TWO DEATHS IN AUGUST

          The untimely death of a young black man, Michael Brown, in Rockford Illinois and of Robin Williams in Los Angeles will no doubt be the domestic stories of the summer.  The former was unknown beyond his neighborhood.  The latter was an international superstar.  Nonetheless, each death has major implications beyond the deceased and beyond the time and place in which each death occurred.  Moreover, each event has struck a nerve in the American psyche and started an important dialogue.

          The incident in Rockford could not have been a more perfect storm to highlight all that is wrong with race relations in America.  Another white policeman guns down an unarmed black male.  A week goes by with little information released on the killing from the white police force.  Looting and violence occur during evening protests.  Modern assault weaponry, most often utilized in third world battle zones, is employed for crowd control.  Midnight curfews are put in place. There is minimal African American representation in the political and justice systems of a town that is predominately black.  Mayors, governors, police chiefs and presidential candidates stake out positions that will either further or curtail their careers.

          In the midst of this cauldron of anger, calls for change and calls for restraint, I would like to share one thought.  Communities are able to avoid the racial tensions that lurk in the background, just below the surface, by embracing racial diversity.  When citizens demand diversity in their court systems, police departments, legal and physician networks and schools, the downhill spiraling of events, unfolding in Rockford Illinois, is unlikely to occur.  Diversity strengthens the fabric of a community in good times and in bad.

          The suicide of Robin Williams has grabbed our attention for very different reasons.  Everyone has either suffered from or knows someone with a mental illness.  The fact that Robin Williams, so loved by the public and his own family, with wealth and exciting projects, could take his own life, is disconcerting.  Just like the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman put an exclamation point behind heroin addiction, the death of Robin Williams puts new focus on mental illness. To the extent that others come forward for treatment, that mental illness is discussed more openly and that additional funding is made available for research and treatment, there is a silver lining in Williams’ death.

          We can only hope that both these issues continue to resonate with the media, the public and our political leaders until actual change is accomplished.  Unfortunately, given our collective track record on stepping up and following through on gun violence, drug and prison reform, global warming, immigration reform and many other social ills, this may be asking for too much.

SECOND POT OF COFFEE THOUGHTS

It is interesting how each morning the life cycle plays out on the NBC network affiliates.   The NBC Today Show for the beautiful people to snare in the twenty somethings; the political show, Morning Joe, on MSNBC for the middle age crowd; and the hard core financial news show, Squawk Box, on CNBC, featuring guests with one foot in the grave.

The increasing age of the guests and audience for these three NBC morning shows is directly responsible for the decreased ratings for each program and for the increased complexity of the topics discussed.

If I were to make one prediction, on which I would wager all the marbles, it would be that gas/oil fracking, no matter what regulations, taxes or other barriers are put in place, will continue to accelerate and transform South Western Pennsylvania.  It is unfortunate that the economic potential is simply too great to have environmental concerns slow this juggernaut down.

Our Marcellus Shale is the fracking sweet spot of the world because of prior geological mapping, road and bridge infrastructure that simplifies setting up and moving rigs, landowners who have a financial interest in cooperating with the drillers and workers from the western oil belt who know the business.  No other country has this combination of factors to grow the fracking industry.

The most gratifying news story of the summer has been the large anonymous gifts and hundreds of small donations to save our local libraries.  What other institution gives so much pleasure, to so many, across all age groups and income boundaries.

While I continue to read Rolling Stone magazine and to sample new indie groups on Spotify, I sometimes get the impression from the comments and lyrics that these millennial kids see my generation as a large part of the problem.  I always feel better when one of the young band members is photographed hugging Mick Jagger or Willie Nelson. 

If these young musicians want to show some rage by singing about a failing democracy, unaffordable higher education, lack of empathy for the poor or drones killing civilians in other countries, why not crank up Teenage Wasteland, For What It’s Worth, or, Smells like Teen Spirit.  Oh, I forgot, those old guys are either dead or millionaires.

