Be part of the solution

Trina’s started a virtual brainstorming session over at ProtectOakRidgeKids.blogspot.com, and it’s done in a most tasteful manner. 

Everyone around here knows what happened a week and a bit ago.  It was incredibly easy for some to jump on the "blame" bandwagon (including the local newspaper, via a tasteless poll for readers to throw their virtual daggers), but Trina resisted the temptation to say "I told you so."  Even though she had — many times.

Rather, she’s thrown out a list of suggestions — some expensive, some free, some in between — and an invitation for others to participate.  Collectively, we’re far smarter than any one (or five, or seven), and surely there are some good answers out there.

Some entail personal responsibility; others are decidedly public.  If you have an idea, throw it in there.  Your decision-makers are listening.

Dropout Factories

The Associated Press released a hot story this week, claiming that 1 in 10 US high schools is a "dropout factory."

Tonight though, WATE passes along the caveat that Roane County disputes the claim that Midway and Rockwood high schools are among those.  From WATE:

State data shows Midway High has an 80% retention rate, not 56% as the AP claims.

And the state says Rockwood High has a 75% retention rate while the AP claims the rate is 59%.

I would add that the state’s figures are often misleading as well — and not in the schools’ favor.  The "graduation rate" measures those students who graduate in four years plus a summer, but does not include those who receive a special education diploma, who take an extra semester to graduate (for any reason, including illness or serious injury), who get a GED, etc.  The "dropout rate" is a different number — not the difference between graduation rate and 100%.

Even so, some students are miscategorized as dropouts, when they aren’t.

To honestly address the problem, we must first honestly accept what the problem is, and what it is not.  To be constantly fighting a public relations battle simply takes time and focus away from the real issues.

 

Breaking News – Stuart for Judge

Today, Judge Blackwood issued a ruling the motion for summary judgment by Layton and the Anderson County Election Commission, as was heard on Monday.

The judge denied their motion, which means that they must respond to Stuart’s interrogatories by Nov. 2, and produce the requested records by Nov. 8, in advance of an evidentiary hearing on Dec. 13-14.

It’s a victory for Stuart that should have come more than a year ago, IMHO, and a victory for the voters.  I’ll accept a legitimate result even when it doesn’t go my way, but there were real problems in this (August 2006) election.

I should be Christmas shopping on Dec. 13-14, but this is a show that I’ll want a seat for.

A Day in Court

This morning, Judge Blackwood again began hearing motions in the election contest between plaintiff David Stuart and defendants Don Layton and the Election Commission, after the Court of Appeals found the lower court in error and the State Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants’ appeal.  Thus, we’re back sort of where we started, a little more than a year ago.

At a basic level, the issues are as follows:

  1. That a substantial number of voters took longer to vote than the 10 minutes allowed by state law;
  2. That paper ballots were unlawfully issued in at least one precinct, even though the machines were operational;
  3. That voters were not required to provide identification in two precincts.

In an election where the margin of victory was only 119 votes countywide, it’s entirely plausible that these errors may have made the difference in the outcome.  Stuart simply asks for a do-over, and asks that it be held in conjunction with the already-scheduled countywide election on Feb. 5, 2008 (so as to make the cost to the county negligible).

Stuart has issued several interrogatories to the Election Commission’s attorney, to which the defendant has responded "neither affirm nor deny."  In plan language, that means he’s asked some questions and the Election Commission’s reply was "we don’t know, and we haven’t even tried to find out."

Today, Blackwood set deadlines of Nov. 2 for the questions to be answered, and Nov. 8 for the requested records (the names of poll workers at two precincts where no identification was required of voters, I think) to be supplied to Stuart.  A trial date has been set for December 13-14.

It will be interesting to see this unfold in December.

City and County

County
Anderson County Commissioner David Bolling has resumed blogging, with timely posts on a couple of issues that people have been talking about for weeks (or longer): the county’s payment to an insurance broker (who is also a close friend and political contributor to the County Mayor), as well as full disclosure on the issue of moving the Juvenile Court — specifically, discussion about whether to move the Juvenile Court to the Jolley Building, or to move the Clerk and Trustee’s offices across the street and put the Juvenile Court upstairs.

The last paragraph of the most recent post is the one that gives me hope:

**As a disclaimer, I know that the more I talk about this the more I will be accused of petty politics because I may or may not consider running for County Mayor in 2010. To that, I would say that for the next three years at least, I have the responsibility of being a County Commissioner, and the obligation to do what is right by the people who elected me. I hope that doesn’t ever come across as petty.

David is a good guy — no, better than a good guy: he’s the kind of person I would respect and trust as my County Mayor.

City
When City Council appointed a Charter Review Committee in July, I had some concerns based simply on the makeup of the committee.  It’s not that Council chose poorly, but the pool of applicants was rather limited — not at all the kinds of community leaders who had run for and served on the Charter Commission a couple of years ago.

