THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS IGNORE TRANSPARENCY

 

The importance of transparency in county government cannot be overstated. Transparency increases public trust by providing residents with up-to-date information on government decision-making. It is critical in everything from public emergencies (like the cyber-attack on the county’s computer system) to hiring practices (like creating new senior management positions).

When transparency is lacking, there is minimal public knowledge of government operations, and the potential for undisclosed mismanagement or corruption is high. Unfortunately, the new regime of Washington County’s Republican commissioners, Nick Sherman and Electra Janis, are off to a dismal start when it comes to transparency.

Many of the concealed actions taken by the majority commissioners are baffling. During the run-up to last year’s election, one general theme was prevalent in their campaign literature. They both pledged transparency in county government.

Two years earlier, Sherman was vehemently against a proposed referendum to appoint a Home Rule Government Study Commission. His “pro-transparency” criticisms were that 1) Home Rule might ultimately produce “highly paid managers who are not accountable to the people” and that 2) “concentration of power in a county executive could eliminate our checks and balances.”

But after six months in power, the two Republicans have sadly ushered in both of these anti-democratic results simply by adopting non-transparent, secret, closed-door policies. With no transparent vetting or explanation, close friends of the chief of staff have been placed in high-paying county jobs. The minority commissioner, Larry Maggi has been intentionally misled or shut out of important county business.

An astute observer should have known something was amiss when the two Republican commissioner candidates failed to attend the “Meet the Candidates Forum” before the election last October. This annual event sponsored by the local NAACP and League of Women Voters, was the only county-wide “unbiased platform for raising candidates’ voices and voters’ questions” prior to the November election. While other candidates for county office attended and provided valuable information to the voting public, Sherman and Janis were instead, photographed having dinner together.

This disregard for transparency was repeated on May 14 when the Washington County Bar Association, along with several other organizations, sponsored an important non-partisan public forum to discuss state and local elections and voting rights. All three county commissioners were invited to help ensure the public that the county voting system and procedures are safe and secure for the upcoming election.

Five hours before the event, Sherman and Janis, notified the organizers that, on advice of the county solicitor, they would not participate in the forum or permit the county election director to attend. The two Republicans wanted to avoid transparency on why they voted to enact voter suppression measures to prohibit corrections to minor mistakes on mail-in ballots.

The history of ignoring transparency began early in the new administration on Jan. 24 when according to the Observer-Reporter, “All telephones and computers throughout Washington County’s government offices and courthouse were shut down after malware ‘phishing activity’ was detected on the system-wide server.” For several weeks, the public was not told that the computer system was under attack from Russian hackers or that the criminals demanded a sizable ransom. The commissioners held a closed meeting on February 6 that authorized a ransom payment of $346,000. (Democrat Commissioner Larry Maggi voted no.) It was not until Feb.15, that the public was informed of the ransom.

To comply with state law, on Mar.13 the Republican commissioners had their staff post a formal “Notice of Data Security Incident” on the county website. This notice informed residents that personal information may have been breached and explained new security measures. There was no press release or wide distribution of this “Notice” and few individuals knew their personal data may have been compromised. Recently, local victims of the breach have received legally required written notice and have been offered complimentary credit monitoring services, provided by the county. There has been minimal transparency and questionable management of this crisis.

At the Commissioners’ meeting on Feb.15, transparency again became an issue. A project for women’s housing advanced by the Washington City Mission appeared on a preliminary list prepared by the Local Share Account Committee. For unexplained reasons the project was later removed from the final agenda. Commissioner Maggi, City Mission leadership, along with many concerned pastors and citizens who supported the project, raised objections. A month later, the decision was reversed.

The involvement of the two Republican commissioners in removing the City Mission project from the final list remains unexplained. Circumstantial evidence points to petty political payback against Sherman’s former colleague, Diana Irey Vaughan, when she became director of the City Mission.

Other recent examples of hidden agendas and secret decisions involve hiring practices by the Republican Commissioners. According to the June 21 Observer-Reporter, a new employee, Joe Bendik, was hired to “handle oversight of various upcoming special projects of the county government…. However, the hire was so secretive that Commissioner Larry Maggi was unaware Bendik was even working in the county government until he met him unexpectedly at an impromptu meeting with department heads earlier this month.” 

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania News Media Association informed the O-R that “The hiring process does not appear to be consistent with the Sunshine Act.” 

