Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

Whoa, and does he ever.  He accuses this writer's past - and society's continuing - nemesis, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), of "killing our children" (and I can't say that's wrong).
This is why Akindele's Unleashed blog is clearly one of the best in the Michigan blogosphere.

Here's a sample of his powerful critique:

Every now and then I look at what BAMN is doing in the community. Here are a socialist group of bandits that causes more hell than a headache.

First, they were against my friend Ward Connerly and the whole affirmative action thing. Thank God my sister Jennifer Gratz and company won that war. We thought BAMN would go away and crawl back in their cave.

I guess not.

Now, these misfits are having a town hall meeting on solving the crisis of public education in Detroit. [Dec. 6 if you're interested].
...
Again, where is BAMN on these critical issues [charters, parenting, and choice]? Where are those quacks Steve Conn and Heather Miller?
...
BAMN is doing nothing but keeping our children angry. Our children do not need anger. Our children and parents need options.

Having seen the Conn game and Ms. Miller an action, I'm fond of Akindele's use of terms here, even if it is slightly over-the-top. When you incite riots and take your children out of classes for your political machinations and you're a public school teacher, the term "quacks" is has a descriptive truth to it despite its ad hominem nature.

The Howell Public Schools has witnessed its third school board resignation in six months. In addition to the two elected seats in May, that means that the majority of the board will be completely new by the time the next selection is made.

Howell is clearly a district in turmoil. Zarko Research met (and indeed communicated with) for the first time on Monday evening Howell's notorious Vicki Fyke, at a Duncan Hunter speech here in Oakland County we were covering for OaklandPolitics.com. Fyke informed us of Doug Norton's retirement, and attributed part of the cause of that to Zarko Research FOIA work. Nonetheless, we would disagree with that interpretation and suspect Norton's reasons were broader. The ZR FOIA simply wasn't that important and at best only exposes conditions in the district, not creates them. Clearly the district has issues that are affecting a whole range of people, and our reporting can not be a driving force behind that. Here's Howell's press release yesterday:

The Board of Education of Howell Public Schools announces a second Board Member vacancy, effective October 11, 2007.

Parties interested in applying for this unexpired Board Member term should do so at the Board of Education Office located at 411 North Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone who showed interest in the seat made vacant by Mary Jo Dymond’s resignation, MUST RESUBMIT A LETTER OF INTEREST for filling the vacancy left by Susan Drazic’s resignation.

In order to apply, interested parties must submit a brief letter of intent or Interest in Board Vacancy Form, in hard copy, (no emails or faxes will be accepted) at the Board of Education Office no later than 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Material received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

When the letter is submitted, each party will be provided with a more detailed set of qualifying questions which should be completed and returned in hard copy (no emails or faxes will be accepted) to the Board Office no later than 11:00 AM on Friday, October 19, 2007. Materials received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

Qualifying candidates will be screened and interviewed in person at a Regular Board of Education Meeting set for Monday, October 22, 2007, at 7:00 PM.

During the interview process, each candidate should be prepared to give a brief oral statement. The board will then do its evaluation and decide on the appointment.

The candidate appointed, as early as October 22, 2007, will serve only the unexpired term until the point of the upcoming School Board Election currently scheduled for May 6, 2008.

Philip Westmoreland, President

Howell Board of Education

UPDATE: RepublicanMichigander, a former Howell resident, has excellent ongoing coverage of the issue. 17 people applied for the first seat, and no doubt most will double up for the second. Fyke is among them, apparently.

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

The Lansing State Journal apparently is taking a world of criticism from State of Michigan employees for publishing a database of all 53,000 employees. The employees somehow feel their names should be excluded from the list and that the LSJ has violated their privacy. Here a media law student, Jane Briggs-Bunting, defends the LSJ, the LSJ defends itself, while here and here they are attacked and news story on the criticism, as they are in numerous letters to the editor.

This is just public employee whining, and while, in some cases these employees may be sincere in that they "feel hurt", LSJ has done nothing wrong. Part of democracy sometimes includes people, particularly government employees, accepting the consequences of their choices. Working for government is a choice, and the people are entitled to know who works for them, not just the job titles. Of course, one of the choices is whether to work for government. Many employees say they have "sacrificed" private sector opportunities to do so - perhaps they have, but if its too great a sacrifice then they should go into the private sector where 1) they have less legal right to complain about what their boss does 2) they might or might not make more money or benefits. While LSJ's subscriber base has a large number of government employees who live in Lansing, it is paramount that LSJ stand up for what is right despite the pressure it is facing. If it doesn't, it won't matter - someone else will publish it in their stead.

