewhere):

1. Level and quality of supervision over patrol and other officers: There had been allegations made in the Bledsoe series and elsewhere that a number of individual officers had not been working when they should have been; and have been involved, while technically on duty, in a number of nefarious activities.  This is at least partially a problem related to supervision in the field. 

It can be a challenge to supervise officers who are working autonomously in police vehicles.  Buracker had a number of suggestions.  He wants to raise the rank of supervising officers to at least the level of sergeant.  This would imply a higher level of standing, qualification and preparation for supervisory duties.  He remarked that it is very unusual to have corporals shoulder so much supervisory responsibility in a police department, and recommended eliminating that rank entirely.  Instead, he said, there should be at least one lieutenant and sergeant for each shift.

In addition, he calls for the watch commander on duty at all times to be a captain instead of lieutenant-- even nights and weekends.  He wants a Deputy Chief of the Operations Bureau to oversee the whole system.

He wants more high-ranking officers-- those higher in the command structure-- working evenings and weekends, which can be the busiest times.  And he wants patrol officers restricted to a limited geographic zone, so they concentrate on their primary responsibilities and do not wander far afield.  He wants them to be restricted from "self-dispatching", for instance to traffic stops conducted by other officers.

Buracker critiques the process of evaluating the performance of officers.  He indicates the current process is ineffective, and reflects a natural human tendency on the part of supervisors and those within the command structure to avoid dealing with certain issues regarded as unpleasant.   He argues, however, that there should be an ongoing process of "personnel management"-- not evaluation-- that demonstrably produces and documents improvements in performance; and that reflects the core values of the department and the needs of the general public.  Buracker proposes a more structured, systematic approach than that which currently exists.

He wants watch commanders and division commanders to conduct periodic checks to assure staff are working where they are supposed to be working-- even nights and weekends.

And here is, perhaps, the most interesting recommendation of all.  Buracker wants the city to monitor electronically the location of each officer in the field through "vehicle locators" placed on individual cars.  Recall that this was the measure taken by David Wray's men in the case of James Hinson's vehicle that precipitated the GPD fiasco, and all that followed.  This was perhaps the greatest irony in the entire report.

2. Maximizing the availability of authorized officer positions to do productive work: There has been a debate as to whether the department requires additional officers.  Most observers appear to accept the premise that it does.  The Buracker report, however, leads one to believe that the GPD should have more officers at its disposal than it actually does-- right now.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The first, perhaps, reflects the problems and issues with supervision discussed in the previous section-- issues related to employee behavior and inadequate supervision.  But there are other reasons as well.

For instance, Buracker points out that the current scheduling of shifts tends to produce too much coverage during the early hours of the day, and during week days-- and not enough from the early evening through the night, or on weekends.  After all the controversy over David Wray's rotating shift schedule, it appears the department succumbed to the demands of officers and provided a schedule that gave lots of people the most desirable hours.  While it is entirely understandable they would want this type of shift, it does not serve the public well, because crime does not follow the temporal pattern of a traditional work week.

He wants certain units and teams to be deployed evenings and weekends: Community Resource Team (CRT) members; Criminal Investigations detectives, Vice/Narcotics detectives and officers; PNRC (housing projects police); and crime analysis.

He wants only one-officer cars in PNRC, instead of two-officer cars.  And he wants these officers doing surveillance to a greater extent in unmarked cars.  There is some veiled criticism of this section--even a suggestion that it perhaps should be disbanded-- because patrol had to respond to over 76% of the calls in the housing projects-- its territory.

In one of the units that works mostly weekdays, he even found they had structured their work shifts so they have a 3-day weekend every other week.

He wants Criminal Investigations to eliminate all the unnecessary meetings in that department that tie up key staff.  And he wants more clerical help to free up staff  in Criminal Investigations, Vice/Narcotics and at the command level for other activities.

He critiques the recent "knee jerk" City Council decisions with respect to creation of a gang unit and robbery suspension unit.  He wants the gang unit reduced to 8 members, and to have it give some officers back to CRT.  He wants the robbery unit disbanded.

He wants every specialty unit created to have a written purpose and plan, including hours of work and objectives.

Staffing previously did not reflect how busy individual patrol zones are.  As a result, response times in certain zones have been suboptimal.  He wants the department to continue re-drawing the lines of these zones to better reflect work demands, and then reevaluate this situation on an annual basis.