Commissioners Sherman and Janis have repeatedly failed to be transparent and are accordingly less trustworthy. Their failure to provide adequate explanations for the above actions only compounds the problem.

 

 

 

 

  

 

REPUBLICANS ARE ATTACKING ACADEMIC FREEDOM

The country has recently witnessed a national surge of campus protests supporting the end to Israeli military operations against the terrorist group known as Hamas. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel, and more than 1200 were killed. Hamas is still holding 120 individuals in captivity. The attack included atrocities against small children, sexual violence against women and the burning alive of entire families.

The Israeli military response to destroy Hamas in Palestinian occupied Gaza has continued relentlessly since October. An estimated 37,000 Palestinians have been killed and 85,000 wounded. A majority of the casualties are women, children, and other Palestinians unaffiliated with Hamas.

The student protests against continued hostilities are reminiscent of the Vietnam War period, both because of their scale and university administrators’ use of law enforcement to assert control. The student activism and campus “solidarity” encampments were mainly peaceful. However, numerous incidents of controversial speech and signage were anti-Semitic, and some students ignored orders to disperse.

This commentary is not about analyzing the ongoing Israeli-Hamas conflict. Such an effort would require a review of many years of history and the myriad of political missteps in failing to reach a comprehensive solution. Instead, I will use the student protests to draw attention to an important, little understood element of American democracy—“academic freedom.” In my view, academic freedom is under attack by Republicans and in danger of suffering irreparable harm.

According to Wikipedia, a working definition of academic freedom is that a professor has a right to instruct and a student has a right to learn in an academic setting unhampered by outside interference. In addition, all members of an academic community have the right to engage in social and political criticism. The principle also refers to the ability of professors, students, and educational institutions to pursue knowledge without unreasonable political or government interference.

In 1940, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was the first domestic organization to propose that academic freedom be a foundational principle of university life. The AAUP wanted to ensure that the “ivory towers” of higher education could police themselves by reaching reasonable accommodations between administrators, faculty, and students while promoting independence of ideas and speech.

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on academic freedom in the decision Keyishian v. Board of Regents. This case explicitly extended First Amendment protection to academic freedom. A school’s faculty refused to sign loyalty oaths and were fired. The court held that by imposing such a requirement and prohibiting membership in “subversive groups,” the law unconstitutionally infringed on academic freedom and freedom of association. The opinion concluded, “Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.”

I have been paying close attention to attacks against academic freedom since the MAGA movement consumed the Republican Party. Seventy per cent of all American students are enrolled at public colleges and universities, where more often than not, conservative state legislatures control the school budgets. Last year, professors at state universities in Florida were barred from teaching course material that discussed systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and white privilege. Professors in Texas can now have their tenure revoked because of government defined “moral turpitude.”

Since the Gaza protests began, the Republican Party has been emboldened to expand its sense of grievance against private, liberal universities. It seeks to replace academic freedom with its own version of “cancel culture”. According to CNN, “the Republican controlled House Ways and Means Committee threatened to reconsider the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University amid allegations that these elite schools have failed to fight antisemitism on campus.”

Speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, recently visited Columbia University and suggested that the National Guard be called in. He labeled all the protestors as “lawless agitators and radicals.” Wealthy supporters of Israel and conservative alumni from the involved private universities have also demanded that punitive actions be taken against the protesting students.

University administrators have caved in to the Congressional and donor demands. This spring, more than two thousand US students and hundreds of faculty members were arrested, while expressing their views against what they consider an inhumane war. 

The justification for initiating police action was the intimidation of Jewish students. According to the Jewish organization Hillel International, six out of ten Jewish students reported that the protests adversely affected their life on campus. The dilemma is that free speech never and academic freedom seldom prohibits offensive speech unless it is levelled directly against an individual Jewish student or his/her living space. Ironically, Congress cannot attack the protesting students head-on because of free speech protections. Instead, conservative members pressure school administrators to suspend them and/or call in the police.

Notwithstanding its long history, academic freedom remains a principle and not a law to be enforced. For this principle to be meaningful, most forms of campus expression must be tolerated and defended. It is up to university administrators to protect this important cornerstone of academic life.

