I understand that there is vigorous debate here in Idaho about whether or not Nampa Classical Academy (NCA) should be teaching the Bible as literature and history. Frankly, I can very easily see both sides of the argument, but that is not what I want to focus on in this post. Instead, I want to look at what I see as a much large structural problems with the Idaho Public Charter School Commission (IPCSC). These structural deficits, I believe, have lead to the issues facing NCA.
First, the staff at IPCSC have always been, in my experience, very professional and accessible. I have not personally had much in the way of interaction with the individual Gubernatorial appointed commission members, which I suspect puts me in the majority of most Idahoans. A brief review of the commissioner's backgrounds on the IPCSC website would suggest a minimal emphasis is placed on understanding the education profession relative to other factors. That is neither here nor there and I since I don't personally know each of the commissioners, it would be unfair to attack their credibility.
However, what I do find troubling about the the structure of the the commission is the aforementioned notion of Gubernatorial appointment. Due to the politically connectedness to the governor, commissioners (if political science research is any indication) are likely to side with what is in the best interest of the Governor, not necessarily what is in the best interest of the institutions (the individual school or the commission itself).
Now that I've stated the obvious, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Well, simply stated, due to the fact that individual commission members are not personally accountable to those that fund their activities (the taxpayers), there is no oversight to their actions. To compound this, any appeals of a decision by the IPCSC are referred to another unaccountable group of Gubernatorial appointees, also known as the State Board of Education (SBE). The current case surrounding NCA proves the point. Clearly there were differences of opinions, as was stated at the outset. However, the process that was followed left a lot to be desired on both sides of the debate.
I think that is pretty clear to anyone watching this from the outside (which is where I am on this one) that the SBE has been put under some serious political pressure to overrule the IPCSC. Whether or not they should or shouldn't isn't the point. The point is that when it is all said and done, the people of Idaho will not get an opportunity to let their views known as it relates decisions that have been made by holding the decision-makers accountable.
The solution, in my view, is to completely change the structure of the IPCSC (you're surprised, right?). To do so, I would first eliminate the Gubernatorial appointment and replace it with an election. Commissioners would serve four and two year terms that would rotate so as to always have a core group remain (similar to the way county commissioners are elected). The commissioners would be elected from conglomerations of counties known as regions that are created based upon population size. As for the appeals process, that is a bit more tricky. I would prefer to have the SBE also be elected and for the same reasons. Given that is even less likely to happen, I would also remove the appeals process from going to the SBE and instead direct it the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Now, I can hear someone saying, aren't you making the problem worse by making it even more political? The answer to that question is only yes if you believe that elections aren't useful. That is, if you believe that elections don't offer the public an opportunity to hold decision-makers accountable then doing what I suggest is without value. However, if you believe, as I do, that elections do matter and they can serve as a vehicle to manifest public preference, then I do think the modifications I am proposing make sense.
Ultimately, something has to change. My proposal may not be the panacea to the problem, but I do believe it would yield better outcomes and provide more transparency and accountability than the current guarded process that we are watching slowly unfold before us.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Unemployment Benefit Update
If you or someone you know has been without unemployment benefits due to the delay in federal action, good news is on the way. Unemployment benefit recipients in Idaho should receive an, "Emergency Unemployment Compensation Notice" from the Dept. of Labor via snail mail within the week. The letter is the first step in the reestablishment of eligibility of unemployment benefits for those that were left in the lurch. I'll provide more details as they become available.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Invest in Idaho
I read with a modicum of humor a recent Op-Ed by Idaho Association of Commerce Industry (IACI). In the piece, they excoriated elected officials like me that have been pushing investments in small businesses. They surmise that by doing so, we are neglecting a significant number of employers that don’t fit the small businesses mold and creating an, “us versus them” dynamic.
Unfortunately, they just don’t get it. By virtue of the fact that IACI has a stage in which to trumpet their cockamamie story, they disprove their own point. Anytime a large employer wants to get something in the Idaho Legislature, they usually do. Not so for their small business counterparts. While large employers have the benefit of IACI and even possibly their own private lobbyists doing their bidding in the Legislature, who does the mom and pop shop have?
To be sure the Chamber does a degree of lobbying (albeit much less than in years past), but it is hamstrung between supporting the needs of its larger clients and those of the small business owner. There is also the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but their lobbyist is only the payroll part-time and really can’t compete against the larger employers multiple full-time lobbyists.
To that end, news reports this week reveal what most of us probably already knew. According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Idaho is the sixth worst job creator in the country. That doesn’t just happen. It is a concerted effort by those in state government to ignore the sector of our economy that actually creates most of the jobs, small business!
