As I left downtown this afternoon, I spotted a lone protestor patrolling the downtown streets in the vicinity of the Chamber building carrying a sign containing something along the lines of the following (I don't guarantee a verbatim quote, cause I was driving kinda fast for downtown):
Chamber of Commerce: You don't speak for the citizens of Athens-Clarke County!
Amen.
GOTD: A 2002 archived CNN.com article about the creation of the WAG wireless cloud network in downtown Athens.
Question: Why doesn't Sonny wanna pay for the Courts? I'm gonna have a longer post on this later, but suffice it to say that Sonny has been giving the courts the shaft when it comes to funding.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Griffin Bell: Tie 'em to the desks!
Former Attorney General Griffin Bell is weighing in on education. Now, Bell has got pretty good credentials on public education, including his work brokering a deal to desegregate the public schools in Georgia while working for then-Governor Ernest Vandiver. His bona fides in the realm of public policy in general are unquestionably sound, so we were ready to hear what he had to say with a very open mind.
Unfortunately, Bell’s comments on education make him sound less like the elder statesman he is and more like a cantankerous old man. Worse still, he seems, to put it mildly, out of touch with what’s actually happening in the classrooms.
There’s no denying that his suggestions are outside the proverbial box. Among other things, he suggests publicizing the names of teachers whose students fail standardized tests, lengthening the school day, and mandatory homework.
Now there’s a problem with standardized tests, to be sure, but we don’t think it’s the fault of the teachers. The problem is the tests themselves, combined with the fallacy that standardized tests are an effective measure of how good an education a student is receiving. All a standardized test demonstrates about a student is how well the student has learned to take that particular test. The sad fact is that far too much of classroom time is being devoted to learning how to take the standardized test du jour.
It’s called “teaching to the test,” and it’s little more than scholastic regurgitation. It’s a disservice to the students, their future employers, and the teachers themselves. Our classroom focus should be on critical thinking skills, the ability to process and analyze information for retention and application, not regurgitation. Those are the life skills that lead to lifelong learning, and success in a 21st Century society.
As far as lengthening the school day, we say great. Go for it, as long as you’re doing it in conjunction with other measures, such as a serious initiative to reduce class sizes. If you just elongating the school day, in the belief that that will fix the whole problem, then all you’re really doing is consigning students to longer days in classrooms where their teacher is still overburdened with too many students to pay any attention to a single pupil.
Mandatory homework is fine by us, especially in light of our earlier comments about teaching critical thinking skills instead of standardized tests. So, if the homework actually reinforces the life skills that will make our children into successful adults, then we’re ok with it.
The most disturbing thing about Bell’s proposals is his assertion that such measures, “would obviate the long-overused excuse of the home environment.” (Quoted in the ABH, story here.) The fact is, the home environment is part of the problem. Parental involvement is shrinking, and many students aren’t getting the scholastic discipline they need in the home.
Here’s the thing. A teacher’s job is to teach your kid, not raise your kid. A teacher can do a lot, even beyond teaching a child to master a particular chunk of subject matter; they can, for instance, facilitate successful social maturation, which is a useful byproduct of the public school system. But it’s the parent’s job to instill the discipline a child needs to study successfully. Think about it this way. The average parent in Georgia has about 1.8 kids. The average teacher in Georgia has 15.7 kids.
Not that the teachers and administrators get off scot-free either. Our public schools have to do a better job of reaching out to parents and keeping them informed on the progress of their children. Not all parents may reach out to teachers, and the schools may have to meet them more than halfway.
More on this later, perhaps. Unless you guys would like to address Bell’s suggestions about higher education.
Unfortunately, Bell’s comments on education make him sound less like the elder statesman he is and more like a cantankerous old man. Worse still, he seems, to put it mildly, out of touch with what’s actually happening in the classrooms.
There’s no denying that his suggestions are outside the proverbial box. Among other things, he suggests publicizing the names of teachers whose students fail standardized tests, lengthening the school day, and mandatory homework.
Now there’s a problem with standardized tests, to be sure, but we don’t think it’s the fault of the teachers. The problem is the tests themselves, combined with the fallacy that standardized tests are an effective measure of how good an education a student is receiving. All a standardized test demonstrates about a student is how well the student has learned to take that particular test. The sad fact is that far too much of classroom time is being devoted to learning how to take the standardized test du jour.
It’s called “teaching to the test,” and it’s little more than scholastic regurgitation. It’s a disservice to the students, their future employers, and the teachers themselves. Our classroom focus should be on critical thinking skills, the ability to process and analyze information for retention and application, not regurgitation. Those are the life skills that lead to lifelong learning, and success in a 21st Century society.
As far as lengthening the school day, we say great. Go for it, as long as you’re doing it in conjunction with other measures, such as a serious initiative to reduce class sizes. If you just elongating the school day, in the belief that that will fix the whole problem, then all you’re really doing is consigning students to longer days in classrooms where their teacher is still overburdened with too many students to pay any attention to a single pupil.
Mandatory homework is fine by us, especially in light of our earlier comments about teaching critical thinking skills instead of standardized tests. So, if the homework actually reinforces the life skills that will make our children into successful adults, then we’re ok with it.
The most disturbing thing about Bell’s proposals is his assertion that such measures, “would obviate the long-overused excuse of the home environment.” (Quoted in the ABH, story here.) The fact is, the home environment is part of the problem. Parental involvement is shrinking, and many students aren’t getting the scholastic discipline they need in the home.
Here’s the thing. A teacher’s job is to teach your kid, not raise your kid. A teacher can do a lot, even beyond teaching a child to master a particular chunk of subject matter; they can, for instance, facilitate successful social maturation, which is a useful byproduct of the public school system. But it’s the parent’s job to instill the discipline a child needs to study successfully. Think about it this way. The average parent in Georgia has about 1.8 kids. The average teacher in Georgia has 15.7 kids.
Not that the teachers and administrators get off scot-free either. Our public schools have to do a better job of reaching out to parents and keeping them informed on the progress of their children. Not all parents may reach out to teachers, and the schools may have to meet them more than halfway.
More on this later, perhaps. Unless you guys would like to address Bell’s suggestions about higher education.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and...Recess!!
Political observers probably won’t be too shocked to learn that one of the bills being bandied about during this year’s legislative session is a proposal to authorize public schools to begin teaching the Bible as part of their curriculum.
What might surprise you is who is introducing the bill – the chairman of the State Senate Democratic Caucus.
Tim Golden, the bill’s sponsor, asserts that the Bible course, as authorized in the bill would consist of, “nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study,” about the Bible’s influence on our culture.
There are two schools of thought on this. One viewpoint says, back away very slowly. We’re teetering on the precipice of a very slippery slope here.
On the other hand, the Bible is a legitimate work of world literature, and a darn sight better read than, say, Dubliners by James Joyce, which at least one member of your crack editorial staff had the displeasure of struggling through in high school.
Then there’s the politics of the matter. Are Tim Golden and the Senate Dems trying to out-Republican the Republicans? Are they running to the right to establish some measure of credibility on the so-called “values issues?” And even if they are, will the Republicans sign on en masse?
Needless to say, the ACLU is a bit nervous about the whole thing.
We want to know what you think. Weigh in below.
[Related: the AJC writes it up here.]
(The AthPo Useless Infographic is a new feature which will appear to assist our readers, whenever we get bored, or when we want to make fun of USA Today.)
More on Durden, etc.
As a follow-up to the earlier post on Durden running against Judge Sweat, we've become privy to some internal courthouse chatter on the matter, and a few others. Here goes:
1) Some of the specific complaints about Judge Sweat (it's not clear whether these are Durden's complaints or just generally shared ones) are that he goes way too long on some of his hearings, and that some of his rulings, in particular those involving domestic cases, have been questionable. In my opinion, the first is probably due to lack of judicial experience more than anything else, a problem which Durden would obviously have if elected as well. The second complaint is more substantive, but without some more specific data about the propriety of specific rulings, it's hard for me to say.
2) The general feeling around the courthouse is that, although there might be room to challenge Judge Sweat based on some of these issues, Mr. Durden is probably not the man for the job. The consensus seems to be that Sweat will be better at the politics involved than Durden.