Sadly, capitulation of universities to outside pressure have dominated the latest round of Republican threats and congressional hearings. Unfortunately, if university administrators suddenly got some backbone and brought legal action, it seems unlikely that the present Supreme Court would uphold such a critical element of our self-governing academic system.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BIDEN ECONOMY IS BOOMING

Blaming or praising a president for economic events is politically popular but often inaccurate. Like the ocean tides, the economy expands and contracts according to its own rhythms. Presidents do not control milestones that influence the economy. Recently, these events included a worldwide pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and policy decisions made by the Federal Reserve.

In October of 2020, Joe Biden and Donald Trump were tied in polls taken in the “battleground” states on the question of which candidate would best handle the economy. Last month, in the same contested states that will determine our next president, Trump held a twenty percent polling advantage on the economy.

This polling data is baffling because the economy has boomed under President Biden’s administration with strong wage and job growth, lower prescription costs, and a growing economy. However, many voters are focused on higher commodity prices. They continue to blame President Biden for inflationary pressures beyond his control.  

It would be disingenuous for any commentator to criticize consumers for their concern over the effects of higher prices. Even in a booming economy, inflation has an impact on the purchasing power of many working Americans. Moreover, a thriving economy does not prevent regional economic dislocations or problems unique to poor or young Americans.

It is not disingenuous to point out that while President Biden cannot take all the credit for the booming economy, he also cannot be blamed for higher prices.  

At the top of the country’s financial food chain, the Federal Reserve is in charge of administering economic policy. The Fed must choose between two very different economic outcomes. On the one hand, it can maintain higher interest rates to further reduce “sticky” inflation at the expense of full employment, economic growth, and stock prices. Alternatively, the Federal Reserve can reduce interest rates to keep unemployment low and the economy strong. This move risks a new round of inflationary pressure.

The Federal Reserve does not manage these two alternatives through a political lens or under political pressure. Its congressional mandate is to strive for a goldilocks, “just right” economic solution of lower inflation and full employment. When raising or lowering interest rates, timing is essential. Most Fed watchers believe it has achieved a good balance during Biden’s term in office by bringing inflation under control while avoiding a recession.

Voters should take the time to study our financial system and recent economic history before deciding how much weight to place on economic issues. Voters should not rely on political commercials or cable news. Both are propoganda wrapped in a grain of truth. What follows are some points to consider when researching the economy.

Biden’s economic record is better than Trump’s. Despite all the Republican noise proclaiming the opposite, by almost every measure since Biden took office, the economy has outperformed. According to the economist and commentator Paul Krugman, “In May, for the first time in history, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 40,000. Unemployment has now been below 4 percent for 27 months, a record last achieved in the late 1960s. Inflation is way down from its peak in 2022. U.S. economic growth over the past four years has been much faster than in comparable wealthy nations.” Krugman explains that these statistics all come from official agencies and independent, private business data.

Prices cannot return to pre-pandemic levels without a major recession. When an economy like ours is doing well with plentiful jobs and increased wages, prices always go up and purchasing power goes down. Normally, consumers pay little attention to these incremental changes. The huge inflationary surge after the pandemic was an outlier event caused by supply shortages in computer chips and other essential goods. The Biden administration passed legislation providing $30 billion in grants and $25 billion in loans to build domestic computer chip facilities to avoid another inflationary shortage.

According to Gus Faucher, Chief Economist at PNC, the pandemic caused price increases of 22%. He warns his clients that, “For prices to fall 22%, moving them back to their pre-pandemic level would require a significant recession that would put tens of millions of Americans out of work. Instead, going forward, prices should increase slowly, the way they did before the pandemic.”

The president is not responsible for higher fuel prices. Presidents never want to be affiliated with higher fuel prices but are powerless to make a difference. There have been six presidential elections since 2000. Ironically, prices have actually risen even more than average during these presidential election years: 49.9 vs. 48.5 cents per gallon through 2020. One would think that there would be a big decrease if presidents had any control over gas prices.

Trump complains that Biden’s promotion of electric vehicles and policies against oil and gas production are at fault. To the contrary, according to Reuters, the profits of the top five publicly traded oil companies amounted to $410 billion during the first three years of the Biden administration, a 100% increase over the first three years of Donald Trump's presidency. Fossil fuel jobs and energy production have increased to new records under Biden.

Presidents do not control the economy.  In the upcoming election, placing too much emphasis on pandemic related inflation would be a mistake. In November, the focus should be on choosing a President who will preserve the future of our democracy, its institutions, and the rule of law.