Have you noticed how quickly certain words and phrases make their way into common usage with journalism operating at the speed of the internet?  “Seachange”, “over the moon” and “it is not my circus and those are not my monkeys” come to mind, among many others.

There has been a seachange in the manner in which we receive our news over the past ten years.  Some of the new media websites are over the moon in their complexity and format.  Thank goodness that the Observer Reporter is not my circus and its staff not my monkeys in this cutthroat and challenging environment.

TOLERANCE

          We learned in our social studies classes that America’s Constitutional Republic is based on democratic pluralism not direct democracy.  In other words, given the size and complexity of the Country, a multitude of interest groups determine national policy, not the decisions of individual citizens. These groups are made up of differing nationalities, political parties, religions, unions, volunteer organizations and many others.  Pluralism works because each group places pressure on its elected representatives, to work out compromises with opposing groups, so that the country can be governed effectively.

          Being tolerant of diversity is a necessary ingredient for pluralism to work.  Without tolerance, the coming together of so many diverse immigrants with different backgrounds and goals, to form our union, would never have been possible.  When one considers the number of competing interests that have been forced to find common ground in order for our political system to not only survive, but flourish, it is not a surprise that our form of government is unique in the world.

          Unfortunately pluralism and tolerance have come under attack since 2008. In many conservative districts of the House of Representatives and in some state houses and local governments, moral outrage and self interest have replaced the capacity to accept competing claims as legitimate. There is no room for compromise.  There is no tolerance or acknowledgement of the right of opposing interests to exist and pursue their goals.

          Pluralistic democracy comes to a standstill when these conservative groups view opponents, even members of their own political party, as morally wrong and not worthy of consideration. Worse, unjust claims are demanded by these groups out of unwarranted self interest.

          The transformational election of Barrack Obama saw the rise of the tea party and the decline of tolerance. The President is a lightning rod for certain groups of conservatives and libertarians for all that is wrong with the world.  It has become more important for tea party representatives and their supporters to defeat whatever policy is offered by democrats and the White House rather than to compromise for the common good or even for the individual good of the tea party member and his family.

          This lack of tolerance and inability to compromise is the norm among political cultures around the world.  Among many examples, Sunni and Shia citizens in Iraq; warring tribal societies in Africa and leftist and right wing elements in Latin America, all of whom view politics as a zero sum game.  Even in western countries non tolerance can be prevalent, as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; between Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats following the breakup of Yugoslavia; and between the Basques and the rest of Spain.  From these examples it is obvious that intolerance breeds violence and then greater intolerance.

          Until recently, refusal to compromise among competing groups was not the American experience.  Things have changed now that we have activist groups of citizens waiving the Constitution or the Bible or immigration laws, with a subjective non tolerant interpretation of what each means.  This is no different than waiving the Koran or a separatist flag.  It is the same “all or nothing” mindset.

          While much of this nation has given President Obama a strong mandate to implement his agenda of immigration reform, more health care, more equality and less foreign involvement, many of those who do not supported him are unwilling to make any concessions under any circumstances, to move the country forward.  After all, the worse things get, the more blame for the President.   

          In the next presidential cycle, one can only hope that tolerance and compromise will return to the political process.  That is unless the left reinvents its own tea party, as it did in the 60s.  In those years many new left advocates adopted intolerance and despised compromise.  This was to counter the perceived injustices of big government and the “moral” and “law and order” majorities of the time. If the radical left continues to keep intolerance on the political table, as the tea party has done for the last eight years, the American political system will become more like the rest of the world, where being right is more important than political compromise and governing.

          It is interesting to note that in recent weeks even the East Washington Council has shown its support for intolerance over compromise and pluralism, albeit for different reasons.  When disagreements broke out, several council members found it more prudent to stay on the moral high ground and quit their positions rather than to remain on council and find common ground in the trenches of local government.  This was so even though East Washington citizens had voted for them to represent their interests and to provide balance in addressing the issues at hand. That is exactly the position the Muslim Brotherhood took in Egypt for many years, favoring honor over the interests of the Egyptian voters who agreed with their policies. In both cases “I will take my ball and go home” won out over pluralistic democracy. 