3) In non-Durden courthouse gossip, it appears that Mr. Mauldin might put up a candidate to beat Mr. Wiltshire in the Solicitor General election. Word is Mauldin is afraid that otherwise Wiltshire might do a good enough job as Solicitor to mount another challenge against him for DA in the future. However, what happens if, and I'm just throwing this out there, Wiltshire loses and decides to come after Mauldin's job anyway? At least if he were SG, he'd have to decide whether to resign to run. Mauldin may end up making his own bed if he's not careful. If Mauldin goes this route, ADA Brian Patterson has been mentioned as a possible candidate.
1) Some of the specific complaints about Judge Sweat (it's not clear whether these are Durden's complaints or just generally shared ones) are that he goes way too long on some of his hearings, and that some of his rulings, in particular those involving domestic cases, have been questionable. In my opinion, the first is probably due to lack of judicial experience more than anything else, a problem which Durden would obviously have if elected as well. The second complaint is more substantive, but without some more specific data about the propriety of specific rulings, it's hard for me to say.
2) The general feeling around the courthouse is that, although there might be room to challenge Judge Sweat based on some of these issues, Mr. Durden is probably not the man for the job. The consensus seems to be that Sweat will be better at the politics involved than Durden.
3) In non-Durden courthouse gossip, it appears that Mr. Mauldin might put up a candidate to beat Mr. Wiltshire in the Solicitor General election. Word is Mauldin is afraid that otherwise Wiltshire might do a good enough job as Solicitor to mount another challenge against him for DA in the future. However, what happens if, and I'm just throwing this out there, Wiltshire loses and decides to come after Mauldin's job anyway? At least if he were SG, he'd have to decide whether to resign to run. Mauldin may end up making his own bed if he's not careful. If Mauldin goes this route, ADA Brian Patterson has been mentioned as a possible candidate.
Redistricting and the Chamber of Commerce
Just a reminder that your elected officials, at least some of them, are holding a town hall tonight to discuss the proposed redistricting. Go give Jane Kidd and Keith Heard an earful tonight at 7:00 pm, at the Athens-Clarke County Public Library.
Speaking of redistricting, we managed to get our hot little hands on the pro-redistricting talking points that the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce is passing around amongst their membership. We’re not going to post the whole email here, because the Chamber rivals us in their tendency to ramble and bloviate. According to the email, the Chamber supports the redistricting for four reasons.
“1.Two of the five largest employers in Athens-Clarke County (UGA & CCSD) get a large source of their funding from state government. These 2 entities alone employ over 11,000 working individuals. If wages for the majority of these employees are to increase, it will come as a result of increased funding from state government. This reason alone is enough to support increasing ACC’s representation in the legislature.
2. Clarke is the only county over 100,000 in population that has only one state senator representing it. A number of much smaller counties listed below have more representation than Clarke. [Editor’s note: in the email, the Chamber includes a list of counties with smaller populations than ACC with more than one representative. We omitted it for reasons of space.]
3. Athens Technical College is in desperate need of increased funding to simply meet the existing demand for highly skilled individuals, especially in the area of healthcare. More representation in Atlanta gives our community a better chance of helping our young people get the skills they need to make a living wage.
4. Our community’s largest employer and the state’s flagship university needs full funding in order to reach its potential, especially in area of the biosciences.”
First of all, to think for even one moment that the Chamber has any interest in a wage hike for UGA and the CCSD is just fallacious. We know that you already know that, but let’s work through the logic, just for grins. UGA and the CCSD are among the five biggest employers in Athens, as the Chamber acknowledges. The Chamber of Commerce is composed of the owners of employers number six through whatever. What happens to them if UGA and the CCSD raise their wages? It pushes the market value of labor in ACC up, meaning that the wage they pay will also rise, if they expect to remain competitive in the resource market for labor. In fact, the membership of the Chamber has a vested economic interest in keeping wages low.
Not that that really matters, because if there’s one thing more fallacious than thinking the Chamber is suddenly the standard-bearer for higher wages, it’s thinking that increased funding for UGA will be used to increase wages. Sure, some folks at UGA may get more money out of a funding increase, but we’re betting that it’s going to be more like professors and administrators, rather than the folks who mop the floors and cook the food. More likely though, most of any increase in funding will go to projects that we can’t complain about, more research, perhaps better facilities. Of course, there’s no reason to suspect that having more Senators will necessarily lead to increased funding.
Under the current system, UGA is the big ugly couch in Brian Kemp’s political living room, and he has to arrange all of his other furniture around it. With two Senators, the proportion of UGA to other constituents is much smaller, and the big ugly couch becomes kind of like that ashtray your nephew made you at summer camp last year. You still have to have it on display, but you can hide it behind your DVDs most of the time.
In fact other than the sudden and hilarious dedication to raising wages at UGA and the CCSD, the Chamber’s entire set of talking points is predicated on the assumption that having two Senators will increase, rather than decrease UGA’s representation in Atlanta, an assumption that is, at the very least, arguable.
Finally, please note that the Chamber is trying to rally its forces for the town hall meeting tonight. According to the email: “We urge your attendance to show unaninimity in our desire to see increased representation for the people of Clarke County.”
Rallying the troops, on either side, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s our impression that this thing is a done deal. Don’t expect the feds to make a big deal about this one, either.
[Edited to add: Here's a good analysis from PeachPundit. Eds.]
Speaking of redistricting, we managed to get our hot little hands on the pro-redistricting talking points that the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce is passing around amongst their membership. We’re not going to post the whole email here, because the Chamber rivals us in their tendency to ramble and bloviate. According to the email, the Chamber supports the redistricting for four reasons.
“1.Two of the five largest employers in Athens-Clarke County (UGA & CCSD) get a large source of their funding from state government. These 2 entities alone employ over 11,000 working individuals. If wages for the majority of these employees are to increase, it will come as a result of increased funding from state government. This reason alone is enough to support increasing ACC’s representation in the legislature.
2. Clarke is the only county over 100,000 in population that has only one state senator representing it. A number of much smaller counties listed below have more representation than Clarke. [Editor’s note: in the email, the Chamber includes a list of counties with smaller populations than ACC with more than one representative. We omitted it for reasons of space.]
3. Athens Technical College is in desperate need of increased funding to simply meet the existing demand for highly skilled individuals, especially in the area of healthcare. More representation in Atlanta gives our community a better chance of helping our young people get the skills they need to make a living wage.
4. Our community’s largest employer and the state’s flagship university needs full funding in order to reach its potential, especially in area of the biosciences.”
First of all, to think for even one moment that the Chamber has any interest in a wage hike for UGA and the CCSD is just fallacious. We know that you already know that, but let’s work through the logic, just for grins. UGA and the CCSD are among the five biggest employers in Athens, as the Chamber acknowledges. The Chamber of Commerce is composed of the owners of employers number six through whatever. What happens to them if UGA and the CCSD raise their wages? It pushes the market value of labor in ACC up, meaning that the wage they pay will also rise, if they expect to remain competitive in the resource market for labor. In fact, the membership of the Chamber has a vested economic interest in keeping wages low.
Not that that really matters, because if there’s one thing more fallacious than thinking the Chamber is suddenly the standard-bearer for higher wages, it’s thinking that increased funding for UGA will be used to increase wages. Sure, some folks at UGA may get more money out of a funding increase, but we’re betting that it’s going to be more like professors and administrators, rather than the folks who mop the floors and cook the food. More likely though, most of any increase in funding will go to projects that we can’t complain about, more research, perhaps better facilities. Of course, there’s no reason to suspect that having more Senators will necessarily lead to increased funding.
Under the current system, UGA is the big ugly couch in Brian Kemp’s political living room, and he has to arrange all of his other furniture around it. With two Senators, the proportion of UGA to other constituents is much smaller, and the big ugly couch becomes kind of like that ashtray your nephew made you at summer camp last year. You still have to have it on display, but you can hide it behind your DVDs most of the time.
In fact other than the sudden and hilarious dedication to raising wages at UGA and the CCSD, the Chamber’s entire set of talking points is predicated on the assumption that having two Senators will increase, rather than decrease UGA’s representation in Atlanta, an assumption that is, at the very least, arguable.
Finally, please note that the Chamber is trying to rally its forces for the town hall meeting tonight. According to the email: “We urge your attendance to show unaninimity in our desire to see increased representation for the people of Clarke County.”
Rallying the troops, on either side, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s our impression that this thing is a done deal. Don’t expect the feds to make a big deal about this one, either.
[Edited to add: Here's a good analysis from PeachPundit. Eds.]