It has been said that there is no possible use to the public for the names us than "prurient" interest or to create dissent against government employee salaries and neighborhood jealously. So what? Even if the public is morbidly curious, or especially if it creates a concern about overpaid salaries, that is the public's choice and right. The public can decide for itself if the salaries are too high. For example, Zarko Research has been working on publishing a similar list for the 38,000 University of Michigan employees, with names. The top thousand employees salaries are simply offensive. Those officials should be exposed, with names, and how does one "draw the line" between which names should be disclosed and not disclosed, other than simply publishing them all. Sure, the janitors and teaching assistants are unpaid, but they themselves can use the collective and individual information for a strong public purpose - knowing whether they are paid according to relative worth and lobbying for fair pay (note, the public employees of the State also benefit in that way). Such information can be used to guarantee or prove racial or gender discrimination cases, another benefit to the individual employees. Finally, only with name linkages can a researcher or citizen cross-check campaign finance donations to the list and know how his government employees are lobbying his own government for whatever purposes. These linkages would allow one to find "out-of-place" patterns, such as patterns of low-paid employees making large donations to candidates (say a janitor donating the $3400 to the Governor).

Sure, individual government employees may not at first glance like their name and job title being published, but in the long-run its better for both the public and the individuals that we don't literally have a secret government. Who works for government and how much they make is among the most basic facts of government. If we can't know that, we might as well scrap FOIA and OMA and forget about democracy.

The Livingston Argus is reporting through "sources" that the secret deal between the Howell Education Association and the school bargaining team representatives essentially saves the district nothing.

Sometime soon — perhaps next Monday night — the Howell school board will vote to ratify a three-year contract with its teachers.

As with most such contracts, the details won't be revealed to the public until after the labor agreement is approved.

But if there is truth to the rumors that have leaked out about the contract, we have to wonder why the board waited a full year before signing this deal. In the final analysis, it doesn't appear that the district gained much by digging in its heels.

According to a number of off-the-record sources, there are several key parts of the contract:

# The expensive MESSA-administered health insurance remains.

# Teachers, who up until now have paid nothing toward their premiums, will now be assessed a modest amount: $600 retroactively for the year just ending and $750 for next year.

# Raises are small — a percent or less for the first two years of the contract. But remember that the majority of teachers also receive experience — or step — increments, which means their pay will increase by about 5 percent a year.

If these contract features are true — no board, administration or union spokespeople will comment — then the management in Howell schools has decided not to take a hard line in negotiations. That's too bad. For if there were ever a time to hang tough, this was it.

Zarko Research suspects the Argus is correct, although we have no way of verifying it and it may or may not be a rumor that is being spread for some other reason.

While ZR doesn't advocate a "hard line," it believes fair (obviously that has hugely variant meaning) concessions should have been made on both sides and that the Board should stand on principle, and this appears to be a one-sided deal as the Argus recognizes. If the Board was right in February and there was a budget crisis necessitating its February actions, then reverting to and accepting a pre-February offer by the union proves the Board either lied then or is lying now about the fundamental fiscal position of the school. Either it had the money then to accommodate the union's requests, or it didn't. Either the future fiscal crisis of exploding health care costs is serious, or it isn't.

This is a great reason why all collective bargaining agreements should be public. Indeed, not just the final agreement, but make the meetings open. While FOIA might seem a fruitful way of getting at it, case law on the issue is confusing and FOIA would allow enough of a delay through its normal response time that it wouldn't be productive in most cases anyway. The legislature must act to reform the Open Meetings Act and FOIA to prevent this kind of secrecy. The public has a right to advance consideration of any proposed final contracts - we're not even talking about events pre-dating the final agreement here. Indeed, the entire collective bargaining process should be subject to open meetings. When you negotiate with the taxpayer for money, the taxpayer should be able to watch. Period. It's simple. It's obvious.

Someone blinked - but the School Board can still stand up for what is right.

The Detroit News editorial board has chimed in on the Michigan Education Association's ridiculous argument that the actions of union-official teachers on public time should generally be exempt from FOIA.

And they hit the nail on the head. The editorial title says it all: "If taxpayers pay for it, they should see it." And the money shot:

"A private group like the MEA is entitled to keep secrets, but not on public property. If it can afford to be one of the state's most generous lobbying outfits, it can afford to make sure that officers of its locals conduct business on their own computers."