          The politics of tolerance and pluralism for the Nation or for a small political unit like East Washington is the competition of half truths.  It is messy but it works.

         

         

         

WASHINGTON COUNTY’S BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

Washington County has entered the brave new world of funding most of its social service programs through Pennsylvania’s pilot block grant program. Several factors will determine whether this radical change in funding will improve the delivery of social services, or go terribly wrong.  In the end, because of over sized funding cuts, it may not matter.

          First, some background is in order. When Washington County was admitted to the second phase of Pennsylvania’s block grant program last October, as reported by this newspaper, local officials were gushing with pride and enthusiasm.  One would have thought our benevolent Governor had permitted the County to win the lottery.  After all, the block grant does combine seven different funding streams into one pot, giving the County more discretion on how the money is spent. 

What went unsaid was that “block grants” never appear in the public sector without “cuts in services” being made within the same proposal.  In the case of Pennsylvania, the initial pilot program was announced at the same time that Corbett proposed a 20 percent reduction in state human service funding.  While the cut was later reduced to 10 per cent, when added to previous incremental cuts made by Corbett (and previous administrations) the results were horrifying to anyone faced with the already difficult task of administrating a county wide social services program. 

To add insult to injury, these cuts went into effect at a time the Governor was insisting on low business taxes, further reducing revenue.  Moreover, Corbett refused to join other states in adopting Medicaid expansion, a federal program designed to help the same population that is the recipient of the underfunded social service programs.

          Before these most recent cuts, local mental health, drug and alcohol, child welfare and homeless assistance programs had already wrung out as much cost saving, through administrative efficiencies, as was possible.  Moreover, as their budgets were decreasing, complex and expensive new federal regulations in areas such as HIPAA (health information privacy rules) were being foisted upon them.

At the time the block grant program was announced, the Governor’s Welfare Secretary said in his press release: “The block grant will allow counties to prioritize their human services spending to meet the unique needs of their communities”.  What many social service professionals heard was: “The block grant will allow counties to cannibalize programs that they do not favor in order to provide additional funds to save underfunded programs that are politically expedient.” 

There was also a concern among service providers that a block grant approach would result in an ugly competition for the reduced dollars that are available.  In 2012, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Community Providers Association stated on the record: “The block grants are almost entirely funded from the mental health system so the mental health system becomes the bank for other services such as child welfare and drug and alcohol rehabilitation” (Penn Live, June 5, 2012)

          More optimistic proponents of block grants claim that they provide flexibility to better serve clients.  I believe this is possible to some degree, if the plan is to eliminate redundancies in similar programs.  For example many court systems have adopted “one judge-one family” procedures in domestic relations to ensure that one judge is assigned all proceedings involving the same family.  Perhaps social service clients requiring multiple systems could be handled in a similar manner.  As a second example, some efficient courts have begun to triage custody cases at the outset before deciding what procedural course the parties should follow.  Such an approach could get social service clients into the appropriate program more quickly.  However, even with such efficiencies, it is doubtful that combining funding sources in imaginative ways will overcome the budget cuts to social services implemented over the last several years.  Bottom line, take away funding and add some bells and whistles and our most vulnerable citizens will still suffer the consequences of reduced services.

          Enough complaining, what can be done now that the budget cuts and block grant are a reality and must be implemented? What actions should Washington County take to launch its block grant funding with maximum success?  First, someone must be accountable for the implementation who is not a patron of any one program.  This knowledgeable County watchdog must apply rigorous evaluation to consumer outcomes and to the equity of conflicting priorities within the various social services. For example, already depleted mental health allotments should not be raided to provide funding for new untested programs or faltering old ones, without good cause shown.

          Second, all of the social service programs affected by the block grant must be kept in the loop and permitted to contribute to proposed changes.  Third, any case management and/or computer system changes to achieve efficiencies must be thoroughly tested before launch.  Fourth, because Washington County is in the second phase of the pilot program, it can determine what worked in other jurisdictions.