 

 

“VUCA” SHOULD REPLACE “FOMO” IN 2024

Two current acronyms, FOMO (fear of missing out) and VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) will help define post-pandemic American society for years to come. FOMO will be remembered for our attempts to catch up from lost opportunities after the 2020 COVID-19 disaster/shutdown and our rush to return to normal.  VUCA provides the key to a productive future as we adjust to the challenging realities of a post-pandemic world.

Acronyms are helpful by condensing long phrases into shorter, easier-to-remember combinations of letters. For someone familiar with the meaning of an abbreviation, acronyms save space and are less distracting.  For a reader who is not acquainted with a four-letter acronym, its use can be frustrating.

The more familiar acronym, which seemed to appear everywhere in 2022-23, is FOMO, the” fear of missing out.” FOMO is an emotional response to the belief that other people are living better lives or that important opportunities are being missed. The acronym was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013. It became widely accepted after the pandemic as Americans took stock of what they had lost during the 2020 public health crisis. Millions of us caught a chronic case of FOMO after COVID-19 was under control.

Young people in particular felt they had been denied important years of normal maturation, social interaction, and fun activities. After all, for a 17 year old, the pandemic interruption was almost ten percent of their lives. When parents came down with Covid-19, teenagers found themselves responsible for shopping, cooking, and younger sibling childcare. Other young adults barely left their bedrooms for over a year.

For all ages, the boomerang effect from the pandemic was the desire to experience everything, all at once. Visiting friends and family, travel out of the country and concert performances like Taylor Swift all fed the outbreak of FOMO. The Federal American Rescue Plan provided three rounds of pandemic relief payments to families and workers. This helped pay for the FOMO phenomena.

The well-warn phrase of “keeping up with the Jones” did not convert easily to an acronym and never caught on after the pandemic. On the other hand, the acronym FOMO became so popular that like any hit television show it was responsible for numerous spinoffs. Some examples are FOBO or “fear of a better option;” FOBI or “fear of being insignificant;” YOLO, “you only live once;” and even FOJI “fear of joining in.”, for the wallflowers in the crowd.

The acronym VUCA is not as well known as FOMA. However, in my view, it represents an ideal method of coming to terms with our post pandemic political, economic, and social state of affairs. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Army War College introduced VUCA as a shorthand for the “volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity” of conditions at the end of the Cold War. More recently, VUCA has gained popularity by strategic planners in efforts to explain and predict future events.

The VUCA framework was designed to provide a lens through which nations, organizations, and businesses could interpret their challenges and opportunities. One important principle that has developed from those who utilize VUCA is that while failure or missteps are usually not a disaster, failure to learn from failure is often catastrophic.

While VUCA was designed for application in business and government, I have found the concepts it represents a useful tool in daily life. First, “volatility” refers to how quickly things can change. In 2024, artificial intelligence is blowing up the business models of almost every occupation and providing new opportunities. Personally, I had to quickly learn new methods of conducting research and how to validate the accuracy of information generated by artificial intelligence.

Second, “uncertainty” is not knowing with any confidence what will happen in the future. Consider the anxiety faced by the airlines, restaurant owners, or for commercial real estate during the pandemic lockdown. In my case family members were forced to make dozens of decisions about what precautions to take. Today, the future of American democracy is uncertain.

Third, “complexity” forces us to consider the intricacy of interconnected forces like the stock market, world events, and the human body. During the pandemic, international supply chains broke down in ways no expert had considered. When I recently developed a hip flexor injury, my abnormal walk adversely affected other interrelated muscles.

Last, is “ambiguity,” which leads us to understand that problems may be confronted and solved in more than one way. It requires us to take the difficult path through the “fog of confusion” rather than accept the easy answer suggested by confirmation bias. A difficult ambiguity problem for me in 2024 has been the Israeli, Palestinian conflict. It has been a struggle to balance my conflicting values in making ethical judgments.

While FOMA is a psychological reaction to social media and the pandemic, VUCA is a shortcut to understanding and surviving in our modern, complex world. For many, it is tempting to use the imposing demands of VUCA as an excuse for avoiding action, planning, or direction. After all, it takes time and effort to develop an ever-changing updated strategy.

However, for those with an open mind and the willingness to be lifelong learners, VUCA encourages the necessary adaptation to succeed. In many respects, VUCA offers greater personal rewards than chasing a fleeting opportunity with FOMA.