So what can we do? Well, in addition to the traditional mantra of “taxes, taxes, taxes,” I do think that government does have a role to play. The biggest problem most small businesses face when they want to expand is the difficulty of accessing capital. To create more jobs, small businesses must have more capital. No capital, no job creation. It is that simple.
Small Business Administration (SBA) Loans have dropped considerably as of late, which is compounding the problem even further. Last legislative session I proposed an innovative approach to providing more capital small businesses. The legislation, dubbed the Micro Enterprise Development Association (MEDA), would have created a loan fund for credit-worthy small businesses that were finding getting a loan in the credit tight environment impossible. I believe in investing Idaho small businesses.
Unfortunately, the Governor and IACI don’t see it that way. Instead of focusing on investing in Idahoans and Idaho small businesses, IACI and the Governor are more focused upon luring large corporations from out state to Idaho with big tax break. The result is just as Gallup reports it to be, an abysmal record on job creation.
What it all comes down to is a lack of understanding of how jobs are created and total lack of vision. My vision for job creation is to support small business owners. If investing in small businesses is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Unfortunately, they just don’t get it. By virtue of the fact that IACI has a stage in which to trumpet their cockamamie story, they disprove their own point. Anytime a large employer wants to get something in the Idaho Legislature, they usually do. Not so for their small business counterparts. While large employers have the benefit of IACI and even possibly their own private lobbyists doing their bidding in the Legislature, who does the mom and pop shop have?
To be sure the Chamber does a degree of lobbying (albeit much less than in years past), but it is hamstrung between supporting the needs of its larger clients and those of the small business owner. There is also the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but their lobbyist is only the payroll part-time and really can’t compete against the larger employers multiple full-time lobbyists.
To that end, news reports this week reveal what most of us probably already knew. According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Idaho is the sixth worst job creator in the country. That doesn’t just happen. It is a concerted effort by those in state government to ignore the sector of our economy that actually creates most of the jobs, small business!
So what can we do? Well, in addition to the traditional mantra of “taxes, taxes, taxes,” I do think that government does have a role to play. The biggest problem most small businesses face when they want to expand is the difficulty of accessing capital. To create more jobs, small businesses must have more capital. No capital, no job creation. It is that simple.
Small Business Administration (SBA) Loans have dropped considerably as of late, which is compounding the problem even further. Last legislative session I proposed an innovative approach to providing more capital small businesses. The legislation, dubbed the Micro Enterprise Development Association (MEDA), would have created a loan fund for credit-worthy small businesses that were finding getting a loan in the credit tight environment impossible. I believe in investing Idaho small businesses.
Unfortunately, the Governor and IACI don’t see it that way. Instead of focusing on investing in Idahoans and Idaho small businesses, IACI and the Governor are more focused upon luring large corporations from out state to Idaho with big tax break. The result is just as Gallup reports it to be, an abysmal record on job creation.
What it all comes down to is a lack of understanding of how jobs are created and total lack of vision. My vision for job creation is to support small business owners. If investing in small businesses is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Update on Unemployment
As I go door-to-door, I routinely meet individuals that have been given a rough shake during the recession. A good deal of these unemployed constituents would be classified as older workers that were kicked to the curb in what should be the prime of the careers and at the highest point of their earning potential. These residents are clearly visibly shaken and concerned by not knowing what is going to happen next. The inability for the U.S. Senate to extend unemployment benefits has only exacerbated this anxiety.
For full disclosure, my dad happens to be one of those many unemployed Idahoans. He, like many others, exhausted his unemployment benefits and is a situation of unimaginable desperation. I can state without hesitation that he has done everything he could to find employment since losing his job in November. Unfortunately, that hasn't been enough.
But, now, there may finally be some good news. It looks likely that the U.S. Senate will vote to extend unemployment benefits for those that are hardest hit by the recession. The bill currently before the U.S. Senate would provide retroactive payments to those unemployed individuals that became the victims of a cynical political ploy to balance the federal budget on the backs of the unemployed. Due to some logistical issues with not being permitted to submit weekly reports and the inability to file for extensions to unemployment benefits, many constituents were unsure what would occur even if the bill were to pass.
But wait there's more! According to a representative from Congress Walt Minnick's office, the retroactive component is in the legislation and can not be ignored by any state. Also, I was assured by a division manager at the Idaho Dept. of Labor that should the legislation pass that Idaho would gladly provide retroactive payments for any weeks missed due to the unfortunate political games being played in Washington, D.C. If you or anyone you know has any questions, they can contact me or the Dept. of Labor for more information.