And as to Doug Norton's arguments that I have "an ideological bent" against unions - aside from its absurdity (I grew up in a two union-parent household) - it's "irrelevant." FOIA applies to even those the Michigan Education Association dislikes, as the News points out. If the Freedom of Information Act only applied to those without "ideological bents," it would, of course, apply to no human being. Zarko Research has never claimed to be a non-editorializing news source. And while I struggle to present well-documented and tight original source evidence as often as possible, conclusions are drawn - and my history and potential biases are out-in-the open right here on this site.

And so much for Doug Norton's "friendly lawsuit" statement. Raymond Davis, Howell Public School's attorney seems to put that bold spin (I'm being generous this morning) to rest.

The Michigan Education Association (MEA) has filed a so-called "reverse FOIA" lawsuit in Livingston County Circuity Court, Case # 07-22850-CK, against Howell Public Schools in an effort to keep e-mails requests by Zarko Research secret.

A limited selection of these e-mails were published on Friday days after we received a partial response from Howell schools complying with the FOIA request. The court has issued a temporary restraining order while it considers arguments, and the first hearing is expected on Thursday.

ZR opines that the MEA has no basis in FOIA for such a move and that this is a transparent attempt to keep secret public records that are embarrassing to local MEA officials. MEA's very action here - coupled with the incriminating e-mails already released - proves it has much to hide.

Press may contact ZR at 248-930-7766 or by email firstname at first-lastname.com

Links to ZR Howell FOIA work

Howell School FOIA Exposes Union Leaders Use of Taxpayer Resources for Lobbying.

FOIA of E-mails Expose Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=677&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
More Howell Emails
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=680&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Both are long-stories, and I'm using this entry as a top-of the fold placeholder to link quickly to each. These stories involve several months of research.

Southern Poverty Law Center Director Accuses this blog of Illegal behavior (without evidence)

ZR Expose of SPLC Admission of "No need to Justify" Decisions on Hate Group
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=673&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Open Letter to SPLC on Gratuitous and False Inclusion of Ward Connerly in Report
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=674&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
SPLC Responds by Email Accusing ZR of Illegal Conduct, "Unhinges"
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=676&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Howell School FOIA Exposes Union Leaders Use of Taxpayer Resources for Lobbying.

FOIA of E-mails Expose Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=677&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
More Howell Emails
http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=680&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

(redated to keep at top of blog - original 5/4/07 11:36)

As I parse through the Howell email received this week, I've found other examples of wider-scale use of school position, time, and resources to "recruit" for the teacher's union purposes. Here's a new one:

Deb Kelleher, 3/15/2007, to wide audience of teachers.

This is who I know of helping as of now:

Carol Elliot = 4 - 5 @ HWMS

Cathy Esbrook = 4 - 5 @ Three Fires

Sarah Needham = 4 - 5 @ HWMS

In addition, Jill Cain will be handing out flyers @ SE for an event today. I dropped off flyers to Carole, Jill, and Cathy (check your mail box if I didn't directly hand them to you. Any further volunteers can get the "hand-off" of flyers from the person before (if we get more volunteers). The last at their location can send the remainder to me (Deb Kelleher @ HWMS) via school mail

Lindsey, can we get a few more of the new version of the community letter... I am starting to recruit people for leafleting at elementary conferences next week (can elementary teachers please give me the specifics of dates times)

John King of WHMI, Howell, MI, radio, interviewed me this morning regarding the Howell teachers union FOIA. See below for the ZR original.

In this investigative piece, the Flint Journal takes to task a group of school board candidates in the upcoming May 8, 2007 elections for having missed personal opportunities to vote in the past. By simply checking the qualified voter file maintained by the state, or a city or county clerk's files for local elections, one can come up with this fairly rapidly. Here's the upshot:

They're asking for your vote May 8, but five of 21 candidates for the Board of Education haven't voted in the past five Flint school elections, and five others have cast ballots in only one of them, according to city of Flint records.

None of the candidates voted in all five of the elections; five of them voted in four.

Some candidates with spotty records downplayed their significance; others said voters should take note.

"It's hypocritical to ask someone to vote for you when you don't participate in the democratic process," said candidate A.C. Dumas, among those who voted in four of the five elections.

ZR has a bit of a different take. While there is validity to the criticism that a candidate didn't previously vote, I'll bet many of you didn't even know there were school board elections on May 8, or if you knew, the elections may have been uncontested and it wouldn't be productive to spend your time casting a ballot in a non-competitive election. We suspect the lower voter turnout even among people now running for school board is that they didn't know about - or races weren't competitive enough - for them to vote in previous elections. That's a problem.