 

 

 

 

YOUNG ADULTS NEED HELP TO ACHIEVE THE AMERICAN DREAM

  

In the blink of an eye, Millennials, those born between 1981 and 1996, are becoming too old to be considered young adults. The title now belongs to Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012. I often try to place myself in the shoes of these twenty-somethings.  However, my younger brother, who is in his late fifties, never hesitates to criticize me for “thinking like a baby boomer”, those born between 1946 & 1964.

A lack of understanding does not mean that older folks should ignore, or worse, denigrate young Americans.  I have the greatest admiration for Mary Jo Podgurski, director of Washington Health System Teen Outreach. Her target audience is “Generation Alpha”, those children born after 2010. While working with tweens and teenagers is not the same as understanding young adults, her methods of giving non-judgmental advice and providing a safe meeting place have proven successful. In her own words: “I believe in young people. What they have inside of them should be let out. The intention is to encourage them to express themselves.”

In 2024, the generation gap often appears to be an insurmountable chasm. In the 1970s, stability meant leaving home to get an education, securing a job with upward mobility, and working until retirement. Gen Z appears focused on short-term, work-life balance and seeking financial success through nontraditional means. Leaving a job that does not provide work from home benefits is now normal.

As a young adult, long novels and home projects provided my relaxation. In contrast, members of Gen Z appear to have a shorter attention span governed by social media and its instant gratification. To their credit, young adults have a deeper understanding of the digital universe that will serve them well in helping employers conquer the new information age.

Members of my generation suffered through periods of mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction with little recognition that these afflictions were worthy of discussion. These diseases often went undiagnosed or untreated. Today, members of Gen Z take pride in discussing their inner struggles and are not shy about seeking help.

The financial and retirement landscapes have radically changed. My wife and I are both fortunate to receive monthly pension benefits in addition to our Social Security. Young Americans are forced to figure out retirement in an environment where saving for the future is difficult. Moreover, they know that the Social Security system is overdue for major revisions with fewer benefits.

Finally, when it comes to the cultural wars in America, Boomers and Gen Z see the world through very different lenses. A recent report issued by Temple University on how the gender identity revolution impacts society states, “Among Gen Z, 59% believe that identity forms should offer more options than ‘man’ and ‘woman’, 35% report personally knowing someone who uses gender neutral pronouns, and one in six identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community.” 

In all likelihood, my observations of Gen Z behavior are off-base because of my own prejudices, biases, and age. After all, making observations about young people is no different from getting it wrong when discussing gender or race. However, on one important point, I have no doubt. It is time for the government to step-up and provide needed benefits to Gen Z so that they can participate in the American dream and form the foundation of our future.

All Gen Z analysis must start with the pandemic. According to the acclaimed sociologist, Eric Klinenberg, “At minimum, American 20-somethings deserve recognition for their sacrifices. But something more substantial seems appropriate, given how much we asked of them.” Klinenberg and others have detailed the loss of optimism and sense of possibility young people endured. The pandemic produced a social famine. It turned academic and employment opportunities upside down, never to return.

As the post-pandemic economy recovered for boomers and the wealthy, it got worse for young Americans. On May 7, the Wall Street Journal announced “Gen Z Sinks Deeper into Debt.” The article details a rising financial burden caused by a surge in rent coupled with student loans. Economists have revealed that members of Gen Z are putting off plans for homeownership and marriage at an alarming rate.

Gen Z is in worse economic shape than Millennials were at their age. Moreover, on a relative basis, their wages are much lower than their parents' earnings when they were in their 20s and 30s.  Most importantly, there is little evidence to support the patronizing image from the comic strip, Justin, of a couch-surfing Gen Z who could make something of himself if he tried harder.

What should be done to help young adults? First, continue efforts to fix the broken student loan system, which is a major drag on financial stability.  Second, subsidize college tuition for qualified students.  Third, reduce interest rates so that home ownership is more affordable, and rental rates can stabilize. Fourth, only eight percent of federal employees are under the age of thirty. The federal government must make a concerted effort to hire a young, diverse workforce. Lastly, government must take an active role in increasing the financial literacy of young adults, including debt management and retirement planning.

The pandemic disrupted an important life stage for Gen Z. This was followed by unprecedented economic challenges. Investing in our future must begin with investing in our young adults.