WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICAN COMMISIONERS UP TO?

Prior to the November 2019 election that saw Republicans take control of Washington County government, I warned of what the result would be if the Democratic majority were removed by voters (9/8/19 Observer Reporter OP-ED).  My fear was that replacing a well-functioning Board of Commissioners, that placed good government before partisan politics and ideological preferences, would not end well.

Unfortunately, my concerns have become a reality as evidenced by recent events. The Republicans are committed to frivolously spend taxpayer dollars and to stir up their Trump base of voters.

The latest revelations as reported in this newspaper are alarming. First, there were the March 4 disclosures concerning the new county solicitor, Jana Grimm Esq., and her law firm, Steptoe and Johnson. The Republican Commissioners increased the allotment for the solicitor’s legal services from an already extravagant $142,577.00 to $189,000.00, an escalation of 33%.

It is not shocking that Diana Irey Vaughan would choose a new solicitor once she was in a position to do so.  It is disturbing that the Republican Commissioners would create an outside “legal division” utilizing a boutique business law firm, like Steptoe and Johnson.  Such firms traditionally bill from $300.00 to $400.00 an hour, well above the going rate of qualified Washington County firms.

The claim that this move will save the county money is simply not accurate based on prior expenditures. If the Republicans intend to stand by this claim, they should be prepared to provide an accounting of hours worked and services provided at the end of the year.

Ironically, the well-regarded Washington law firm of Peacock and Keller is now located in the same building as the soon to be Republican Commissioner’s offices. (The plush, new, 10 million-dollar Crossroads Building accommodations). Peacock and Keller is more familiar with Washington County legal issues and has specialists in all types of municipal law.  However, our local firm, unlike Steptoe and Johnson, does not have over 300 lawyers on their masthead, of whom all may be called upon to contribute to the next election campaign.

The second revelation was not unexpected in the present environment of right wing ideological politics, as practiced by elected Pennsylvania Republicans.  Again, on March 4, the same day that QANON predicted Donald Trump would retake the White House, Washington County was declared a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.”

According to the enthusiastic explanation given by Commissioner Irey Vaughn on the local newscasts, this resolution was intended to give physical shelter to gun owners when state and federal officials illegally come to confiscate their guns. The dog whistle message in the resolution is that “elected Democrats are closet communists intent on trampling Second Amendment rights.” The resolution is red meat for Trump voters and militia members.

Why pass a meaningless but divisive resolution?  Where are the pandemic resolutions honoring county first responders and medical personnel? How about a bipartisan ceremony to show respect for all of our residents who lost their lives to COVID-19 or those who have perished from gun violence. Perhaps a plaque for Commissioner Larry Maggi for driving many miles to participate in an early coronavirus vaccine trial that could have threatened his good health.  Apparently, keeping Trump supporters in the fold is more important than showing empathy and moral courage as an elected Republican commissioner.

My last topic is the most troubling of all. The Republican Commissioners have been assembling an audacious plan to revamp all of the county human service functions under one inflexible umbrella.

Presently in Washington County, there are several well-funded, well-run human service nonprofits. These organizations oversee functions such as drug and alcohol and the elderly/aging. Each of these nonprofits has flourished under the leadership of their independent management teams and boards of directors.

Each self-sustaining organization has important contacts with both Washington County and State officials in conducting their specialized services and in meeting regulatory requirements.  As an example, the independent/nonprofit County Drug and Alcohol Commission has become a national model in addressing opioid overdoses by bringing together all interested parties.

The existing structure is decentralized in a good way by giving focus and input to those participants who provide and receive the specific services outlined in each nonprofit’s mission statement.  The system not only works, it achieves a traditional Republican goal by lowering county expenditures and reducing payroll and overhead.

No one outside the Republican inner circle is quite sure of the provisions in the human services reorganization plan. There has been no attempt to involve the affected agencies. However, the fear is real.  A new monolithic human service department would swallow up the existing nonprofits like a giant amoeba.

Years of relationship building, funding sources and countless careers would be lost or altered.  There is little confidence that a transition could go smoothly, especially given the lack of transparency. Many of the participants, including knowledgeable Republicans, foresee chaos.

Washington county citizens who receive services from these drug & alcohol, aging and mental health organizations must demand that whatever grand plan is in play be exposed and explained.  This should include public hearings on each proposal affecting the delivery of human services.

