The winner is ....

In the recent election over 74,000,000 cast their vote for the eventual and apparent victors, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  Also, we are aware that in excess of 70,000,000 Americans cast their vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  Even though the Biden/Harris ticket received over 4,000,000 more votes than their opponents, that, alone, did not assure their selection as the winners.  The bigger issue in the presidential election are the number of electoral votes ascribed to each of the states.  It is common knowledge that the magic number to win the election is 270 electoral votes and the Biden/Harris ticket exceeded this number.  As of this writing, the exact number is still uncertain as a few states have not concluded the counting of all ballots cast in their respective state.  With very few exceptions throughout the history of this country, the ticket which receives the most popular votes in a state receives the corresponding electoral votes for that state.  As we are aware, the loosing ticket in this election has been fanning the fires of discontent and expressing dismay in the outcome of the people’s choice.  Fraud by various descriptions has been alleged, but up to this point unfounded.  A myriad of lawsuits have been filed, yet none have been found to be valid.  There has not been any evidence presented to substantiate these claims. The purpose of this brief summary of the current situation is simply to provide a backdrop for further discussion.

 As noted, the electoral votes are determined by the popular vote and the legislature in each state must certify the electors which they send to the Congress.  Through the history of our nation, this has been a procedural exercise with little to no drama or problems.  There is but one exception.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes was the Republican candidate and Samuel Tilden was the Democratic candidate.  In the election Tilden received 4,300,000 votes to Hayes 4,036,000 and it appeared as if Tilden had won, but controversy reared its ugly head.  There were contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida.  To resolve the dispute, in January of 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission.  The commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats.  The vote of the commission members was eight votes for Hayes and seven for Tilden.  The final electoral vote was 185 for Hayes to 184 for Tilden and that is how the nineteenth president of the United States was selected.  In addition to the efforts being taken by the Trump administration and his allies through the courts, there is also an attempt to influence Republican state legislatures in selective states, that Trump lost, to submit two sets of electors.  One set for the winner of the state, Biden, and one for Trump.  Congress would be the final arbitrator as was the case in 1876.  Let us hope beyond all hope that this does not occur.

 There is no acceptable evidence that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did not win the popular vote in states that gave them the requisite electoral votes.  I have maintained for most of my adult life that the Electoral College is a vestige of a bygone era.  It did serve a purpose in the developing years of this country, but, I believe, it has served its usefulness and run its course.  To the best of my knowledge, the United States is the only country that uses this system to elect the president and vice president.  Further, at all other levels of government it is the majority vote that selects the winner.  Indeed, I am aware that small states with less population would be affected but look at the underrepresentation in the senate as an example of the power that small states wield in this legislative body.  Each state has two senators; therefore, the senators from South Dakota have as much legislative influence as the senators from New York.  Numerically, there are more of the lesser populated states than those with larger populations, but the representation in the senate is the same.  Is this equitable?  It is time to step back and, objectively, evaluate the purpose and function of the electoral college system.  To be thrust into a situation like the country went through back in 1877 would be devastating to our constitutional system of government and our representative democracy.

 A final note is the failure of the administrator of the General Services Administration, Emily Murphy, to authorize the transition to take place.  Ms. Murphy was appointed to her position by the president and obviously has some measure of allegiance to him.  A function of her position is that she must ascertain the winner of the election by signing a letter to that effect which allows for the transition between the parties to occur.  The delay in authorizing the transition has serious implications for national security, but also can impact the distribution of vaccines, once they are available, to combat the coronavirus.  In a recent opinion piece by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, he quoted the director of the center for public policy at the University of Virginia who stated that national security transitions are complicated and dangerous.  The director goes on to state: “It’s no coincidence that the Bay of Pigs in 1961, Black Hawk Down in 1993 and the 9/11 attacks all came during the first year of presidential terms”.  I am hopeful that the president will come to realize the absolute importance and necessity of sanctioning the transition to occur in a timely and orderly fashion

The fullness of life

I started this blog about two weeks ago, then took a bit of a detour to the local medical facility where I remained for a week.  Trying to get my thoughts back so I can complete this contribution to the ongoing annals of Flying with the crow.