For full disclosure, my dad happens to be one of those many unemployed Idahoans. He, like many others, exhausted his unemployment benefits and is a situation of unimaginable desperation. I can state without hesitation that he has done everything he could to find employment since losing his job in November. Unfortunately, that hasn't been enough.
But, now, there may finally be some good news. It looks likely that the U.S. Senate will vote to extend unemployment benefits for those that are hardest hit by the recession. The bill currently before the U.S. Senate would provide retroactive payments to those unemployed individuals that became the victims of a cynical political ploy to balance the federal budget on the backs of the unemployed. Due to some logistical issues with not being permitted to submit weekly reports and the inability to file for extensions to unemployment benefits, many constituents were unsure what would occur even if the bill were to pass.
But wait there's more! According to a representative from Congress Walt Minnick's office, the retroactive component is in the legislation and can not be ignored by any state. Also, I was assured by a division manager at the Idaho Dept. of Labor that should the legislation pass that Idaho would gladly provide retroactive payments for any weeks missed due to the unfortunate political games being played in Washington, D.C. If you or anyone you know has any questions, they can contact me or the Dept. of Labor for more information.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Thoughts on Ethics Panel
As a member of the Idaho House of Representatives, I am very concerned about the perception of the institution that I am honored to be a member. I have always been honored to have the opportunity to represent my district and do my best to avoid doing anything that might place a negative light upon the institution, my district, my family, or myself.
It is not the intention of this post to be the judge and jury of Rep. Phil Hart as I do not have the benefit of the full information and even if I did, it is not my role and this certainly isn't the proper venue. However, as a member of the House, as I mentioned early, I do have grave concerns about anyone or anything that might impede or distract the legislature from its important duties.
With that said, I do have serious concerns with the composition of the Ethics Panel convened by Speaker Denney. If truth is what we are searching for, then it seems to me that there are most certainly better alternatives than the legislators picked for this important task, specifically on the majority side.
The first thing that I immediately noted when I saw the list was a generational divide. There is not one single person on the Ethics Panel younger than 60. Is this really all that relevant? Perhaps not, but it is curious. Then again, when the average age of the Idaho House is over 60 (the oldest of any chamber in the United States), I suppose the natural order of things would likely lead to this occurring.
The second thing I observed was that every member from the majority party are chairman. This is significant because it means that all of the majority members on the panel are fiercely loyal to the Speaker. I am not saying this is going to have an impact, but I do believe it is worth noting (even though the media has failed to).
The next thing I noted was the gender disparity. With the exception of Rep. Wendy Jaquet, all of the other members of the panel are men. While I admit a serious disability in understanding gender politics, I have become much more sensitive to them thanks to the thoughtful and patient guidance of Rep. Jaquet and others. I don't know if the gender disparity will make any difference, but you never know.
Most interestingly was the geographic divide. Not a single member of the majority on the Ethics Panel lives or represents the CD1. I can understand not having someone from the far north, given the local politics, but no one from CD1 at all? I have a feeling this is a lot more meaningful than meets the eye. I have a few hunches, but I'll keep them private.
Finally, the thing I find most difficult to understand is the apparent lack of consideration for professional background when it comes to majority member appointments. With the notable exception of Rep. Rich Wills, who is a former law enforcement officer, the remaining members are all farmers/ranchers. While this certainly is a noble profession, I am not certain that it has the monopoly on ethics and law. These members are all good men who work hard, but are they the best fit, I don't personally believe so. Speaker Denney, in my view, missed a golden opportunity to take advantage of the legal acumen of Reps. Leon Smith and Lynn Luker, both trained attorneys and mediators.
Ultimately, it is my hope that the process is thorough and fair. I hope that my colleagues on the panel do not rush to judgement, regardless of which side of judgement it may be. The process deserves their best efforts and so do the people of Idaho.
It is not the intention of this post to be the judge and jury of Rep. Phil Hart as I do not have the benefit of the full information and even if I did, it is not my role and this certainly isn't the proper venue. However, as a member of the House, as I mentioned early, I do have grave concerns about anyone or anything that might impede or distract the legislature from its important duties.
With that said, I do have serious concerns with the composition of the Ethics Panel convened by Speaker Denney. If truth is what we are searching for, then it seems to me that there are most certainly better alternatives than the legislators picked for this important task, specifically on the majority side.
The first thing that I immediately noted when I saw the list was a generational divide. There is not one single person on the Ethics Panel younger than 60. Is this really all that relevant? Perhaps not, but it is curious. Then again, when the average age of the Idaho House is over 60 (the oldest of any chamber in the United States), I suppose the natural order of things would likely lead to this occurring.