City policy states there needs to be only one officer available per division.  He proposes to correct this deficiency.

He proposes that the traffic unit be deployed to assist with patrol, and with responses to certain priority calls.  He wants the unit to sacrifice its K-9's to the narcotics division.

Because of the way Tim Bellamy devised the most recent schedule, the department apparently has not even remotely been at full strength with respect to officers being deployed at peak times.

Buracker therefore recommends altering the work shifts to more closely reflect the demands that the department experiences.  He wants more clerical support in certain areas so that key staff are not bogged down typing or doing routine administrative chores.  He wants new hires to be dedicated to working the peak times.

He says that it takes too much time to get new recruits through the police academy, and makes recommendations to streamline this process so they can be working more quickly.  (Other parties have suggested taking advantage of criminal justice training available in the community colleges.)  He also wants to achieve certain efficiencies with respect to employee down time due to annual training.

He makes veiled suggestions that there may be abuse of sick time and prolonged light duty assignments; and makes some recommendations to deal with these issues.  It appears to me that the department allows far too much sick time to its employees-- 12 days per year.  I think this should be eliminated, and a fraction of it rolled partially into annual leave time.  Having so much paid sick time invites abuse.

Finally, he observes that the department consistently has less employees working than the number of slots allocated to it by the city.  This is because of resignations, retirements, and the amount of time it takes to get new hires through the police academy.  The department, it seems, is never able to "catch up" to its maximal level of positions allocated.  Buracker makes a suggestion that the department be permitted to hire even more people than appears to be needed so that the department can operate at full strength and  not be caught short via normal attrition.  He calls this process "overhire" or "dual encumber".  This appears to be a good suggestion.

He thinks officers should be permitted to take home their cars to reduce down time going from personal car to patrol car and vice versa; and also to increase visibility in the community.

3. Handling of cases when police officers are accused of wrong-doing: This has been a matter of considerable public discussion and controversy.  Buracker has some pointed observations and recommendations. 

He feels, for instance, that it takes the department too long to review these cases.  And he feels that, in too many cases, the charges are not sustained, and the officer is not disciplined enough.  He points out that the standard of proof in administrative proceedings is lower than in criminal proceedings, yet the GPD seems to operate-- in an unwritten way-- according to a much higher burden of proof for its internal investigations.

It was reported in the Bledsoe series that certain officers at key positions in the internal affairs processes or the departmental hierarchy were able to run screen patterns for officers accused of wrongdoing in the past. 

Buracker finds there is no consistent written policy regarding pay when officers are placed on administrative leave while their cases are being handled.  This presumably creates a situation like Scott Sanders and Tom Fox having their pay withheld; while the officers accused of sexual assault are placed on paid administrative leave for over seven months.

Interestingly, he proposes disbanding the unit on which the alleged sexual assault took place-- TSET.

In any case, he also calls for more charges against staff to be "sustained" when these internal processes take place.  He wants more severe discipline.  He wants accused employees to spend less time on paid administrative leave.  And he calls for faster reviews.  These statements cut to the essence of many of the public criticisms and observations made regarding these processes.

He wants swift discipline when there are violations or abuses of the city's off-duty work program.  This has been another matter of public controversy.

Buracker wants more staff-- and higher ranks-- among those in Internal Affairs. 

Finally, he recommends a consistent, written policy regarding paid administrative leave.

4. Crime-fighting technique-- We have discussed various crime fighting approaches in the past on this blog.  And some have called for a renewed emphasis on patrol activities.  Buracker seems to support the premise that the department's patrol function needs to be strengthened.  He wants more patrol time dedicated to proactive activities instead of "obligated" time.

He wants the department's crime analysts to generate relevant crime data on a daily basis so it can be shared with relevant officers-- including those at the level of patrol.  This would be the near-equivalent of real-time data made available to those doing the work.  He wants them placed under the Deputy Chief of Field Operations to facilitate crime data-sharing with these officers. 

At the level of the individual police officer, he proposes a "beat plan" to describe the activities of those officers within that beat.

He proposes expanded Community Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing.  He wants new emphasis on problem-solving activities in communities at risk.  And he suggests that these activities be inculcated into the basic philosophy of the department, and made a standard part of all new hire training and annual training.

He proposes a captain under the Deputy Chief of Field Operations to coordinate all problem-solving/community policing activities. 