GOTD, Etc.
What can I tell ya; we've been out of it for a couple of days. Here's a few scraps to get you back in the swing of things on this fine Wednesday:
First, a new GOTD. It's the history of the Athens music scene from the Georgia Music Hall of Fame site. Interesting stuff, especially if you didn't live through it, or if like me you did live through it but mostly as a toddler. Check it out.
Next, Jefferson turns 200. Happy Birthday Jefferson! I drove through there last weekend on my way to a funeral in Dahlonega, and I had forgotten what a quaint little downtown area it has. Some beautiful old school Southern houses with the big front porches that I like.
A source close to the State Court tells us that they are looking at getting big sponsorship from State Farm for the DUI Drug Court. The program is a wildly successful one, with a recidivism rate of 3%, or something ridiculously low like that, for graduates of the program. The program is making the streets safer while treating the actual problem instead of crowding the jails. It's actually a win-win-win, because it's ultimately cheaper than enforcing DUI laws with jail time too (not to mention the ultimate reduction in DUIs in the first place, and the resultant savings to taxpayers and others, like, for example, State Farm, which is why they're willing to support the program).
The Navy School Local Redevelopment Authority will meet at 9 a.m. Thursday at the DOL office on North Avenue. Jackson County got some new voting machines to speed things up at election time. Read about these and other stories here.
Chew on this for a bit, and we'll see what else we can come up with.
First, a new GOTD. It's the history of the Athens music scene from the Georgia Music Hall of Fame site. Interesting stuff, especially if you didn't live through it, or if like me you did live through it but mostly as a toddler. Check it out.
Next, Jefferson turns 200. Happy Birthday Jefferson! I drove through there last weekend on my way to a funeral in Dahlonega, and I had forgotten what a quaint little downtown area it has. Some beautiful old school Southern houses with the big front porches that I like.
A source close to the State Court tells us that they are looking at getting big sponsorship from State Farm for the DUI Drug Court. The program is a wildly successful one, with a recidivism rate of 3%, or something ridiculously low like that, for graduates of the program. The program is making the streets safer while treating the actual problem instead of crowding the jails. It's actually a win-win-win, because it's ultimately cheaper than enforcing DUI laws with jail time too (not to mention the ultimate reduction in DUIs in the first place, and the resultant savings to taxpayers and others, like, for example, State Farm, which is why they're willing to support the program).
The Navy School Local Redevelopment Authority will meet at 9 a.m. Thursday at the DOL office on North Avenue. Jackson County got some new voting machines to speed things up at election time. Read about these and other stories here.
Chew on this for a bit, and we'll see what else we can come up with.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
LPDS
LPDS of course was approved unanimously again in the Planning Commission recently, and it is on the Agenda setting Commission meeting Thursday and up for vote at the February meeting. I found one comment from Planning Commissioner Biron interesting; he said that while LPDS had made great strides to meet with the opposition and make requested changes, in his opinion LPDS was "not there yet, as [Biron] feels the building is still too thematic." Now, to be clear, Biron is not opposed to LPDS (obviously, since there was unanimous approval), but I still find it interesting that he would imply that if LPDS would pull back on its Latin theme, it would have a better chance of passing. I know, I know, all opponents will deny this is relevant at all. But is it?
Bill Shipp and Predatory Lending
Bill Shipp compliments Sonny Perdue today, while trying as hard as he can to raise awareness of all the issues that could come back to make the Gubner’s path to re-election more difficult. Among the issues Shipp targets are: illegal immigration, school funding, ethics, health care, and predatory lending.
It’s that last one that we wanted to say a little bit about today. Remember the times we’ve said that affordable housing might be the sleeper campaign issue of 2006? We might be wrong on that; it just might be predatory lending.
A few years ago, in the last years of the Roy Barnes administration, Georgia had one of the toughest predatory lending laws in the nation. Not surprisingly, that was one of the first pieces of legislation undone by the new Republican majority when they came to power, and since then, Georgia has been a haven for predatory lenders.
Interestingly enough, we’ve always thought of predatory lending in terms of houses or cars. Shipp puts it in terms of payday loans and car title loans, and we’re not 100% sure that even though smaller in scope, the title loans and paycheck loans aren’t the bigger problem. Put it this way: how many poor people even get to the point of buying their own homes? In any event, we’d like to address it from the standpoint of those smaller loans, since we’ve had a little experience with that end of this particularly shameful little industry (fortunately not as a borrower.)
Now the more conservative free marketers out there are already revving up to argue with us on this one. “It’s a free market economy,” they’ll harrumph, “and that means people are free to make their own choices, even if they are stupid choices.” The kicker is they’re right. People should be free to make stupid choices. Heaven knows they are, and heaven knows they do. But the thing is, you and I are paying for those stupid mistakes, and the United States is not a pure capitalist economy, anyway.
We’ve got no problems with entrepreneurs making an honest dollar. But, the key word here is “honest.” 25% interest rates and hidden fees are not, in our opinion particularly on the up-and-up. The fact is, the loan racket is just that, a racket. Particularly egregious is the title loan racket, where the object is not to loan money but to obtain as many cars as possible through repossession, and sell them. For example, a borrower comes in to borrow $500.00 from you for three months, and puts down the titles to their pickup truck or whatever as collateral. After those three months are up, with the exorbitant interest rate and the fees involved, that $500.00 is closer to $1,200.00. And, if the borrower doesn’t get the payments made in time, then the lender gets to repossess the truck, and sell it for a few thousand dollars, all from an initial outlay of $500.00. Pretty nice business model, if you ask us.
We’re all in favor of open markets, and giving everybody a chance to make their bundle. But the debt problem in Georgia, and in America is rapidly becoming endemic. It’s time that the government did something.
It’s that last one that we wanted to say a little bit about today. Remember the times we’ve said that affordable housing might be the sleeper campaign issue of 2006? We might be wrong on that; it just might be predatory lending.
A few years ago, in the last years of the Roy Barnes administration, Georgia had one of the toughest predatory lending laws in the nation. Not surprisingly, that was one of the first pieces of legislation undone by the new Republican majority when they came to power, and since then, Georgia has been a haven for predatory lenders.
Interestingly enough, we’ve always thought of predatory lending in terms of houses or cars. Shipp puts it in terms of payday loans and car title loans, and we’re not 100% sure that even though smaller in scope, the title loans and paycheck loans aren’t the bigger problem. Put it this way: how many poor people even get to the point of buying their own homes? In any event, we’d like to address it from the standpoint of those smaller loans, since we’ve had a little experience with that end of this particularly shameful little industry (fortunately not as a borrower.)
Now the more conservative free marketers out there are already revving up to argue with us on this one. “It’s a free market economy,” they’ll harrumph, “and that means people are free to make their own choices, even if they are stupid choices.” The kicker is they’re right. People should be free to make stupid choices. Heaven knows they are, and heaven knows they do. But the thing is, you and I are paying for those stupid mistakes, and the United States is not a pure capitalist economy, anyway.
We’ve got no problems with entrepreneurs making an honest dollar. But, the key word here is “honest.” 25% interest rates and hidden fees are not, in our opinion particularly on the up-and-up. The fact is, the loan racket is just that, a racket. Particularly egregious is the title loan racket, where the object is not to loan money but to obtain as many cars as possible through repossession, and sell them. For example, a borrower comes in to borrow $500.00 from you for three months, and puts down the titles to their pickup truck or whatever as collateral. After those three months are up, with the exorbitant interest rate and the fees involved, that $500.00 is closer to $1,200.00. And, if the borrower doesn’t get the payments made in time, then the lender gets to repossess the truck, and sell it for a few thousand dollars, all from an initial outlay of $500.00. Pretty nice business model, if you ask us.
We’re all in favor of open markets, and giving everybody a chance to make their bundle. But the debt problem in Georgia, and in America is rapidly becoming endemic. It’s time that the government did something.
More on Redistricting
For what it’s worth, both the ABH’s editorial board and Jason Winders more or less agree with us on the proposed redistricting of Athens’ state senate districts. Of course, that’s kind of saying the ABH and Jason Winders agree with us that the sun rises in the east. Everybody knows that the redistricting is a political move.
One interesting angle is how the ABH approaches the situation, by complimenting current Senator Brian Kemp’s service in taking care of Athens and UGA. Kemp has done pretty well for the University, and it’s a valid point that two senators with part of Athens may not be as effective as one senator who represents the whole thing.