These elections are so-called "stealth elections," designed to have maximally low voter turnouts so schools or municipalities can more easily pass their millages and bonds by turning out teacher's unions members. A local election typically costs $10-50K to administer, so multiplied across the state, this would be a superb low-hanging fruit (low hanging in how it would impact government) to work on for consolidation. In 2004, Republicans lead by state Sen. Ruth Johhson thought they had a solution when they limited elections to 4 dates and encouraged localities to move elections to match larger even-year primaries or generals, but only two districts in Oakland County opted for the change. The law did have an effect on ensuring that all spring elections occur on one date (previously not the case), but the real savings haven't been realized. Politically though, this is a high-hanging fruit because unions, municipalities, and school administrators all agree on stealth elections because it increases their power in the lower turnout elections. It's corruption at its best. They have proffered two fake arguments to suggest that we need these unknown, low-turnout elections.

First, is that school board members "need the time to learn the complexity of the school board operations" and electing them in May is the only way to ensure that they come into office in June or July and have a couple months on a board before the school season starts during summer break. The variations on this are that this would "break existing law," (change it, although existing law allows Nov. elections, so school boards can choose it now) require charters to be amended (so what - do it - save the money), or allow current members to serve longer than they were elected for (shorten current terms by 7 months rather than lengthening them by 5). This is so easily solved and even flipped on its head that its laughable - ZR believes it is the first to recommend that schools vote in November for trustee positions and have an extended "Trustee-Elect" term where the members are required to actually sit in the 7 following meetings until June, when they take office. They would actually have more experience under this system. The second type of argument is that schools may need elections for bonds and millages or for unforeseen circumstances. Again, easily solved - aside from the fact that school boards are supposed to plan well-ahead for such things. ZR proposes that all school (and municipalities) elections be held in November of odd years OR August or November of even years, AND schools be given an option to hold their own special elections for millages once per year by special vote anytime they want leasing equipment from their counties (which often resides on school property anyway as they manage local precincts). The real truth of why this hasn't happened yet is that low-turnout elections are more easily controlled by a mobilized force with a vested interest in your tax money. In the meantime, ZR proposes to close the budget delay in school aid payments and make it uniform with the rest of the budget so that schools don't have to take out short-term (weeks sometimes) loans to cover gaps caused by state delays, which itself would save the state money in the long-run. If that happened, schools might actually warm up slightly to such a deal.

We need further consolidation. This legislation could easily be passed - and the time is ripe with the current budget crisis.

Several weeks ago, I was sitting at the computer catching up on late work at 3am listening to the TV in the background. When I heard the topic of the PBS re-run was "Michigan Feminist History" and the University of Michigan was a co-sponsore, I began to pay attention. As the show unfolded, a comment was made without any backing whatsoever that the previous Republican Governor, John Engler, "rolled back women's rights", and the sitting Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm had restored them.

It hung there in the air for a moment.

I was shocked. And I'm not typically one to be overly critical of PBS (though I see no reason for taxpayer money to it) and enjoy much of what they air, this bothered me. Both PBS, and this sponsor, have some obligation to the public not to use public money to further one side's political interests. This was blatant, and there was no evidence or reasoning to back up even an argument for it. It was just plain political.

So I sent an email to the station during the middle of the show. And I received a response. Rather than repeat all the analysis, I'm reposting the email, the response, and my final response, which I think nicely capture the exchange. The upshot is that the "substantiation" of this statement by the film's producers - that Engler "rolled back" civil rights for women - was hinged on the laying off of one employee in a sub-department of Michigan's civil rights infrastructure related to the monitoring of Title IX, and that Granholm allegedly restored that single job upon which the rights of Michigan women so-hinged (set aside that rights are better enforced by private litigation than government monitoring and tinkering). When we've reached a point in civil rights where such rights depend on the existence of government employees, we've identified what the motivation behind the movement really is.

It's classical liberalism's desire to expand government. What better way to do so than to create whole classes of jobs like multicultural officer and diversity guru that can not be removed.

In another recent previous post, I noted how the Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, got himself into hot water by firing an affirmative action officer and changing the status of the office. Here, Governor Engler "rolled back" the entirety of women's civil rights through the elimination of a single mid-level job.

The diversity industry takes every government job it entrenches seriously, no matter how inefficient or what the budget constraints, as this Zarko Research exclusive will show below the fold.

Read more »