He wants better performance measures of individual units like CRT and PNRC.  He proposes all four units doing community policing being integrated into a single model; and their activities should be coordinated.  (The other two are SRO-- the school resource officers-- and the new, to-be-created unit called Tactical.)

He wants CRT's to maintan detailed logs of their activities and accomplishments.  And he suggests that "beat coordinators"-- a sergeant or lieutenant-- well versed in community policing be assigned to each geographic area.  This person would be handed problems to be addressed, and help coordinate other departmental and city resources and units with a potential to assist with the problem at hand.

TSET deals with street-level narcotics.   It would be replaced with the general tactical unit that is supposed to deal more flexibly and proactively with various problems, and that would receive some of the TSET officers.  Other TSET staff would be directed to the a street crime drugs unit within the narcotics division to assure better coordination on narcotics activities.

Interestingly, Buracker wants the city attorney to work on nuisance abatement cases.  This had been a matter of some public controversy a number of months ago.

I am pleased with the emphasis on problem-oriented policing and problem-solving.

Summary: There is a wealth of recommendations in the full report that address directly items that have been of major concern in the community. Some question the department's ability to fight crime; and its willingness to enforce standards appropriately among its own officers.  The department has been embroiled in controversy for three years over these matters.

There are many helpful perspectives on these matters within the report.  Unfortunately, the verbal presentation given to the City Council emphasized topics such as staffing levels and promotions policies. 

Massive amounts of data were presented verbally to the City Council, but not in a manner that would demonstrate how recommendations would resolve the department's current difficulties with respect to crime-fighting and internal matters.  In fact, there was a concerted effort to make it appear that the department was not experiencing any significant difficulties.

Unfortunately, if the city council presentation is the last word on this report, we will get little of benefit from it.  And if there is more conversation on these sensitive topics, we can be assured that various forces will work behind the scenes to maintain the status quo on certain key issues.  In that event, the city can be counted upon to do precisely the wrong thing, if the past is any indication of what the future will hold.

This post was intended to highlight what I view as the positive aspects of the report-- many of which I am afraid might ultimately be ignored.  A later post will deal with the downsides of the report.

Josh Hamilton's Moment during the Home Run Derby

Just saw Josh Hamilton put on the most impressive power hitting display I have ever seen.  He launched 28 home runs into orbit during the opening round of the Home Run Derby at Yankee Stadium, including several shots that exceeded 500 feet.  His pitcher was Clay Counsil, age 71.  Both men have roots in North Carolina.

Imagine.  This is the post-steroid era in major league baseball.

It was a spectacle that will be long remembered as one of the great moments in baseball history, staged during the stadium's final year. 

Oh, and by the way, the young man has somewhat of a comeback story to tell.  And he gives God the credit.

Update: Runs out of gas during the final round.  Still an amazing display.  Makes you wonder about how the Derby is run.

Reggio

Greensboro author/editor Justin Catanoso provides great photos from Reggio di Calabria.  These include a picture of bergomotto, a fruit indigenous to that region; and also of what is commonly referred to as the-most- beautiful-mile-in-Italy-- the "lungomare".

He also provides a link to a Wikipedia article with a description and photograph of the famed Riace bronzes.  Check it all out.

Passing Bonds, Taxes, and Niceties at the City and County Level

We learned last month that the County Board of Commissioners, on a straight party-line vote, decided to raise taxes for Guilford County property owners this year.  This is not strictly a Democrat versus Republican issue, however.  The die was cast for this tax increase when the commissioners elected to place the school bonds on the May ballot.  And at least a couple of Republican county commissioners voted in favor of doing that. 

It was a tragic mistake when the county commissioners blew their opportunity to bring some spending restraint to the school construction process-- a mistake for which county residents will pay dearly.

In addition, the Democratic commissioners-- Gibson, Perkins, Cashion, Parks-- fell back into the loving arms of Skip Alston and the Simkins contingent on the county board, restoring funds for various non-profits, including Simkins boss Alma Adams' museum.

Wendell Sawyer, who is running for the county board, has commented elsewhere that the jail bond is another opportunity for spending restraint:

I hate to be the guy crashing the "new jailhouse party" but I have some serious reservations about the proposed construction costs for the new jail.  

FYI, the frugal folks in Des Moines, Iowa are completing the construction of a new jail for Polk County this year that has 1,500 beds.  The cost? $68 million.