The boring, predictable days when county government was taken for granted and trusted to provide the best solutions is past. We must remain vigilant and challenge everything that does not add up.

PANDEMIC POLICY IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN “FOLLOW THE SCIENCE”

When it comes to fighting COVID-19 and its mutant variants, the two national approaches that have played out over the past year are clear. First, there was the Trump policy of relying on the former president’s questionable instincts backed by fringe scientists who agreed with him. No new regulation could escape the Center for Disease Control without being adversely scrubbed by pro Trump political operatives. By mid-summer, the former president was ignoring the pandemic and had placed all implementation responsibility on the state governors.

Now we have the Biden administration’s welcome transparency on COVID-19 policy under the slogan that his team will “follow the science.” His staff holds daily briefings, and there are centralized plans for winding down the crisis.  The president displays an empathetic concern for those affected economically and for those who have lost their lives.  Currently, Biden is moving a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress. 

While I am pleased with the turn of events since the inauguration, I am skeptical of the Biden claim that he is simply “following the science.” I find this a misleading slogan to explain the complex pandemic decision-making at the federal level. In truth, other factors besides empirical science are under consideration in addressing the virus. The new administration should clarify this fact for the American people.

To rely on science as the determining influence on policy is to misunderstand what science is. All scientists are by definition trained in the scientific method.  This process uses data gained through observation to remove uncertainties around a hypothesis in an effort to determine the truth. Scientists utilize proven facts to understand the world. The validity and importance of the scientific method is well documented. During the pandemic the scientific method has worked well to standardize the mitigation directives of mask wearing and social distancing.  

However, the process of organizing scientific knowledge in order to formulate policy through institutions and advisory committees is driven by more than raw data.  Politics, economic concerns as well as social constraints are also a part of the equation.

Sociologists have carefully studied the interplay between science and governmental policy.  On the surface, it may appear that public health policy depends solely on scientific information. By digging deeper researchers have found the process is more convoluted.  When faced with a new problem, policy makers tend to deconstruct the basic science depending on the ultimate goals of public officials and the political interest groups they serve. This is followed by a reconstruction of the fact-based science to achieve a plausible scientific rationale for the proposed action.

Rather than a monolithic scientific approach to the pandemic, we have observed this process of deconstructing and reconstructing scientific findings play out over and over on the world stage.  It is significant that there have been a long list of conflicting scientific studies over how to cope with a rapidly expanding, changing and mutating viral pandemic. Given this plethora of scientific studies against a background of divergent political, social and economic considerations, no two countries have “followed the science” according to the same prescription. Some national plans have succeeded better than others.  None has been perfect.  All have been different.

Anyone who believes that the Biden administration is only “following the science” in cobbling together the stimulus bill now before Congress would be way off base.  Certain provisions of the proposed law are designed to shore up the Affordable Care Act by making it economical to more Americans.  Other provisions that provide funds to assist financially strapped state and local governments and to distribute enhanced unemployment benefits are based on unemployment rates in each state. Democratic states that had shut down earlier and longer benefited the most from these proposed distributions. Overall, Republican states had briefer shutdowns and lower unemployment rates. This will limit their ability to receive assistance from these programs.

There is also Democratic favoritism concerning the dispersal of the vaccine and most recently, free, high quality masks.  Centralized mass distribution sites in Democratic urban areas are more effective in reaching citizens than vaguer decentralized plans to inoculate individuals and provide free masks in Republican rural areas. Moreover, Americans outside of population centers often do not have access to the internet services needed to sign up for the vaccine or to apply for federally enhanced unemployment benefits.

The Biden stimulus package is a good one and has wide support because of the financial payouts to all Americans.  I support all of its goals.  However, many provisions have little to do with empirical scientific data and everything to do with fulfilling campaign promises and rewarding the Democratic base.

Instead of “follow the science” as adopted by the Biden administration, a more accurate phrase would be, “We consider the recommendations of the best science in a changing pandemic environment in conjunction with our political, economic and social goals.”

The White House must take both credit and responsibility for its decisions separate and apart from scientific data.  In the end, Biden’s use of science to implement Democratic goals is far better than the plan of the previous administration to “ignore the science” and wait for the virus to disappear on its own.