Winders agrees that it’s all political, while admitting that when you control both chambers and the governor’s mansion, you can monkey with the districts all you want, as long as the Feds give you the thumbs-up. He also thinks, as do we, that Jane Kidd should stay in the race for State Senate, or as Winders puts it, “Kidd needs to step up, not give up.”
And that’s actually something we wanted to address again. We pretty much said everything we needed to say yesterday, but we did want to add one thing. There’s another reason Jane Kidd should stay in the Senate race, and that is this very issue. It’s tailor-made to get Athens voters all hacked off at the State Legislature, and Kidd certainly did her part on the House floor to fight this thing down. Athens-Clarke County tends to be fairly Democratic for sure, and we would wager that Kidd already has 55% - 60% of ACC’s voters sewn up, just by virtue of being a Democrat. But, an issue like this can activate some of those swing voters that might have been leaning Republican, and pull them over to her side. The big question is: will any Athens backlash from moderates and swing voters outweigh the traditionally large Oconee County turnout numbers that have put this race in the R column in years past? Heck, we don’t know. But if Kidd decides to stay in the race, she’s got an A-1 issue to add to her message.
One interesting angle is how the ABH approaches the situation, by complimenting current Senator Brian Kemp’s service in taking care of Athens and UGA. Kemp has done pretty well for the University, and it’s a valid point that two senators with part of Athens may not be as effective as one senator who represents the whole thing.
Winders agrees that it’s all political, while admitting that when you control both chambers and the governor’s mansion, you can monkey with the districts all you want, as long as the Feds give you the thumbs-up. He also thinks, as do we, that Jane Kidd should stay in the race for State Senate, or as Winders puts it, “Kidd needs to step up, not give up.”
And that’s actually something we wanted to address again. We pretty much said everything we needed to say yesterday, but we did want to add one thing. There’s another reason Jane Kidd should stay in the Senate race, and that is this very issue. It’s tailor-made to get Athens voters all hacked off at the State Legislature, and Kidd certainly did her part on the House floor to fight this thing down. Athens-Clarke County tends to be fairly Democratic for sure, and we would wager that Kidd already has 55% - 60% of ACC’s voters sewn up, just by virtue of being a Democrat. But, an issue like this can activate some of those swing voters that might have been leaning Republican, and pull them over to her side. The big question is: will any Athens backlash from moderates and swing voters outweigh the traditionally large Oconee County turnout numbers that have put this race in the R column in years past? Heck, we don’t know. But if Kidd decides to stay in the race, she’s got an A-1 issue to add to her message.
The 65% Solution and Perdue's Education Plan
Education is all the rage today; rather than do separate posts on every education-related thing in the paper today, we’re going to mesh them all together into an incoherent mass. Would you expect anything less from us?
65%
First off, the much-discussed 65% solution is examined. We would expect that most superintendents and administrators are opposed to the 65% solution, and if Jeff Welch, who runs the Oglethorpe County Schools, is a representative example, we’d be right. Now, we don’t pretend to know much about the schools in Oglethorpe County, and we know even less about Mr. Welch’s job performance, but the article certainly makes it seem like his priorities are in the right place.
And in the end, that’s what the whole 65% solution is about – priorities. We’ve listed a few reasons in the past that cover why we’re against it, but the most salient point that we can make is that we believe that school districts shouldn’t be held to some contrived standard that may or may not help the students in that particular district.
Of course, you can’t always trust the superintendent and the district administration to make those choices wisely. We’ve argued in the past that our administration here in Clarke County doesn’t have their eye on the ball most of the time. But there’s accountability built into the system – elections for school board members.
The best part about the ABH article in our opinion is the list at the bottom, so that we can all get a better idea of what is and isn’t included in the definition of “in the classroom” spending. We were surprised to see some things that are included that we didn’t think would be, such as field trips and funding for athletics and the arts. But even so, those factors are outweighed by the things that aren’t included. We’ve already mentioned counselors and nurses in previous posts. You should also know that this doesn’t include social workers (and don’t even get us started on the conditions that necessitate having social workers in our schools.) It also doesn’t include librarians or even libraries. School cafeterias will also end up getting cut under the 65% solution.
The bottom line on the 65% solution is that it isn’t a good solution at all. As we said, it’s all about priorities, and, despite the problems in the system, we do trust the folks in the classrooms and, to a lesser extent, their bosses to determine our district’s priorities more than we trust the state or a random number to do so.
Perdue’s Education Plan
Also in education-related news is the Gubner’s plan to pump more money into education. Like the 65% solution referenced above, it sounds pretty good on the surface, and we’ll be the first to tell you that it’s better than nothing at all. But, under the surface, education is going to continue to get the same raw deal it’s been getting for the last lo these many years.
Joe Martin, who, if we’re not mistaken, was a candidate for state school superintendent back in 2002, does a lot of our homework for us in an op-ed that we presume was sent around statewide. The ABH picked it up, and you can check it out here. It’s chock full of numbers and figures and whatnot, and we’d suggest a careful read before you make up your mind about Perdue’s education plan. Like we said, Perdue’s ideas are better than nothing, but we believe that as a state, we can do more, now that Georgia’s economy is starting to pick up some steam.
Here’s the thing. Education is what the pointy-headed folks who teach political science like to call a “valence issue.” For the rest of us, that means that no one hates education. Everyone, from the most hardcore conservative to the most raging liberal legitimately wants a better-educated citizenry. Sonny Perdue wants good schools, and so do the Democrats. As a society, we still value education, although arguably less so than in previous generations. Good education is an investment, and while we might disagree on exactly how to go about achieving that goal, even to the point of disagreeing with the whole idea of public schools, we all agree that it is in the best interests of all not to have ignorance running rampant in society.
So here’s a chance for Sonny Perdue to score some points and be a leader. Let’s look briefly at the politics behind the policy. The prohibitive favorite to challenge Perdue in November is Cathy Cox. Cox has a well-deserved reputation for being more or less bipartisan; heck, the Republicans even tried to sway her over to the dark side of the Force last year. We’ve even seen one or two “Republicans for Cathy Cox” bumper stickers tooling around town. Sonny has a chance to cut into Cox’s burgeoning bipartisan street cred and show that he’s a leader on the issues. Here’s how.
Scrap the education plan. Stand up before the people of Georgia, save a little political face if you want to, and say, “You know, this was an okay plan. It would have done some good, but it isn’t good enough. We’re going to work together with Mark Taylor and Robert Brown and DuBose Porter, and we’re going to hammer out an education plan that does more for our schools. And then we’re going to pass it.” Ignore the press and the bloggers like us who will inevitably portray this as a backpedaling move from the GOP, and just be a leader.
Education is a valance issue. More importantly, it’s consistently one of the top issues in every opinion poll we’ve ever seen. For a lot of those suburban swing voters that both parties are angling for, it might just be the issue.
Of course it’ll never happen. If fixing education was as easy as paying lip service rather than teacher salaries, then we’d have fixed it a long time ago. The solution is more complex than handing out $100.00 gift cards so that teachers can buy supplies. Eventually, when budgeting for education, you’re going to have to make some tough choices, and you’re going to come face-to-face with some difficult issues, including the third rail of Georgia politics – race. And nobody wants to face those issues, especially during an election year.
(Related: Educators call shenanigans on Sonny’s plan.)
65%
First off, the much-discussed 65% solution is examined. We would expect that most superintendents and administrators are opposed to the 65% solution, and if Jeff Welch, who runs the Oglethorpe County Schools, is a representative example, we’d be right. Now, we don’t pretend to know much about the schools in Oglethorpe County, and we know even less about Mr. Welch’s job performance, but the article certainly makes it seem like his priorities are in the right place.
And in the end, that’s what the whole 65% solution is about – priorities. We’ve listed a few reasons in the past that cover why we’re against it, but the most salient point that we can make is that we believe that school districts shouldn’t be held to some contrived standard that may or may not help the students in that particular district.
Of course, you can’t always trust the superintendent and the district administration to make those choices wisely. We’ve argued in the past that our administration here in Clarke County doesn’t have their eye on the ball most of the time. But there’s accountability built into the system – elections for school board members.