The reality of death is the finality of it. Whether one’s belief structure includes “life in the hereafter” or not, the reality is that the person is gone and not to return.  That is final.  What remains are the memories of a life and an awareness of accomplishments, awakenings, and milestones.  As I reflect on the past few months, there have been the deaths of three individuals that I would like to highlight.  In my judgment, each of them was a giant at a time in the history of the country when there was a critical need for such individuals to come forward.  As I have written in the past, the 1950’s and 1960’s were a time of confrontation, conflict, and tumultuous interactions between individuals supporting different agendas.   Into this morass of dissent came three individuals from the most varied backgrounds, yet with a common theme to their message—doing what needed to be done to promote humanness, dignity and respect for all people.

In July of this year, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia died from the ravages of pancreatic cancer.  Mr. Lewis was born and raised in Troy, Alabama and became involved in the Civil Rights Movement in his early 20’s.  He was a close ally with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  He was the youngest speaker at the March on Washington in 1963 and was a lead organizer and participant in the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965.  From that experience he was beaten and left with a fractured skull.  This latter event was the catalyst for the Voting Rights Bill passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.  Mr. Lewis was arrested on numerous occasions for his peaceful protests to advance the cause of equality for all.  From the time he was a young boy preaching to the chickens in the yard, the “boy from Troy”, was destined to leave his mark , not only in the civil rights movement, but throughout his efforts in Congress.  Characterized as the “Consciousness of the Congress” by politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, he never lost sight of championing the rights of all humankind.  John Lewis will be sorely missed, but there is a legacy that lives forever.

The local paper carried the headline, “Pioneering Justice dies”.  This captures the essence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s contributions as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Justice Ginsberg was truly a pioneer, especially in advancing the rights of women in this country.  Prior to being named to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, she had been recognized as the nation’s preeminent litigator for women’s rights.  Being the second woman named to the high court, she became the leader of the liberal bloc against an increasing conservative majority. One of her celebrated rulings led to women being allowed admission to the Virginia Military Institute—she wrote the majority opinion in the 7-1 decision.  Her interest in gender equality might well have grown out of her own experiences.  She graduated first in her law school class from Columbia, but when she applied for a clerkship with Just ice Fleix Frankfurter, she was denied because she was a woman.  The contributions made by the decisions supported by Justice Ginsberg will remain for generations to come, regardless of what might happen with the court’s composition.  Her legacy will live on.

Over the years, I have been involved with the Alabama Conference of Social Work and as we approached the 100th year of the organization’s existence, I offered to engage in an analysis of those 100 years.  The Conference had it’s beginning in 1916, thus the 100th year was 2016 and those 100 years were filled with an unbelievable amount of history, including world wars,  the great depression, a presidential assassination, a presidential resignation, and multiple movements, including the civil rights movement. In my preparations, a friend introduced me to the Rev. Robert Graetz and his wife Jean.  They came to Montgomery, Alabama in the mid 1950’s and Rev. Graetz was the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church.  The church ministered to a black congregation and one of its members was Rosa Parks who became quite famous as a result of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Rev. Graetz was the only white pastor in Montgomery to support the boycott, and spent his days driving people to work, to shop and to keep appointments.  Rev. Graetz was also the only white member of the Montgomery Improvement Association which grew out of the boycott.  The boycott lasted for a year and proved to be quite successful in leading to changes in some of the local ordinances that discriminated against black citizens.  The KKK bombed the Graetz home on two occasions, put sugar in the gas tank of their car and engaged in other acts of intimidation.  Rev. Graetz was described as “a man of peace, a gentle soul, and a fierce proponent of equal justice”.  Rev. Graetz died on September 20th following a long illness.  It was my distinct pleasure to meet him and his wife and, indeed, his legacy will live on.

Often, individuals seem to be larger in death than in life, but in the case of these three individuals I would argue that their lives were quite large and the contributions they made will live on.  Life is but a vapor and each person must decide how that life is to be lived before the vapor subsides. 

The bed to lie in...

