VOTING FOR OUR NEXT JUDGE

 Is it possible that we care more about the NFL draft and the rookie crop of players that will perform as Pittsburgh Steelers than who will be the newest elected Judge in Washington County?  The unqualified answer is that football captures our attention and the local judicial election does not.

Many bright individuals make it their life’s work as scouts and prognosticators to evaluate talent for the NFL draft.  Countless hours are dedicated to reviewing game film, talking to former coaches and developing psychological profiles to determine who will succeed in the National Football League. Each year, books are written on the qualifications of eligible players. Steeler fans (which are more numerous than voters) eagerly follow the draft on social media, in the sports pages of newspapers and on the news.  When the final picks are made, the names of the newest Steelers are quickly committed to memory by the public.

Contrast this football draft frenzy with electing a Judge in the upcoming May 16 Primary. The candidates who win the popular vote in the democratic and republican primary (all candidates are permitted to cross file) will face off in the November election to decide who will serve the citizens of Washington County for years to come.

Election forums held by the local League of Women’s Voters and by the local Democratic party are sparsely attended.  Those who make it a point to take part in the proceedings are by and large supporters of one of the candidates.  The uninformed voting public is nowhere to be seen.

In addition to this lack of interest is the fact that the judicial primary is being held in an off election year when there are no other significant contests on the ballot.  Moreover, judicial candidates are not permitted to take positions on social issues that invigorate voters so that the campaigns tend to be low key affairs.  Ironically, those lawyers most qualified to serve as judge are often not polished politicians or campaigners.  The stellar candidates would  prefer practicing their profession to fund raising and other campaign activities.

I challenge any non lawyer reading these words to name the five individuals running for Judge.  I further challenge anyone who knows of a candidate to explain the background or legal accomplishments that qualify the individual to serve as Judge. When one considers that an elected judge may easily serve for twenty years or more and pass judgment on thousands of matters affecting the citizens of Washington County, this lack of knowledge and urgency in choosing the best candidate becomes, in my view, an affront to the democratic election process.

So what is to be done?  The bad news is that unlike the 2016 Presidential freak show, during which voters were bombarded with information on the candidates 24/7, performing due diligence on the judicial candidates takes some work.  The good news is that each voter’s investigation will be rewarding and result in a well reasoned vote not based on name recognition or what “Uncle Ralph” has to say.

First, the League of Women Voters forum, highlighting the judicial candidates, is available on YouTube. (Judicial Candidates Forum Washington County Court of Common Pleas;https://youtube/Dn_JcKy6OtE) By spending an hour watching this commercial free debate, voters will gain insightful information on each candidate’s background and qualifications.  

Second, the Washington County Bar Association has published the results of a survey of its membership, rating each of the candidates.  Attorneys who work with the candidates on a daily basis are best able to inform the voting public on which candidate will make the grade as judge.  These results were published in the April 26, 2017 Observer Reporter and can be found on the WCBA website.

Third, each candidate has a Facebook page and Website which expands on personal information and credentials permitted under the rules of professional conduct.     Most candidates will include a telephone number permitting voters to call and ask questions, again as permitted under the rules.

Voters are understandably burned out after the 2016 election.  But choosing the most competent candidate to serve as judge is too important to ignore.  So after the Steeler draft is in the rearview mirror, watch, read and ask about the judicial candidates.  Most importantly, vote in the primary on May 16.

CONGRATULATIONS ARE IN ORDER

Recently Pennsylvania Governor Wolf appointed two Washington County Commissioners to committees serving the entire Commonwealth.  This is no small accomplishment and deserves to be recognized by all Washington County residents.  First, Commissioner Harlan Shober was placed on the Pennsylvania Local Government Advisory Committee.  Second, Commissioner Larry Maggi was chosen to serve on the state wide County Probation and Parole Officers’ Firearm Education and Training Committee. In addition to these appointments Commissioner Shober is in the middle of his term as President of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.

These appointments are not ceremonial and require hard work on the part of our Commissioners. Pennsylvania has 67 counties, many with larger populations than Washington.  There is much effort involved in gaining a consensus on important issues across the Commonwealth.  

The needs and prospective of Pennsylvania counties are as diverse as the entire country and span all demographics from urban, to growing bedroom communities to farmland to low populated forested areas. Too often Philadelphia and Allegheny counties monopolize the state wide boards, committees and commissions.  This leaves less urban areas with limited voice in setting the state wide agenda or in formulating policy.

 Our Commissioners have been chosen because of their singular talents and ability to bring a unique point of view to the table.  County governments have special needs that are often ignored by our elected state representatives.  Property taxes, funding the court system and Marcellus Shale Act 13 funding are among these pressing issues.  Both Washington County and the Commonwealth are well served by these appointments and our Commissioners should be congratulated.

HOW WILL WE SAVE EXPERTISE ?

Over the past several decades my live has changed.  I now seem to know much more about matters that directly affect me and have a willingness to act on my knowledge. Twenty years ago I would have left such decisions to the experts.  Ten years ago I would have searched the internet for information, but not have acted on self knowledge.  Today, I am often willing to challenge the experts.