The second thing I observed was that every member from the majority party are chairman. This is significant because it means that all of the majority members on the panel are fiercely loyal to the Speaker. I am not saying this is going to have an impact, but I do believe it is worth noting (even though the media has failed to).
The next thing I noted was the gender disparity. With the exception of Rep. Wendy Jaquet, all of the other members of the panel are men. While I admit a serious disability in understanding gender politics, I have become much more sensitive to them thanks to the thoughtful and patient guidance of Rep. Jaquet and others. I don't know if the gender disparity will make any difference, but you never know.
Most interestingly was the geographic divide. Not a single member of the majority on the Ethics Panel lives or represents the CD1. I can understand not having someone from the far north, given the local politics, but no one from CD1 at all? I have a feeling this is a lot more meaningful than meets the eye. I have a few hunches, but I'll keep them private.
Finally, the thing I find most difficult to understand is the apparent lack of consideration for professional background when it comes to majority member appointments. With the notable exception of Rep. Rich Wills, who is a former law enforcement officer, the remaining members are all farmers/ranchers. While this certainly is a noble profession, I am not certain that it has the monopoly on ethics and law. These members are all good men who work hard, but are they the best fit, I don't personally believe so. Speaker Denney, in my view, missed a golden opportunity to take advantage of the legal acumen of Reps. Leon Smith and Lynn Luker, both trained attorneys and mediators.
Ultimately, it is my hope that the process is thorough and fair. I hope that my colleagues on the panel do not rush to judgement, regardless of which side of judgement it may be. The process deserves their best efforts and so do the people of Idaho.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Question for the Governor
Today the Idaho House Majority Leadership team tried to pin Keith Allred down on his position regarding Idaho's so-called "right-to-work" law. The group says that Allred should state his position on the issue so that he can, "come clean with Idaho voters." The GOP leaders conclude that either Allred isn't really as independent as he claims or he is a DINO.
To start off with, unlike the recent form of the majority party in Idaho, Democrats don't kick people out just because they don't conform on every issue. I don't know Keith's position on every issue, but I don't have to. I know that is probably hard for Moyle and company to understand, but that is why Democrats are known as the Big Tent party. We accept people within our party because our differences make us stronger. We are not bent on some sort of ideological purity crusade. Which, by the way, is also why many moderate Republicans in Idaho are realizing that they aren't welcome in the own party and heading in droves to support Idaho Democrats like Keith Allred.
So, now I have a question for Governor Otter so he can "come clean with Idaho voters." My question is, "Mr. Otter do think that we should abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the Gold Standard as the Idaho GOP Platform plainly advocates?" Based upon the logic of Denney et al in their attempt to discredit Allred, I am assuming the answer must be yes because otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Governor Otter.
In the words of the Majority Leadership, Otter must own up to his opposition to repealing the the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold Standard and face the consequences from the fringe elements of the majority party, or state openly that he opposes the Federal Reserve and wishes to return to the Gold Standard and drop the charade of being a "A Man for Our Times." That is, of course, unless the time that Otter is speaking about is 1933, which isn't the vision for a prosperous Idaho future.
To start off with, unlike the recent form of the majority party in Idaho, Democrats don't kick people out just because they don't conform on every issue. I don't know Keith's position on every issue, but I don't have to. I know that is probably hard for Moyle and company to understand, but that is why Democrats are known as the Big Tent party. We accept people within our party because our differences make us stronger. We are not bent on some sort of ideological purity crusade. Which, by the way, is also why many moderate Republicans in Idaho are realizing that they aren't welcome in the own party and heading in droves to support Idaho Democrats like Keith Allred.
So, now I have a question for Governor Otter so he can "come clean with Idaho voters." My question is, "Mr. Otter do think that we should abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the Gold Standard as the Idaho GOP Platform plainly advocates?" Based upon the logic of Denney et al in their attempt to discredit Allred, I am assuming the answer must be yes because otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Governor Otter.
In the words of the Majority Leadership, Otter must own up to his opposition to repealing the the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold Standard and face the consequences from the fringe elements of the majority party, or state openly that he opposes the Federal Reserve and wishes to return to the Gold Standard and drop the charade of being a "A Man for Our Times." That is, of course, unless the time that Otter is speaking about is 1933, which isn't the vision for a prosperous Idaho future.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Off Topic Commentary: BSU to the MWC... er Big XII?!