Throughout the years, we have often heard the phrase,” you’ve made your bed, now lie in it”.  I spent over 25 years teaching at the university level, thus I come from a perspective that is grounded in a degree of experiences and observations.  In my judgment, institutions of higher education are one of the most inefficient organizations that have risen to a level of dominance and prominence in our society.   Often there is rampant duplication, gross misuse of resources, a blurring of priorities, and a failure to couch the workings of the institution in a context of reality. The absence of essential productivity among faculty members and administrators has become a hallmark of these institutions. 

The misuse of resources is an area that characterizes the current higher education environment.  Where are the priorities?  In a recent edition of the local paper, The Tuscaloosa News, that included a headline about Alabama football assistant coaches being given significant salary increase.  Now this is at a time when the university is pleading with donors to financially support the university.  The Covid-19 pandemic has certainly had a toll on higher education and will, undoubtedly continue to have a toll in the foreseeable future.  It was within the past few weeks that the Athletic Director encouraged season ticket holders and members of the support group, Tice Pride, to donate what they paid for tickets and Tide Pride fees to the Athletic Department.  Obviously, this could provide some of the resources for these increases.  It is unbelievable that the Offensive Coordinator, received an increase of $850,000 bringing his salary up to a measly $2.5 million.  In the same article, it was reported that the Defensive Coordinator was given an increase of $25,000 bringing his salary to $1.225 million and the Special Teams Assistant Coach received an increase of $75,000 which brought his annual salary to $725,000.  I am aware that the football program brings in a great deal of revenue, but it does seem at times that the tail is wagging the dog in terms of priorities and resource allocation.  Is it any wonder that panic is prevalent in any discussion about the future of college football this coming fall? 

In an August 7, 2020 article in the Washington Post titled, “College sports embraced reckless greed.  With the coronavirus, the bill has come due”, Sally Jenkins has laid bare the culture that is pervasive, especially in the Power 5 Conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, Big 12).  Stadiums have continued to be expanded, plush locker rooms are the norm, amenities such as waterfalls, miniature golf, bowling lanes are included in football complexes.  The salaries of coaches, administrators, and support staff have ballooned, and the bill is coming due.  In her article Jenkins quotes a former NCAA Investigator who stated:” Schools have spent money recklessly for years.  Now they’re in a position where if the season doesn’t go forward, they’re on the hook for millions…There has just been an extraordinary amount of spending on things that have very little resemblance to a university’s mission to educate and develop people.” 

Continuing with the discussion of resources, let me also comment about the absence of productivity.  Specifically, I am referring to the productivity of faculty members commensurate with the respective salaries that are being paid.  A few years ago, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Tuscaloosa News, noting that there were a dramatic number of faculty and administrators at The University of Alabama who were earning in excess of $100,000 per year.  In analyzing the data of that year, it became apparent that some of the highest salaries were being paid to faculty members in the Management and Marketing Department in the College of Commerce and Business Administration.  Several of the faculty members were young and inexperienced, fresh out of their doctoral degree program and had never managed or marketed anything other than, perhaps, themselves. There were certainly other departments in the College of Commerce and Business Administration that paid faculty members rather exorbitant salaries. The argument put forth to justify these salaries was that if Alabama did not pay it, other universities would, and therein lies a big part of the collective problem.  Higher Education as a business, is out of control.  Faculty are demanding to teach fewer classes so that an average workload might consist of 5 or 4 courses in an academic year.  This is indefensible and very costly.  On top of this blatant abuse of available resources is the exponential growth in administrative personnel and support staff within the institutions.   