Yet, good old Guilford County has allocated a price tag of $114 million for a new jail that will have only 1,000 beds.  It's simply amazing what can be done to save taxpayers some money when local government officials are worried about raising property taxes.

Apparently, the county commissioners in Lincoln, Nebraska were impressed with the low construction costs of the Polk County, Iowa jail project.  The Lincoln Journal Star reported on 1/18/08:  “Commissioners are making plans to visit the Polk County, Iowa, jail to see how officials there have managed to build a 1,500-bed jail for $68 million. That project is due for completion later this year.”
 
Guilford County Jail; 1,000 beds: $114 million
Polk County Jail; 1,500 beds: $68 million

Hmmm...I think that we should pay for some airfare and send our commissioners on a little trip to Des Moines.  But, I doubt there would be much interest in such a journey.  Guilford County has money to burn on this project.  After all, raising property taxes in Guilford County has become a time-honored tradition.


Meanwhile, we learn of some last minute maneuvering over at Hogg's Blog, where it is revealed how there was no plan for a city parks bond this year-- i.e, until the City Manager decided at the last minute, with notice of only a week or two to council members and parks commission members, that there would, in fact, be a parks bond.

The city also has a transportation bond, which misleadingly includes funding for such niceties such as the Greenway and sidewalks and the like.  We also had previously seen a political effort to assure that the city transportation bond would help facilitate real estate development. 

The city placed the Greenway on this bond in spite of county taxpayers having just rejected it.  The city also is pursuing a bond to renovate War Memorial Auditorium even though city taxpayers rejected it two years ago.   It seems we keep voting on these things until political conditions allow them to pass.  Perhaps the city is hoping the Obama voter this fall-- who does not perceive he or she pays property taxes-- will vote "yes".

A few city council members at the last meeting appeared antagonized over how the bonds had been handled by staff.  But on the other hand, some council members most closely affiliated with the Melderec con Simkins machine were not bothered with the situation.  Perhaps therein lies an explanation for some of that which occurred.

Mike Barber unfortunately wants the city parks bond to include a pool that also had been rejected by voters two years ago.

Perhaps the entire philosophy behind bonds is mistaken.  Perhaps we should just pay as we go for all these projects, instead of using bonds-- and have our elected officials take direct responsibility for the projects they vote to fund.  Otherwise, our local government at both the county and city levels consists of an incessant series of bond proposals and almost-annual tax increases.  And blaming it on voters is a common ploy to evade responsibility. 

The fact is that there is consistently a concerted effort to propose and pass these bonds, with most of our elected officials blithely acquiescing.  And it sometimes seems that almost no one cares about the taxpayer.

Indeed, our greatest need is for better elected officials who take stewardship seriously.

North Carolina Progressives and the Air Conditioning Dilemma

I began thinking about air conditioning the other day.  I was driving to work and, mindful of the price of gasoline, began to wonder how much using my automobile air conditioning during my daily commute was costing me.  Air conditioning places additional stress on the engine, resulting in additional fuel consumption-- at least under some conditions.

And of course, most of us have an existence that includes air conditioning both at work and at home.  The electricity that powers residential and commercial air conditioning is generated by power plants using coal, nuclear power, natural gas and occasionally even oil.  Air conditioning oft results in expending copious amounts of fossil fuels and also nuclear; and thereby creates certain environmental/safety risks because of the degree to which AC is used in the spaces we occupy.

This must represent a terrible dilemma for North Carolina progressives.  We live in a part of the country that would be considerably less pleasant if we did not have air conditioning.  I enjoy hearing old-timers from the area-- and some not-so-old-timers-- talk about growing up in the region years ago without air conditioning.  They like to remind us that most northerners would never have migrated south had it not been for the availability of this amenity.

Contrary to assumptions that appear to be commonly held,  AC is not necessary for life under most circumstances.  Humans survived for millenia without it.

Today, we worry about the carbon footprint we leave.  We wring our hands about global warming and greenhouse gases and acid rain and rising oil prices and depletion of energy resources.  We bemoan the catastrophes that would await if we drill for oil in certain places, build refineries, or begin to license nuclear plants once again.  We worry about what the future will hold for our planet.  We talk about devising schemes that would raise costs for everyone significantly, hoping that it will make an impact on these issues.

We devise such public policies at the state level, the federal level-- and yes, even at the local level-- to demonstrate how conscientious we are on these matters.  If you do not favor these measures, you risk being branded as unenlightened and capricious on matters commonly held to be of concern.