The best part about the ABH article in our opinion is the list at the bottom, so that we can all get a better idea of what is and isn’t included in the definition of “in the classroom” spending. We were surprised to see some things that are included that we didn’t think would be, such as field trips and funding for athletics and the arts. But even so, those factors are outweighed by the things that aren’t included. We’ve already mentioned counselors and nurses in previous posts. You should also know that this doesn’t include social workers (and don’t even get us started on the conditions that necessitate having social workers in our schools.) It also doesn’t include librarians or even libraries. School cafeterias will also end up getting cut under the 65% solution.
The bottom line on the 65% solution is that it isn’t a good solution at all. As we said, it’s all about priorities, and, despite the problems in the system, we do trust the folks in the classrooms and, to a lesser extent, their bosses to determine our district’s priorities more than we trust the state or a random number to do so.
Perdue’s Education Plan
Also in education-related news is the Gubner’s plan to pump more money into education. Like the 65% solution referenced above, it sounds pretty good on the surface, and we’ll be the first to tell you that it’s better than nothing at all. But, under the surface, education is going to continue to get the same raw deal it’s been getting for the last lo these many years.
Joe Martin, who, if we’re not mistaken, was a candidate for state school superintendent back in 2002, does a lot of our homework for us in an op-ed that we presume was sent around statewide. The ABH picked it up, and you can check it out here. It’s chock full of numbers and figures and whatnot, and we’d suggest a careful read before you make up your mind about Perdue’s education plan. Like we said, Perdue’s ideas are better than nothing, but we believe that as a state, we can do more, now that Georgia’s economy is starting to pick up some steam.
Here’s the thing. Education is what the pointy-headed folks who teach political science like to call a “valence issue.” For the rest of us, that means that no one hates education. Everyone, from the most hardcore conservative to the most raging liberal legitimately wants a better-educated citizenry. Sonny Perdue wants good schools, and so do the Democrats. As a society, we still value education, although arguably less so than in previous generations. Good education is an investment, and while we might disagree on exactly how to go about achieving that goal, even to the point of disagreeing with the whole idea of public schools, we all agree that it is in the best interests of all not to have ignorance running rampant in society.
So here’s a chance for Sonny Perdue to score some points and be a leader. Let’s look briefly at the politics behind the policy. The prohibitive favorite to challenge Perdue in November is Cathy Cox. Cox has a well-deserved reputation for being more or less bipartisan; heck, the Republicans even tried to sway her over to the dark side of the Force last year. We’ve even seen one or two “Republicans for Cathy Cox” bumper stickers tooling around town. Sonny has a chance to cut into Cox’s burgeoning bipartisan street cred and show that he’s a leader on the issues. Here’s how.
Scrap the education plan. Stand up before the people of Georgia, save a little political face if you want to, and say, “You know, this was an okay plan. It would have done some good, but it isn’t good enough. We’re going to work together with Mark Taylor and Robert Brown and DuBose Porter, and we’re going to hammer out an education plan that does more for our schools. And then we’re going to pass it.” Ignore the press and the bloggers like us who will inevitably portray this as a backpedaling move from the GOP, and just be a leader.
Education is a valance issue. More importantly, it’s consistently one of the top issues in every opinion poll we’ve ever seen. For a lot of those suburban swing voters that both parties are angling for, it might just be the issue.
Of course it’ll never happen. If fixing education was as easy as paying lip service rather than teacher salaries, then we’d have fixed it a long time ago. The solution is more complex than handing out $100.00 gift cards so that teachers can buy supplies. Eventually, when budgeting for education, you’re going to have to make some tough choices, and you’re going to come face-to-face with some difficult issues, including the third rail of Georgia politics – race. And nobody wants to face those issues, especially during an election year.
(Related: Educators call shenanigans on Sonny’s plan.)
The Money Story: Statewide Version
In case last week’s local money story didn’t satisfy your process story jones, here’s the statewide version of the money story, courtesy of Morris News’ Atlanta Bureau.
To sum up, Sonny Perdue has lots of bread, Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor are also doing well (although Taylor loaned his campaign a million bucks; more on that in a minute.) Everybody else is more or less meeting the media’s expectations, but Ralph Reed’s fundraising is looking more and more anemic after a strong start.
Now, back to the Mark Taylor loaning himself a cool mil thing. It’s nothing new, obviously. Candidates do it all the time, and if it’s getting down to crunch time, and you need a few thousand more GRPs, it’s probably a good thing to do.
For the purposes of this speculation, you have to stipulate that there is no reason at all why Taylor’s campaign needs that extra million bucks now, as opposed to six months from now. No one is buying media yet, and Taylor’s campaign is more than solvent enough to pay it’s overhead and expenses as they currently exist.
The last ten years or so, though, candidates have been putting in a healthy infusion of their personal cash just to make their fundraising totals look better on the quarterly reports. We wonder if this really does any good at all. Obviously, anyone with the capacity to read (and that does include most of the reporters we know) can see the candidate loan on your filings, and draw their own conclusions.
In fact, far from making your campaign look healthy from a fundraising standpoint, this can actually cause the exact opposite effect, and make it seem that the campaign is struggling on fundraising, even when the campaign is doing just fine.
That’s kind of the case with Taylor here, especially if you look at the totals. Taylor has $5.4 million, his opponent in the primary, Cathy Cox, has $4 million. Even without the $1 million loan, Taylor has still raised $400,000 more than Cox. Granted, if you look at the quarterly totals, the story changes a little bit. Without the $1 million of his own money, Cox would have outraised Taylor 2 to 1 during the last quarter.
The conventional wisdom among the state’s Democrats is that Cox’s political star is rising quickly, while Taylor’s is – well, not exactly rising at all. We’d be willing to bet that one of the reasons for Taylor’s infusion of his personal cash is his desire to avoid the “Cox is doing well, while Taylor struggles” story.
There’s another reason that might explain Taylor’s cash transfusion. Kicking in a significant bundle of your own money is a signal to your potential donors that you’re serious and in the race to win. That works with some donors, others see through it.
To sum up, Sonny Perdue has lots of bread, Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor are also doing well (although Taylor loaned his campaign a million bucks; more on that in a minute.) Everybody else is more or less meeting the media’s expectations, but Ralph Reed’s fundraising is looking more and more anemic after a strong start.
Now, back to the Mark Taylor loaning himself a cool mil thing. It’s nothing new, obviously. Candidates do it all the time, and if it’s getting down to crunch time, and you need a few thousand more GRPs, it’s probably a good thing to do.
For the purposes of this speculation, you have to stipulate that there is no reason at all why Taylor’s campaign needs that extra million bucks now, as opposed to six months from now. No one is buying media yet, and Taylor’s campaign is more than solvent enough to pay it’s overhead and expenses as they currently exist.
The last ten years or so, though, candidates have been putting in a healthy infusion of their personal cash just to make their fundraising totals look better on the quarterly reports. We wonder if this really does any good at all. Obviously, anyone with the capacity to read (and that does include most of the reporters we know) can see the candidate loan on your filings, and draw their own conclusions.
In fact, far from making your campaign look healthy from a fundraising standpoint, this can actually cause the exact opposite effect, and make it seem that the campaign is struggling on fundraising, even when the campaign is doing just fine.
That’s kind of the case with Taylor here, especially if you look at the totals. Taylor has $5.4 million, his opponent in the primary, Cathy Cox, has $4 million. Even without the $1 million loan, Taylor has still raised $400,000 more than Cox. Granted, if you look at the quarterly totals, the story changes a little bit. Without the $1 million of his own money, Cox would have outraised Taylor 2 to 1 during the last quarter.
The conventional wisdom among the state’s Democrats is that Cox’s political star is rising quickly, while Taylor’s is – well, not exactly rising at all. We’d be willing to bet that one of the reasons for Taylor’s infusion of his personal cash is his desire to avoid the “Cox is doing well, while Taylor struggles” story.
There’s another reason that might explain Taylor’s cash transfusion. Kicking in a significant bundle of your own money is a signal to your potential donors that you’re serious and in the race to win. That works with some donors, others see through it.
Athens Google of the Day
Well, it might not end up being every day, but this is a new feature I'm gonna try out where I, you guessed it, Google Athens and see where our little city shows up on the ol' net. The inaugural AGOTD is Athens' Wikipedia entry. Anybody have any idea who originally authored this?