The number of administrators at universities throughout the country has continued to mushroom.  As these positions continue to multiply, the fiscal resources available must be spread that much thinner.  The figures that were available as a composite array, were several years old, but they do allow for some reflective consideration.  At the University of Alabama there is an Assistant Vice President for Construction and at the time the salaries were reported, he was earning $171, 100.  There was also a Construction Project Director who was earning $113,950.  Are these positions justified—perhaps in a perfect world! Not including the Vice President for Finance there were several individuals who seemed to have raising money as a primary responsibility.  The Planed Giving Officer had an annual salary of $164,080, the Associate Vice President for Advancement’s salary was $157,500, the Assistant Vice President for Development had a salary of $155, 820, and the Director of Leadership Gifts’ annual salary was $122,700.  The average of these four salaries was $150,025.  The President of The University of Alabama had the third highest salaries among the 14 schools in the Southeastern Conference.  At the time figures could be obtain, his salary was $730,000.  I noted earlier that higher education is facing some difficult days ahead and the payment of high-level administrators could well be an essential part of the fuel that is leading to these inflated salaries.  Again, these figures are a couple of years old, but do contribute to the point being made and were included in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Vanderbilt University had the highest presidential salary, $2,147,452, but it is a private school.  The other 13 presidents are at public institutions: Texas A&M University - $1,133,333; University of Alabama - $730,000; University of Kentucky - $687,500; University of South Carolina - $635,548; Louisiana State University - $600. 000; University of Georgia - $552,487; Auburn University - $520,776; University of Florida - $505,776; Mississippi State University - $ $446,100; University of Tennessee - $434,452; University of Mississippi - $429,000; University of Missouri - $397,833; and the University of Arkansas - $339,710.  Do keep in mind that several of the states noted are some of the poorest states in the country, but you would not know this from the salaries being paid to presidents and top administrators. 

Universities across the country are building student living quarters (dorms) that would rival four and five-star hotels.  Additionally, there is a growing phenomenon of recruiting non-residential students.  International and out-of-state students pay, in many situations, double the tuition of the instate student.  This practice enhances the coffers of the university and allows them to build more and more luxurious buildings to attract more and more students.

Indeed, the day of reckoning is at hand.  I have only alluded to the cost of tuition and more needs to be addressed on this topic; however, we do know that student debt is in excess of $1.5 Trillion.  Many students cannot make their payments due to the shrinking job market during the pandemic.  With the unemployment rate being what it is due to the Coronavirus, the possibility of these bills being paid is quite unlikely.  Yes, the universities made their bed and they will have to lie in it, as painful as that might be.

Defunding the police

With the recent deaths of several individuals at the hands of police officers, we have all been witnesses to both peaceful and violent protests to these actions.  Throughout all that has transpired, there have been calls and demands to “defund the police” or to eliminate police departments as efforts to rid our society of these blatant acts of discriminatory behavior.  This rhetoric that can be useful to excite and give a measure of solidarity to a cause, but it is not the answer that addresses the underlying issue of racial disparity in the country.  Indeed, disparities do exist as is evident by the actions of some police officers, but a potential answer lies in thoughtful and planful systemic changes.  

Now, let me make it abundantly clear, I am not advocating for the elimination of police departments nor am I undermining the actions of those who are claiming that change must occur with the police.  What I will be proposing is that there is much to be said about the “defunding” issue and that will be what I focus on with this blog.  There is a need for some entity, either governmental or private, to protect the citizens in a respectful and humane way.  In the absence of such a function, chaos would prevail, and anarchy would run rampant.  There must be a system of laws and rules and the enforcement of them so that there can be orderly interaction between and among various entities, including individuals and organizations.  In a recent article in the Washington Post, Georgetown University Law Professor, Christy Lopez stated: “be not afraid, “’Defunding the police”’ is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds.”  She went on to state: “We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell is that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse.  We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill.   We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.”  What Professor Lopez is stating, is that the police are asked to do many things that have nothing to do with ensuring the public safety of a community or that they are equipped to handle.

A good many years ago, when I came to join the faculty of the School of Social Work at The University of Alabama, I became involved with research and training activities with the Birmingham, Alabama Police Department.  I was encouraged to become involved by my good friend and colleague, the late Dr. Ray Sumrall.  He had been engaged in consulting with the police department in Birmingham and had written several proposals that were funded by the Federal Government.  One study focused on improving the management of the criminal investigation.  This study focused on community policing and having police officers utilize the resources in the community to deal with specific problems that others were better trained to handle.  To accomplish this reorientation to policing, we trained all the sworn officers and their supervisors over a period of several months.  The outcome was that the officers were more inclined to draw upon those resources and move on to other police-specific issues.  If resources are moved from the police department to relevant community-based resources, then this is an example of defunding certain activity that police spend their time handling.