          The best of all possible results would be to develop a nimble and effective block grant program and then to have State and Federal officials reinstate the budget cuts.  Alas, if something in government actually works, it is more likely to be rewarded with a commendation than a raise.

 Given Corbett’s announcement on the new state budget last week, a 1.2 billion dollar shortfall, the more likely scenario is additional budget cuts. This will result in a further belt tightening of County wide social services to the point of strangulation, no matter how effectively the block grant is implemented.  If this is the case, the State has simply given the County more rope to perform the hanging.

         

SAVE OUR LIBRARIES

It is not a stretch to believe that public libraries are our second greatest weapon against inequality, following public schools.  In a society where our millionaire population recently soared past 16 million; where the average American family earns less than $44,000 per year; and where the homeless-mentally ill population left to fend for itself keeps increasing, public libraries often give the less fortunate among us, their only portal to the internet, current events, literature and knowledge.  Libraries are also an invaluable meeting place for residents of different backgrounds and points of view, to come together and interact. Moreover, public libraries provide one of the few cracks in the growing wall of social isolation going up between rich and poor.

          Ironically, many of the great public libraries were started by the “robber barons” from the gilded age.  Carnegie libraries blanket Allegheny County and are found throughout the Country.  A poor child from Homewood, August Wilson, spent all of his youth in a Carnegie library in Oakland, reading, absorbing and thinking, before becoming the greatest playwright of our generation.  There are many other examples of public libraries lifting up the underprivileged and inspiring genius.

          In Washington County, each year brings another desperate plea to save our local libraries.  The crisis is always the classic “rob Peter to pay Paul” debate as underfunded school districts must decide whether to cut Latin from the curriculum or pay their modest stipend to the local library.  When both Peter and Paul are strapped for cash because of State and Federal cutbacks, such a funding stream makes little sense.  This is particularly true when the County is swimming in oil and gas revenue.

          It is time for County government, business entities and financially secure private citizens to step up and end this yearly embarrassment.  If we are serious about reversing inequality in our little corner of the world, local government, the private sector and the public must take on this modest burden.  There is no greater “bang for the buck” when it comes to preserving our sense of community and seeking social and economic equality for all our residents.  It might even save a classics course or two in our public schools.

THE JUDGE O’DELL SENECA SUBPOENA SHOULD BE QUASHED

I must respectfully disagree with this newspaper, many of my fellow legal brethren and others that the recent action of the Washington County President Judge was obstructionist.  In my view, her decision to file a Motion to Quash the Subpoena, attempting to compel her testimony at the Pozonsky Suppression Hearing, was appropriate.

The O-R certainly has a vested interest in uncovering as much background as possible on the events leading up to the seizure of evidence from former Judge Pozonsky’s courtroom.  That is its job.  The rest of us would love disclosure of additional facts to fill in an ongoing story that is more interesting than a Grisham or Turow novel.  Nonetheless, having President Judge O’Dell Seneca testify on her own volition or compelling her to do so would be a mistake.

American jurisprudence has developed well accepted guidelines for judicial review which do not include the ability to subpoena judges in order to look behind their orders. To permit an exception in this case, simply because the order is administrative rather than a matter of substantive law would open up a dangerous can of worms that, in my opinion, goes to the heart of our separation of powers.

No one believes that the President Judge did not have the authority to enter her order, which is clear and concise on its face.  The important issue is not why she did it, but whether Pozonsky’s rights have been violated by not obtaining a search warrant.  This issue can be resolved without her testimony.  If the subpoena is quashed and Defendant, Pozonsky, files an appeal, so be it.  It is important to get this one right before creating a dangerous precedent.

Before we label the President Judge “imperial” and “obstructionist”, it is important to remember that ethical considerations prohibit her from leaping to her defense as other elected officials are permitted to do.  It is safe to assume that she conferred with other judges that have faced the same or similar circumstances.  Moreover, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) must serve as her legal representative in considering, drafting and presenting the Motion to Quash the Subpoena.  The AOPC is obviously in agreement with the Judge and reports directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which, no doubt, is keeping a close eye on these proceedings.