Day of Service
For those of you with MLK Day off from work, I would encourage you to participate in the ACC MLK Day of Service. Here is some info.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
A couple of new candidates
As our previous two posts indicate, it was a pretty heavy news day for a Saturday today. Here’s a third and final post before we get up and see what’s shaking in the ACC tomorrow. We’ve got a couple of new candidates in the mix. Alvin Sheats (formerly the Commissioner for District 3) is jumping in the open seat race for Tom Chasteen’s District 9 super-seat, and local attorney Stan Durden has announced that he is going to challenge incumbent Superior Court Judge David Sweat.
As far as the District 9 race goes, we don’t really have much to say. Alvin Sheats has represented about a quarter of the district in years past, he’s got community ties across the city, and he’s pretty well liked. That, plus the lack of opposition, pretty much means that, at this point, he’s going through the motions, and barring unforeseen candidates jumping in, he should do pretty well.
But this Judge Sweat thing…now that’s interesting! Well, it’s interesting if you’re in to the obscuria of political campaigns, and we are. The neat thing about this race is that it’s more or less unprecedented. We’ve never really had a sitting judge challenged in ACC, at least not in our recollection, so this is going to bring up a number of interesting issues. You might know, first of all, that rules on judge’s races in Georgia changed right around the time that Judge Sweat first ran in 2002 (right after the election, if memory serves), which loosened the restrictions on what candidates for judgeships could say. (It opened the doors for campaigning on more than just judicial philosophy, and made it ok, legally, for candidates to go negative, more or less.) It will be interesting to see how that affects this race, although we doubt that Judge Sweat or Stan Durden will choose to go negative, at least we hope not.
Another interesting factor, kind of tied into that is what exactly Stan Durden is going to talk about to convince folks that he’s better for the bench than Judge Sweat. We’ve pondered for awhile, and can’t really come up with anything. For what it’s worth, Judge Sweat doesn’t take his politics to the bench, and while he has presided over some of the better-known trials recently (most notably, the UGA Library arson case), those decisions were handed down by a jury, not by Judge Sweat himself. Could a reasonable challenger oppose some the bench rulings that His Honor handed down on motions and whatnot? Probably so. Will the voters care, and can a challenger explain those disagreements in laymen’s terms? Doubtful.
An interesting question that we’ll sure we’ll get answers to in the coming months is: Why is Durden running against Judge Sweat? There’s no question that, if one wanted a judgeship, conventional wisdom says that Sweat is the best one to challenge, since he’s the most recently elected, and on paper at least, the most vulnerable. But, considering our experience with judge’s races is exactly nil, other than observing Sweat’s campaign from afar in 2002, we think that the incumbency advantage is particularly strong for judge’s races. In other words, Stan Durden is going to have to come up with a really good message to convince voters not to vote for David Sweat. It goes without saying that he’s going to have to have enough resources to get that message out to an electorate that is going to be more interested in other races.
Which brings us to another question. Is the local bar association going to get involved? Well, probably not, but it will be interesting to see which local lawyers get behind which candidates.
In any event, this may be as interesting as any local race we’ve got going on this year, so stay tuned.
As far as the District 9 race goes, we don’t really have much to say. Alvin Sheats has represented about a quarter of the district in years past, he’s got community ties across the city, and he’s pretty well liked. That, plus the lack of opposition, pretty much means that, at this point, he’s going through the motions, and barring unforeseen candidates jumping in, he should do pretty well.
But this Judge Sweat thing…now that’s interesting! Well, it’s interesting if you’re in to the obscuria of political campaigns, and we are. The neat thing about this race is that it’s more or less unprecedented. We’ve never really had a sitting judge challenged in ACC, at least not in our recollection, so this is going to bring up a number of interesting issues. You might know, first of all, that rules on judge’s races in Georgia changed right around the time that Judge Sweat first ran in 2002 (right after the election, if memory serves), which loosened the restrictions on what candidates for judgeships could say. (It opened the doors for campaigning on more than just judicial philosophy, and made it ok, legally, for candidates to go negative, more or less.) It will be interesting to see how that affects this race, although we doubt that Judge Sweat or Stan Durden will choose to go negative, at least we hope not.
Another interesting factor, kind of tied into that is what exactly Stan Durden is going to talk about to convince folks that he’s better for the bench than Judge Sweat. We’ve pondered for awhile, and can’t really come up with anything. For what it’s worth, Judge Sweat doesn’t take his politics to the bench, and while he has presided over some of the better-known trials recently (most notably, the UGA Library arson case), those decisions were handed down by a jury, not by Judge Sweat himself. Could a reasonable challenger oppose some the bench rulings that His Honor handed down on motions and whatnot? Probably so. Will the voters care, and can a challenger explain those disagreements in laymen’s terms? Doubtful.
An interesting question that we’ll sure we’ll get answers to in the coming months is: Why is Durden running against Judge Sweat? There’s no question that, if one wanted a judgeship, conventional wisdom says that Sweat is the best one to challenge, since he’s the most recently elected, and on paper at least, the most vulnerable. But, considering our experience with judge’s races is exactly nil, other than observing Sweat’s campaign from afar in 2002, we think that the incumbency advantage is particularly strong for judge’s races. In other words, Stan Durden is going to have to come up with a really good message to convince voters not to vote for David Sweat. It goes without saying that he’s going to have to have enough resources to get that message out to an electorate that is going to be more interested in other races.
Which brings us to another question. Is the local bar association going to get involved? Well, probably not, but it will be interesting to see which local lawyers get behind which candidates.
In any event, this may be as interesting as any local race we’ve got going on this year, so stay tuned.
Redistricting Madness
The big news coming out from Atlanta during the last few days, as least as far as Athens is concerned is, of course, the planned redistricting of Athens-Clarke County to give us two State Senate seats. Athens is currently the center of one State Senate district, and we’re represented by Brian Kemp, who is leaving his Senate seat behind to run for Commissioner of Agriculture. Everybody all caught up now? Great.
The thing is, this is obviously a political move. Heck, even most of the Republicans are rubbing their hands together in glee over their political prowess, while the Republicans who sponsored the redistricting and a few others cling to the “It’s time Athens had two State Senators” rhetoric, if only for decorum’s sake.
So, it’s political. And that’s just fine. When your party is in charge, you get to make changes like this. If you’re a Democrat and you’re pissed off, we don’t blame you. We’re pissed off too. But we all, and we include your crack editorial staff, are to blame. Maybe we should have worked a little but harder for Becky Vaughn in 2004. Of course even had Becky been elected, this thing would still be plowing through the Legislature. We would also point out, in fairness to our Republican friends, that the Democrats certainly made the most out of redistricting in 2000 when they controlled the pencils and the maps.
Anyway, we’re going to try really hard not to get worked up about this. Fact is, it’s going to pass (it still has to make it through the Department of Justice up in D.C., but we’re not sure if there’s a legitimate Constitutional objection here, so it’ll probably fly), we’re going to get two State Senators, they’re probably both going to be Republican, and if you’re pissed off about it – and we are – then go volunteer for Jane Kidd (if she’s still running) or whoever runs in the other district against Ralph Hudgins.
So, that being said, we’d rather talk about two issues that are related to this whole nonsense. First there’s this article from Tuesday’s Athens Banner Herald which implies that Kidd may not run for Senate after all, if the redistricting goes through. Now that’s a bad idea for a couple of reasons. Kidd is arguably the most prominent Democratic member of the Athens legislative delegation, and whether or not you believe that, she is the big fish in the electoral pond around these parts. The Clarke County Democratic Party has high hopes for her future, and it would be quite a boost to the GOP to more or less scare Jane Kidd out of the race with their redistricting hijinks. And if someone with Jane Kidd’s election cred (meaning she’s run for and actually won office, a rarity among the ruling Democratic elite in ACC) gets scared out, what kind of message does that send to any other candidates, maybe running for the first time, who might be thinking about jumping into the race?
There’s also the more idealistic part of it. Jane Kidd is a good legislator. She does her homework, and she fights the fights she should, most of the time. She’s got character, and she looks out for her constituents. However, when she talks about dropping out of the Senate race when the chips get down, we can’t help but be a little disappointed. You see, as we said before, Kidd is a good legislator, and talk like this makes it sound like she’s more interested in winning than governing. We know, we know, you’ve got to win before you can govern, and if Kidd dropped out and went back to run for her current House seat, she would both win and govern. But, the Senate seat is a better fit for Kidd. She could do us proud there, which is not to imply that she wouldn’t or hasn’t in the House. The thing is, it’s time she started angling for a promotion. If there’s anything Kidd lacks as a politician, it’s that fire in the belly that makes you good and angry and juiced up for the rough and tumble of campaign politics. So Jane, if you’re reading this, here’s some advice. We like Bill Cowsert; he’s a nice guy, and we honestly think his heart is in the right place. But do us a favor. Go out there and wipe the floor with him.