Another approach to address defunding the police, is to consolidate and integrate specific functions of governmental departments.  It has been reported that there are around 130 jurisdictions throughout the country that have consolidated the police, fire and paramedic functions into a single Public Safety Officer position.  Once staff are trained, this can be a much more efficient use of these resources and much more cost effective.  There are several models of integrating these services and these efforts are often met with various challenges.  Not everyone who is a police office can be a fire fighter nor an EMT.  Similarly, not everyone who is a fire fighter can be a police office or have the medical interest required of an EMT.  A winnowing process would have to be recognized if there was a movement in this direction.  Parenthetically, one of the most expensive components of any jurisdiction is a full-time fire department.  There is a great deal of down time which would be filled with police and/or EMT activity.  To utilize fire personnel in this manner would not minimize the role of the firefighter when specific expertise is needed.  Others would be trained to step in.  One of the biggest hurdles of consolidation and integration are the labor unions representing these various components.  They would need to be included to any negotiations to move in this direction.

In any consideration of modifying the role of the police officer, citizen receptivity is critical.  Another study that I had the privilege to be a part of was assessing the extent to which citizens would be receptive to alternatives to their calls for service.  My specific involvement dealt with the development, implementation, and analysis of a community survey which was conducted in Birmingham, Alabama and San Jose, California.  Six criminal categories were included: burglaries (not in progress), larcenies, vehicle thefts, personal assaults, family disturbances, and environmental problems (i.e., road hazards, animal complaints, disturbances such as loud music or parties, etc.).  The individuals who were included in the survey were victims of the specific category, e.g., a person who reported a vehicle being stolen would be included in the vehicle theft category.  For each category 100 completed surveys were completed by trained interviewers who conducted the interviews by telephone.  Each of the victims had been victimized within the three-month period prior to being called by the interviewer.  Briefly, what we found was that in Birmingham and San Jose, the victims who called for service were receptive to an alternative to a police officer responding, immediately.  Further, the findings revealed that the receptivity to an alternative was category specific.  To be receptive to alternatives would allow the sworn police officers to be engaged in activity that they are trained to handle and focused, specifically on the public safety in the community.

There are ways to reconfigure the functions of a police department and that is what should be the focus of the current debate.  Eliminating choke holds as a technique for subduing a person needs to be done, but there needs to be systemic changes, not piece-meal responses.  Police officers do need to be more community oriented as they carry out their duties.  They do need to be responsive to various demographic realities of the communities.  The officers patrolling a specific community should reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of the community.  The inclusion of more police officers indigenous to the community should become normative for the community policing function.  It is my belief that individuals from the community would have an advantage in handling and diffusing potentially volatile situations.  What I have included certainly does not exhaust the discussion, but, hopefully, it is a beginning that can foster additional discussion and lead to substantive changes.

A woeful senate majority...

Shortly after moving to Alabama to join the faculty of The University of Alabama School of Social Work, I recall an article being written which described the ineptness of the Alabama Legislature.  The author of the article stated that , individually, the legislature was made up of, mostly good and honorable people, but, collectively, they were a disaster and unable to function in manner that was in the best interest of the citizens of the state.   As I reflect on the national legislative scene, this same indictment can be directed toward the U. S. Congress, specifically, the Senate.  We all are aware that the Senate is under the control of the Republican party and the leadership of the self-described, “grim reaper”, Mitch McConnell.  In an article in the Washington Post, Dana Millbank, stated that McConnell “…has done more in recent years than any other person to embitter our politics and incapacitate government.”  It was McConnell, that stated that he would do all that he could to undermine anything that, then President Obama, sought to get passed in the Senate.  Many of us will recall the stagnant nature of the political scene in Washington year-after-year during the time of McConnell’s leadership. 