So as a big time college sports fan (not just football), I've been following the conference expansion talk pretty closely. With word today that the Pac 10 commish has the authority to go out and shop for members the whole game is in play. While I would really like Bob Kustra to get a call from the Pac 10, I know deep down that is about as likely as the USA winning the World Cup this year. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not even close.
Now, as any even minor follower of BSU athletics knows the Mountain West Conference (MWC) is going to be meeting this week to discuss among other things, conference expansion. It is anticipated that BSU will be invited to join the MWC and BSU will accept on the spot. This is a pretty notable development although won't be all that surprising. However, this is where things get interesting!
Word in the college athletic world is that the Pac 10 is going to raid the Big XII and take six teams. The likely schools to leave the Big XII for the Pac 10 are Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Baylor or Colorado. In regards to the BU or CU dilemma, it appears that politics mean something. You see, the Pac 10 would probably prefer CU because it gives them a footprint into the Denver media market. However, don't underestimate the value of a good political struggle! A state senator for Waco seems to be reluctant to allow his beloved Bears (BU) left behind while the rest of the top teir Texas teams head to the Pac 10. No doubt that BU has the academic cred, but the athletic component specifically football, which is really driving most of this talk, is lacking.
In addition to the moves being made by Pac 10, we also see the Big 10 making similar ovations towards Nebraska and Mizzou. In fact, the courting of Nebraska and Mizzou has gotten so public that the Big XII has demanded that the two schools make a decision on where they want to be by the end of this week. That sort of public excoriation is unprecedented as far as I know. It also sounds a lot like a conference that is desperate and realizes that the ship may be sinking.
So what does this have to do with BSU? Well, if the Pac 10 and Big 10 do as is expected and ransack the Big XII, then the Big XII is stuck in a big time pickle. With only four schools remaining (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and BU or CU) they don't really have a conference. The remaining schools will be looking to find a new home and fast. In comes the MWC to save the day. With the regional proximity and the athletic and academic comparability (albeit somewhat less prestigious) a merger between the MWC and Big XII would be a natural result, with the Big XII keeping the namesake for marketing purposes.
If you are MWC schools this is dream come true. If you are the four remaining Big XII schools, this is called making the best of a terrible situation. If you are BSU or a BSU fan, this is called the unthinkable happening. The crazy thing is, this isn't that crazy! To be sure, nothing is certain and a lot of pieces of this giant jigsaw puzzle are still waiting to be placed, but if they are then the result could be nothing short of miraculous.
Now, as any even minor follower of BSU athletics knows the Mountain West Conference (MWC) is going to be meeting this week to discuss among other things, conference expansion. It is anticipated that BSU will be invited to join the MWC and BSU will accept on the spot. This is a pretty notable development although won't be all that surprising. However, this is where things get interesting!
Word in the college athletic world is that the Pac 10 is going to raid the Big XII and take six teams. The likely schools to leave the Big XII for the Pac 10 are Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Baylor or Colorado. In regards to the BU or CU dilemma, it appears that politics mean something. You see, the Pac 10 would probably prefer CU because it gives them a footprint into the Denver media market. However, don't underestimate the value of a good political struggle! A state senator for Waco seems to be reluctant to allow his beloved Bears (BU) left behind while the rest of the top teir Texas teams head to the Pac 10. No doubt that BU has the academic cred, but the athletic component specifically football, which is really driving most of this talk, is lacking.
In addition to the moves being made by Pac 10, we also see the Big 10 making similar ovations towards Nebraska and Mizzou. In fact, the courting of Nebraska and Mizzou has gotten so public that the Big XII has demanded that the two schools make a decision on where they want to be by the end of this week. That sort of public excoriation is unprecedented as far as I know. It also sounds a lot like a conference that is desperate and realizes that the ship may be sinking.
So what does this have to do with BSU? Well, if the Pac 10 and Big 10 do as is expected and ransack the Big XII, then the Big XII is stuck in a big time pickle. With only four schools remaining (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and BU or CU) they don't really have a conference. The remaining schools will be looking to find a new home and fast. In comes the MWC to save the day. With the regional proximity and the athletic and academic comparability (albeit somewhat less prestigious) a merger between the MWC and Big XII would be a natural result, with the Big XII keeping the namesake for marketing purposes.
If you are MWC schools this is dream come true. If you are the four remaining Big XII schools, this is called making the best of a terrible situation. If you are BSU or a BSU fan, this is called the unthinkable happening. The crazy thing is, this isn't that crazy! To be sure, nothing is certain and a lot of pieces of this giant jigsaw puzzle are still waiting to be placed, but if they are then the result could be nothing short of miraculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