The other issue that we wanted to address is the topic of redistricting itself. Call us crazy, but isn’t it about time we had some redistricting reform in this state? You’ve got the Democrats monkeying around with maps in 2000, and the GOP doing the exact same thing in 2004. Now, we have a well-deserved reputation for being pretty partisan here, but we say, and we hope you agree, that you can’t trust either party to make truly representative maps. Of course, good luck getting any kind of meaningful redistricting reform through the state legislature, since no matter who’s in charge they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Still, here’s what we’d like to see. An amendment to the state constitution that takes redistricting out of the hands of the politicians, and places it in the hands of a non-partisan redistricting commission, with the help of the best technology we can get our hands on. By technology, we mean computer programs that analyze the data and crunch it into meaningful districts. Those districts would then be pored over by actual human beings to make sure that they are common sense, and the map then gets approved by a nonpartisan panel, and, since it’s the law, reviewed and pre-cleared by the federal Department of Justice. Now, notice we said a non-partisan commission, not a bipartisan commission. Bipartisanship naturally lends itself to the brokering of deals, which is sometimes a good thing for legislation, but never a good thing for redistricting. Of course, a non-partisan commission is harder to find, since everybody has some sort of partisanship, but we would suggest that retired federal or upper-court state judges are a good place to look. But who appoints the non-partisan commission? Eventually the politicians have to get involved. We’re not sure how to keep the politics out of the appointments, to be honest, but we’re open to suggestions. Maybe a 2/3 majority in the State Senate? We don’t know. In any event, systems like this are in place in a handful of states, and have been suggested in others. And, it’s long past time to take redistricting out of the hand of the politicians. It’s kind of like asking Microsoft to appoint the members of the SEC, if you think about it.
Oh and remember when we said good luck getting something like this past the state legislature? Well, there may be a ray of hope. We’re going to check into this, or maybe one of you guys know, but if we’re not mistaken, citizens of Georgia can put a referendum on the ballot if they collect enough signatures.
Finally, back to the whole redistricting mess that sparked this post. We’ve got one other thing to say, in reference to this quote by Sen. Ralph Hudgens. Sez Hudgens, “Monroe (in Walton County) has a lot more in common with Athens than anything else.”
Really, Senator Hudgens? We can think of one place that Athens has more in common with than Monroe. It’s called the other friggin’ half of Athens!!
Jeepers.
(Related: Reps. Kidd and Keith Heard are hosting a town hall meeting on this issue on Wednesday at 7:00 pm at the ACC Public Library. The ABH writes it up today here.)
The thing is, this is obviously a political move. Heck, even most of the Republicans are rubbing their hands together in glee over their political prowess, while the Republicans who sponsored the redistricting and a few others cling to the “It’s time Athens had two State Senators” rhetoric, if only for decorum’s sake.
So, it’s political. And that’s just fine. When your party is in charge, you get to make changes like this. If you’re a Democrat and you’re pissed off, we don’t blame you. We’re pissed off too. But we all, and we include your crack editorial staff, are to blame. Maybe we should have worked a little but harder for Becky Vaughn in 2004. Of course even had Becky been elected, this thing would still be plowing through the Legislature. We would also point out, in fairness to our Republican friends, that the Democrats certainly made the most out of redistricting in 2000 when they controlled the pencils and the maps.
Anyway, we’re going to try really hard not to get worked up about this. Fact is, it’s going to pass (it still has to make it through the Department of Justice up in D.C., but we’re not sure if there’s a legitimate Constitutional objection here, so it’ll probably fly), we’re going to get two State Senators, they’re probably both going to be Republican, and if you’re pissed off about it – and we are – then go volunteer for Jane Kidd (if she’s still running) or whoever runs in the other district against Ralph Hudgins.
So, that being said, we’d rather talk about two issues that are related to this whole nonsense. First there’s this article from Tuesday’s Athens Banner Herald which implies that Kidd may not run for Senate after all, if the redistricting goes through. Now that’s a bad idea for a couple of reasons. Kidd is arguably the most prominent Democratic member of the Athens legislative delegation, and whether or not you believe that, she is the big fish in the electoral pond around these parts. The Clarke County Democratic Party has high hopes for her future, and it would be quite a boost to the GOP to more or less scare Jane Kidd out of the race with their redistricting hijinks. And if someone with Jane Kidd’s election cred (meaning she’s run for and actually won office, a rarity among the ruling Democratic elite in ACC) gets scared out, what kind of message does that send to any other candidates, maybe running for the first time, who might be thinking about jumping into the race?
There’s also the more idealistic part of it. Jane Kidd is a good legislator. She does her homework, and she fights the fights she should, most of the time. She’s got character, and she looks out for her constituents. However, when she talks about dropping out of the Senate race when the chips get down, we can’t help but be a little disappointed. You see, as we said before, Kidd is a good legislator, and talk like this makes it sound like she’s more interested in winning than governing. We know, we know, you’ve got to win before you can govern, and if Kidd dropped out and went back to run for her current House seat, she would both win and govern. But, the Senate seat is a better fit for Kidd. She could do us proud there, which is not to imply that she wouldn’t or hasn’t in the House. The thing is, it’s time she started angling for a promotion. If there’s anything Kidd lacks as a politician, it’s that fire in the belly that makes you good and angry and juiced up for the rough and tumble of campaign politics. So Jane, if you’re reading this, here’s some advice. We like Bill Cowsert; he’s a nice guy, and we honestly think his heart is in the right place. But do us a favor. Go out there and wipe the floor with him.
The other issue that we wanted to address is the topic of redistricting itself. Call us crazy, but isn’t it about time we had some redistricting reform in this state? You’ve got the Democrats monkeying around with maps in 2000, and the GOP doing the exact same thing in 2004. Now, we have a well-deserved reputation for being pretty partisan here, but we say, and we hope you agree, that you can’t trust either party to make truly representative maps. Of course, good luck getting any kind of meaningful redistricting reform through the state legislature, since no matter who’s in charge they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Still, here’s what we’d like to see. An amendment to the state constitution that takes redistricting out of the hands of the politicians, and places it in the hands of a non-partisan redistricting commission, with the help of the best technology we can get our hands on. By technology, we mean computer programs that analyze the data and crunch it into meaningful districts. Those districts would then be pored over by actual human beings to make sure that they are common sense, and the map then gets approved by a nonpartisan panel, and, since it’s the law, reviewed and pre-cleared by the federal Department of Justice. Now, notice we said a non-partisan commission, not a bipartisan commission. Bipartisanship naturally lends itself to the brokering of deals, which is sometimes a good thing for legislation, but never a good thing for redistricting. Of course, a non-partisan commission is harder to find, since everybody has some sort of partisanship, but we would suggest that retired federal or upper-court state judges are a good place to look. But who appoints the non-partisan commission? Eventually the politicians have to get involved. We’re not sure how to keep the politics out of the appointments, to be honest, but we’re open to suggestions. Maybe a 2/3 majority in the State Senate? We don’t know. In any event, systems like this are in place in a handful of states, and have been suggested in others. And, it’s long past time to take redistricting out of the hand of the politicians. It’s kind of like asking Microsoft to appoint the members of the SEC, if you think about it.
Oh and remember when we said good luck getting something like this past the state legislature? Well, there may be a ray of hope. We’re going to check into this, or maybe one of you guys know, but if we’re not mistaken, citizens of Georgia can put a referendum on the ballot if they collect enough signatures.
Finally, back to the whole redistricting mess that sparked this post. We’ve got one other thing to say, in reference to this quote by Sen. Ralph Hudgens. Sez Hudgens, “Monroe (in Walton County) has a lot more in common with Athens than anything else.”
Really, Senator Hudgens? We can think of one place that Athens has more in common with than Monroe. It’s called the other friggin’ half of Athens!!
Jeepers.
(Related: Reps. Kidd and Keith Heard are hosting a town hall meeting on this issue on Wednesday at 7:00 pm at the ACC Public Library. The ABH writes it up today here.)