Granted, not all the ineptness lies at the feet of McConnell, yet he is the leader of the “do-nothing” Senate majority.  It is this body that has allowed Trump to do whatever he damn well pleases, with no recriminations, no accountability and no responsibility for his actions.  It is this body that has allowed him to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in supporting his innumerable trips to his resorts, hotels and golf courses.  It is the Senate that has allowed him to funnel millions of dollars away from the Defense Department to build the damn wall on the southern border. It is this majority in the Senate that has failed to raise the first question about Trump releasing his tax returns.  It is the Senate that voted to acquit Trump for obvious and blatant attempts to engage a foreign government leader in internal political dirty work.  It is this Senate majority that has allowed him to replace one Inspector General after another, even though this is to be done under the scrutiny of the Senate.  The concept of oversight and accountability that is built into the role of the Inspector General has become a figment of one’s imagination.  Most recently, it will be interesting to see if one Republican Senator raises the first question about the decision of the Justice Department to drop charges against Michael Flynn, even though he plead guilty to the charges being dropped.  Not sure how that works!!

It is this Senate majority that has said nary a public word about the delays in the administration’s response to the virus that has now taken the lives of close to 80,000, as of this writing.  It is this Senate that has not raised the first public question about the constant denials, confusion and lack of any coherent plan to deal with the ever-increasing death toll in this country.  It is this Senate that has not raised the first public outcry about the lack of adequate and timely testing, tracking and necessary protective gear.  It is this majority in the Senate who have bragged on the efforts of the first responders and the front line workers, but damn well will not provide any of them with any hazard pay for taking their lives and the lives of their family members in their own hands as they do their jobs.  We will put up signs, “Heroes Work Here”, and do flyovers to signify our praise, but that does not pay the rent or care for sick relatives.  In the next stimulus bill it is McConnell and his spineless Republican colleagues who are advocating for the inclusion of protections from being sued due to negligence of protecting workers from the Covid-19 virus.  Big business is to be protected while those on the front lines become expendable.  As one reflects on what has happened on a global scale, it is the United States that has done the poorest job in proactively dealing with the pandemic and the price of this ineptness is paid on a daily basis for all too many lives lost.  Regardless of Trump’s repeated lies and “alternative facts”, this country has been abysmal in dealing with this catastrophe, and it is not getting any better and the future looks quite bleak.

As I mentioned, above, individually these are probably decent individuals, but they have no hutzpah when it comes to dealing with Trump.  As Michelle Cottle noted in her article in the New York Times: “Senate Republicans have sold their souls to Donald Trump, and it’s absurd for them to pretend otherwise.”  The Republican majority has abdicated any sense of checks and balances of the executive branch.  It seems obvious that Trump has wielded unbelievable control over what, one would assume, are intelligent and capable individuals, but who have behaved in a manner that belies any sense of individuality.  During the impeachment trial, there was a glimmer of possible light that flickered away when it came down to taking a stand.  Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, and Mike Lee gave a hint of concern about what Trump had done, but that bit of a glimmer was snuffed out by the inevitable party loyalty taking hold over doing what they knew as right.  This has been what has characterized the members of the Republican Senators since Trump has been in the presidency.  What are they afraid of?  What can he do to them that raises a level of fear that is often seen on the school playgrounds and perpetuated by the local bully?  Is this man that much to be feared?  Certainly, he retaliates, but if there was indeed several Republican Senators who would stand up to him, there is power in numbers.  Why are these mature adults so intimated by the “bully”?  He cannot have that much control over each one of these men and women, yet they behave as if he does.

The Senate continues to sit idly by as Trump replaces anyone who takes a position that is not to his liking.  He has replaced those who have the expertise with those who are simply loyal minions to what he purveys as the answers to what we are living through at the present time.  The virus is for real, but he could give a damn about the number of lives that will be lost as he tries to fan the fires of discontent to get the “county open”.  Yes, we need to move in this direction, but to do so thoughtfully, carefully, and directed by those who know what they are talking about.  Will we see any efforts by members of the Senate majority to take a stand that will be in the best interest of the country or will we continue to see them hide behind the cloak of party loyalty?  If it is the latter, it will lead to one hell of a price to be paid.