 Before seeing my physician, I wade through articles and blogs so that I can provide alternatives to her diagnosis and impress her with my self-knowledge on medicine.  I attempt to argue with my brother, the CPA, on how to save money on my taxes.  Like-wise I am always attempting to undermine plumbers, electricians, garden experts and those who make their living in appliance repair, even though replacing a light bulb can be a task for me. Without training or experience in many vocations, I seek to make my opinion known and sometimes dare to follow it against expert advice.

The American political landscape has seen a demise of expertise as well. When Trump campaigned on “draining the swamp” to his populist base, in practice this meant terminating thousands of government jobs of professionals with vast amounts of knowledge and experience.  Government workers in all areas, from foreign affairs to climate change to financial regulation to running the National Parks are now unemployed.

Trump has put an exclamation point on his dislike for governmental expertise by refusing to fill 533 key executive branch positions through April, 2017.  As Tom Nichols points out in his excellent new study: “The Death of Expertise”: “Donald Trump ran a one man campaign against established knowledge.”  As President he is now in a position to turn the full force of the White House on reality itself.

Of course what has changed is not me, but the availability of the internet.  What has changed in our democracy is a populist disdain for experts who tell us what to do.  Who needs a climate expert in the EPA when there are thousands of opinions a click away?   The great globalization of knowledge and communication has turned many of us, including global political leaders, into experts in areas where we have no training or experience.

 I believe that as time goes by individuals and governments will learn that an expert’s view is likely to be more informed than my (their) own.  Hopefully this will be discovered before I flood the basement while attempting to fix a pipe or the short handed, fact challenged, Trump administration wades into an international crisis that could have been avoided.

As if the internet and populism were not enough to encourage a mindset that “everyone’s opinion about anything is about as good as anyone else’s”, there is a new attack on expertise on the horizon that will provide a greater challenge.  I am referring to those mysterious concepts of “big data” and “artificial intelligence.”

Big Data (BD) has been defined as: “extremely large data sets that may be analyzed computationally to reveal patterns, trends and associations, especially related to human behavior and interactions. (It helps me to remember that “computing” is a synonym for big data.)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is understood as: “the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, including decision making.” 

As these two concepts are improved and better understood, the implications for many of our professions are enormous.  The practice of law, medicine, accounting, teaching, journalism, psychological therapy and others will change and may dramatically shift decision making from the trained experts to the individual lay person.

Consider the practice of law. BD makes it possible to review and analysis every judicial opinion in the history of American Jurisprudence.  AI will soon have the capacity to draw conclusions on the outcome of legal matters based on how all prior cases were decided, the judge who decided each opinion, counsel who were involved in each case and a host of other factors.  If this capability were for sale to the public, how would it affect the need to hire an attorney?  Would a divorcing couple who could spend a thousand dollars to learn the most likely judicial result in dividing their property and reordering their life find it necessary to retain legal advice?

BD is already having an effect on psychological therapy.  According to the April issue of Atlantic Magazine (What Your Therapist Doesn’t Know) researchers at Brigham Young University have developed psychotherapy metrics, drawing on historical data from thousands of cases, to create algorithms predicting when clients are at risk from mental deterioration.  By having clients take simple question surveys therapists incorporating this tool into their practice claim great success in preventing drug relapse, suicide and other mental health crises. As these algorithms become perfected, what is to prevent them from being monetized and from family members employing them to determine when a psychiatrist is necessary?

The teaching and journalism professions present their own unique set of problems in light of advances in BD and AI. Many young students already view teachers as the hired help and themselves as consumers of a high priced product.  This leads to them being catered to and not instructed.  Online Colleges have begun to remove “hands on” teaching from the equation. The availability of BD and AI problem solving may lead many students who are “confident but dumb” to strike out on their own. Qualified or not, they will ask themselves: “If the founder of Facebook could do it, why not me?”

Journalism faces the toughest task of all in light of BA and IA advances. Social media has already turned many of us into our own journalistic universes.  We have our own set of facts, opinions and conclusions.  Before long we will be able to use BD to find some algorithm that supports our facts and AI that supports our conclusions. The further decline of print media and unbiased reporting seems assured.

The above discussion applies in equal measure to all of our professions. The ability to self diagnosis medical conditions and unravel complex tax questions will improve as BA and AI improve.

Will these technological advances combined with the internet transform us into a society of polymaths, each of us knowing enough to solve all daily problems without consulting someone with training and experience? I doubt this will be the result. The professions I have discussed above will not go the way of travel agents, realtors and mortgage facilitators (all of which are downsized but still exist and provide valuable niche services in their brick and mortar form).  The human factor in analyzing data for professional services will never be replaced.  Many of these professions will mutate into different formats and service delivery models because of BD and AI.

 In the end, both advances will become valuable tools to make us healthier and more secure.  For example, In the case of journalism, I am convinced that old fashion “Sixty Minute” door knocking investigations will never be replaced by social media, BD or AI.

 Those of us who insist on ignoring expertise and seeking our own solutions, based on technological “cliff notes” and not based on education or experience, will ultimately fail.  Better to trust our health and our bank accounts to those experts who learn the tools of the trade and put them to work alongside the new advances in gathering and interpreting information. 

In the case of the Trump administration we must hope that expertise will regain its purchase in a disorganized, reality challenged White House before something really bad happens.