Gold Kist? James Madison would like a word with you.
It’s come to our attention recently that at least a handful of our local lawyers here in Athens read AthPo, and we’d like to send a shoutout to them. Please, ladies and gentlemen of the bar, for heaven’s sake, call the guy in this story, because it looks like he’s got something of a First Amendment case here.
If you’re too engrossed in AthPo to click the link, here’s the abridged version. Guy works for Gold Kist. Every year for the last four years, he’s celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday by posting the full text of the “I Have a Dream” speech in the employee breakroom. Everything’s cool, until this year, when Gold Kist informs him he’s got to take it down.
I don’t know from law, but my co-editor does, and I’m sure he’ll have a thing or two to say about this when he gets back into town. I do, however, have it on good authority from the prettiest third-year law student I know that this at least appears to meet the requirements for protected political speech.
Now, we’ll leave it to the real lawyers to weigh in, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. Political speech is protected, there’s no credible argument to made for incitement, and the fact that the company allowed him to do it in previous years goes a long way, in my opinion, towards negating any argument along the lines of the workplace not being a public forum.
If you’re too engrossed in AthPo to click the link, here’s the abridged version. Guy works for Gold Kist. Every year for the last four years, he’s celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday by posting the full text of the “I Have a Dream” speech in the employee breakroom. Everything’s cool, until this year, when Gold Kist informs him he’s got to take it down.
I don’t know from law, but my co-editor does, and I’m sure he’ll have a thing or two to say about this when he gets back into town. I do, however, have it on good authority from the prettiest third-year law student I know that this at least appears to meet the requirements for protected political speech.
Now, we’ll leave it to the real lawyers to weigh in, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. Political speech is protected, there’s no credible argument to made for incitement, and the fact that the company allowed him to do it in previous years goes a long way, in my opinion, towards negating any argument along the lines of the workplace not being a public forum.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The Big Three Oh
Mike Lynch makes a good point today about the hypocrisy of the proposed split of Athens' Senate districts.
Oh, and speaking of blatant, shameless self-interest, today's my birthday, bitches! I'll let you put 2 and 28 together on what the age is. Yes, I'm getting old. Probably time for me to do something with my life. I'll keep you posted on my efforts.
Oh, and speaking of blatant, shameless self-interest, today's my birthday, bitches! I'll let you put 2 and 28 together on what the age is. Yes, I'm getting old. Probably time for me to do something with my life. I'll keep you posted on my efforts.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Turmoil in the DA's Office?
A source close to the DA's office tells us that there has been a recent rash of ADA's quitting the office. At least two have quit recently, including the chief assistant DA, and word is that others are looking to jump ship as well. Is this coincidence of personal circumstances, or a larger problem within the office? Not clear. But with a string of bad recent defeats, including the arson case (which was the UGA police's fault, in my opinion, although it perhaps could have been handled better by the DA's office as well), it doesn't look good. And losing a lot of people at once probably doesn't help matters. Here's hoping that Mr. Mauldin, who we think is overall a pretty good guy and a good DA, can keep it all duct-taped together over there. We hope to have more on this later.
The Money Story
We guess campaign season is officially underway now, since the ABH has published the first “money story” of 2006. We’ll sum up. Chasteen and Maddox, decent fundraising; Andy Rusk, not so much; Heidi Davison and Keith Johnson, none at all.
And that’s a great example of why the “money story” is more or less useless at this stage of the game. If Heidi Davison runs, do you think she’s going to have any trouble at all raising the money she needs to be competitive? Are Tom Chasteen and Andy Rusk going to run remotely similar campaigns? Then why would you expect Andy to be competitive with Tom in fundraising?
It’s not so much how much you raise, although that’s important. Andy Rusk, for example, has a fantastic message (albeit one in need of some tightening up), but we’re worried that he won’t have the money to get that message out. Tom Chasteen will have plenty of money, but if his behavior as the Commissioner from D9 is any indication, his message will be safe enough not to piss anyone off. (It’ll also be safe enough not to inspire anyone who wants to move past the status quo.)
It’s not how much you raise, it’s how you spend it. Take a look at Charlie Maddox. According to the ABH, “[Maddox] spent $3,764.47, about two-thirds of it on a campaign Web site.” We were told there would be no math, but by our rough calculations, that comes to about $2,400.00. Ain’t no website in the world worth that much dough, unless you’re running a national or very large state campaign with a fulltime web person to do frequent updates and lots of multimedia and interactive content. We’ve seen Mr. Maddox’s website, and we think he got hosed big time. In a town where you can’t spit without hitting a web designer, he could have done that cheaper. Put in real terms, $2,400.00 buys a decent amount of radio on the local AM stations, which would reach a lot more people, if used at the right time. (By “right time,” we mean October or November. Please, candidates, do not buy advertising now.)
We use that as an example only, of course. We don’t know Mr. Maddox, and he probably doesn’t know about us. But, to tie things back into democracy, you might want to take a look at your favorite (or least-favorite) candidate’s fundraising reports and see what they’re spending money on. It might give you a clue about how they’re going to act with your tax dollars if they win.
More on the money chase and how we’ll contradict everything we just said when we talk about the Jane Kidd/Bill Cowsert race at some nebulous later date.
And that’s a great example of why the “money story” is more or less useless at this stage of the game. If Heidi Davison runs, do you think she’s going to have any trouble at all raising the money she needs to be competitive? Are Tom Chasteen and Andy Rusk going to run remotely similar campaigns? Then why would you expect Andy to be competitive with Tom in fundraising?
It’s not so much how much you raise, although that’s important. Andy Rusk, for example, has a fantastic message (albeit one in need of some tightening up), but we’re worried that he won’t have the money to get that message out. Tom Chasteen will have plenty of money, but if his behavior as the Commissioner from D9 is any indication, his message will be safe enough not to piss anyone off. (It’ll also be safe enough not to inspire anyone who wants to move past the status quo.)
It’s not how much you raise, it’s how you spend it. Take a look at Charlie Maddox. According to the ABH, “[Maddox] spent $3,764.47, about two-thirds of it on a campaign Web site.” We were told there would be no math, but by our rough calculations, that comes to about $2,400.00. Ain’t no website in the world worth that much dough, unless you’re running a national or very large state campaign with a fulltime web person to do frequent updates and lots of multimedia and interactive content. We’ve seen Mr. Maddox’s website, and we think he got hosed big time. In a town where you can’t spit without hitting a web designer, he could have done that cheaper. Put in real terms, $2,400.00 buys a decent amount of radio on the local AM stations, which would reach a lot more people, if used at the right time. (By “right time,” we mean October or November. Please, candidates, do not buy advertising now.)
We use that as an example only, of course. We don’t know Mr. Maddox, and he probably doesn’t know about us. But, to tie things back into democracy, you might want to take a look at your favorite (or least-favorite) candidate’s fundraising reports and see what they’re spending money on. It might give you a clue about how they’re going to act with your tax dollars if they win.
More on the money chase and how we’ll contradict everything we just said when we talk about the Jane Kidd/Bill Cowsert race at some nebulous later date.
Bar Roundup
So yesterday was the bimonthly Western Circuit Bar Association meeting. It was announced that Upshaw Bentley had received a Robert Benham lifetime achievement award for community service at last week's State Bar meeting in Atlanta. Judge Bailey from the Northern Circuit was the guest speaker. John Barrow was in the hizzie, and got "recognized" by President Ken Kalivoda as "now being a resident of Savannah." Heh...that was a little amusing.
Meanwhile, you'll be happy to know that your county tax dollars (I mean you really will be happy...not sarcastically...unless you're fishplate or dawgcorleone and don't want government collecting money in the first place, much less spending it on anything useful) are going in part to renovate the State Court courtroom, starting in mid-February. The jury box will be expanded to accomodate the much-more-frequent 12-person juries in State Court these days, and the courtroom will be brought much closer to the state of the art in technology and such, not to mention aesthetic enhancements.
Meanwhile, you'll be happy to know that your county tax dollars (I mean you really will be happy...not sarcastically...unless you're fishplate or dawgcorleone and don't want government collecting money in the first place, much less spending it on anything useful) are going in part to renovate the State Court courtroom, starting in mid-February. The jury box will be expanded to accomodate the much-more-frequent 12-person juries in State Court these days, and the courtroom will be brought much closer to the state of the art in technology and such, not to mention aesthetic enhancements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)