And yet this summer, I see little evidence that air conditioning utilization in our region is declining, except perhaps because of strained economics in individual households.  Many North Carolina progressives, like most of us, have come to regard this as an amenity that cannot be sacrificed.  And if high utilization contributes to all the worrisome impacts listed above, well, so be it.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Greensboro's Crime Rates, the Hired Consultant, and the News and Record

Today in the News and Record, we see a prominently placed front page article extolling the work of the Greensboro Police Department.  The article draws from the work of the consultant hired to perform an administrative review of the department.  The consultant found that there had been a decrease in crime rates in Greensboro since 1995.  We were led to believe that this statistic should reassure us that the city and its police department were doing a great job managing crime.

I have had the opportunity to read parts of the consultant's report, and also attend his presentation Monday night.  I was struck by the slicing and dicing of data that created misleading appearances.  It is clear that, at least to some extent, the consultant was trying to help out the city and the department from a PR standpoint, and the newspaper subsequently acquiesced with this particular story.

It is true that Greensboro was at an approximate apogee with respect to crime rates around 1995.  There are probably various reasons for this.

It would be helpful to understand further the context of the statistical claims made by Buracker.

First, we need to view his data through the prism of trends in nationwide crime rates.  In fact, there have been fairly significant declines in crime through much of the nation since the late 1980's/early 1990's.  Certain societal trends likely influence these statistics in various ways.  A report of the Urban Institute, a liberal think tank, discusses the nationwide decreases in crime rates.  (It attempts to offer analysis, and that is beyond the scope of my discussion here.   I do not necessarily agree with all of its conclusions.)

But the fact remains that the decrease in crime in Greensboro occurred simultaneously with a national trend toward declining crime rates.  The question is to what extent that decrease reflects the work of the department; and the answer to that question is extremely unclear.  Buracker's representation on this matter appears to have been just a bit disingenuous. 

Certainly, it is clear that crime in Greensboro during the mid-1990's appears to have been much worse than we were led to believe at that time. 

Second, we need to compare Greensboro's crime rates with the national average, and in this respect we do not do well.  The best on-line source I was able to find that graphically makes this comparison demonstrates that, in most categories of crime, we were well above the national average based on 2003 data.

Obama and the Unborn

Click to enlarge. 

From Faithmouse (via Pro-Life Blogs).

Perkins/ Lincoln Financial Land Development Tax-Exempt?

There was an intriguing letter-to-the-editor in the most recent edition of the Rhino Times (ht: Keith).  It reads as follows:

I read with interest about Councilmember Robbie Perkins and his effort, through city staff, to incentivize the running of sewer lines to the property on High Point Road that he is marketing for Lincoln Financial. The property is supposedly being considered by a developer for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC). Now it appears we know why Mr. Perkins decided to run for City Council again. Commission on a $10 million sale would be attractive to anyone. Mr. Perkins should level with the citizens of Greensboro and Guilford County and reveal that a CCRC is a tax-exempt facility. CCRCs purport to be nonprofit and the North Carolina General Assembly, with efforts from lobbyists, has played along by passing a statute recognizing CCRCs as nonprofits, hence tax exempt. CCRCs, as defined by the statute, pay no property tax. Imagine a property valued at $10 million being removed from the Guilford County tax base. Who will make up the lost revenue? The quick answer is: The property owners of Greensboro, High Point and Guilford County. As of May 5, 2008, there were seven CCRCs in Guilford County – four in Greensboro and three in High Point. The property owners in all of Guilford County are indirectly subsidizing these CCRCs. Property tax is not the only tax not paid by CCRCs, but the property tax issue is the one that most property owners are concerned about just now; after all, property taxes have increased for the past four years and will increase again this year. There are 105 CCRCs in North Carolina. The citizens of our state cannot afford to subsidize these CCRCs through higher property taxes. The vast majority of our senior citizens struggle to pay their own property taxes. Subsidizing CCRCs where only a fraction of senior citizens live, many from places other than North Carolina, is unfair. What to do: Request the Greensboro City Council deny all requests by the CCRC that is attempting to buy the High Point Road property and write the North Carolina legislature asking for repeal of property tax exemption for CCRCs.

This is a very important, potentially explosive revelation if it is true.  Consider the inappropriateness of incentives being arranged-- or even discussed-- for a project in which a city councilman is involved, and which would yield little or no tax revenues for the city.