The Charter Commission implemented the charter review committee, to eliminate the months of effort required of them to update and bring the Charter into compliance with state law.  Their intent, clearly stated, was that the charter review committee would not undertake major policy revisions, but simply a periodic housekeeping function.

Early on — perhaps at the very first meeting — some on the committee began talking about major renovations rather than housekeeping.  Fortunately, they were redirected to their mission.  Now, however, these issues have surfaced yet again.

Oak Ridge resident Virginia Jones has asked a city committee to consider recommending that City Council members be elected from districts.

The city’s seven Council members are currently elected to citywide at-large seats.

To his credit, Chairman Tom Normand said that the committee will remain focused on their primary mission of updating the charter before any other issues are discussed.  However, I am disappointed that the option to consider revisions outside the scope of the committee’s purpose may be considered later, when the housekeeping is finished.  I’m further disappointed in other committee members who indicated an interest in "keeping it on the table."

District representation in a city the size of Oak Ridge is a bad idea for two reasons:  one, it artificially limits the talent pool available to the citizens for choosing those who will represent them on City Council and the School Board, and two, that it introduces a much greater potential for bargaining — things like "I’ll vote for an expensive neighborhood revitalization in your district, but only if you vote for an equally expensive new greenway in mine."  Pork-barrel spending, made intensely local.

With the School Board, the problems could be similar.  We are extremely fortunate (and unusual) to have a school system where resources are allocated based upon need, not greed, and in a balanced fashion.  I would like for it to stay that way — we all should, as it is for the overall health and well-being of our city.

Charter Review Committee: please stick to your designated mission.  If you want to make major policy changes, run for the Charter Commission next time so that the voters will have an opportunity to select you (or NOT) based upon your positions.

Help Wanted

Google "bus drivers" shortage, and the results will show that Oak Ridge’s problem (this one in particular, anyway) is far from unique.

More surprising to me was finding that the hourly rate offered is about the same as places like Northern Virginia, Seattle or Salt Lake City, despite the fact that our cost of living is (along with wages generally) lower here.

Bill Dodge, a frequent writer to members of the school board, claims that Oak Ridge pays drivers 50% more than surrounding districts.  Although I have not verified Mr. Dodge’s claim, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website shows that the mean hourly wage for school bus drivers nationally is just $12.08.

*  *  *  *  *
The News-Sentinel reports this morning that the Anderson County jail is overcrowded again, with 19 positions open.  Of the last 20 to take the Civil Service exam for that job, only 4 passed. Local governments are hiring, but no one’s answering.

Sept. 24 in Oak Ridge

This evening brings two meetings of interest in Oak Ridge; City Council will vote on the second reading of a rezoning ordinance for a proposed hotel in Woodland, and the School Board is set to approve —  on second reading — the 2008-2009 calendar.

At the school board meeting, there is also the possibility that a hearing officer will be selected for a much-publicized personnel issue.  It’s not on the agenda at this point, but board members were made aware on Friday that it might be added if additional information was received over the weekend.

City Council meets at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building, and the Board of Education at 7 p.m. in the school administration building (also the Oak Ridge Preschool).  Because I will be at the school board meeting, I won’t be liveblogging Council — anyone else interested in doing so?  There’s open wi-fi access at City Hall.

*  *  *
Tomorrow at 4 p.m., the Anderson County Ethics Commission (p. 3, bottom of the page) will hold their first meeting; one possible agenda item may be discussion of the County’s firewall policy.  People who work in the courthouse (including state employees) are blocked from accessing several local sites, including yours truly as well as Atomic City Talk, while others more friendly to the current administration are not.

Alan Beauchamp’s PR platform, Inside Anderson County, has been offline for a few weeks now, so access from the courthouse only means that they can all see it’s not there.  Nonetheless, there remains a glaring disparity between sites that are blocked and those that are not, and it certainly has the appearance of being based on whether or not the content is friendly to the County Mayor.

I wish I could be there, but due to other commitments, I cannot.

*  *  *
I predict that the Woodland rezoning will pass, and that the addition of a small but nice locally-owned hotel will have a positive impact on the crime rate in the immediate area (not to mention a positive impact on the tax base citywide).

Two Woodland residents in close proximity to the property in question have indicated to me that they hope the rezoning passes.  I have to wonder how many others there might be, who are simply keeping quiet to avoid conflict with their neighbors.  I suspect there could be quite a few.

Censored Again!

Anderson County government is again selectively blocking websites from County computers, but only those where content might be found that certain officials deem politically disagreeable.

Two days ago, I praised them for removing the block, but it must have been an accident.  This morning, I’m blocked again, as is BullMoose and Atomic City Talk.  My speculation for the reason is that all three of these have been home to some discussion about double-dipping on the County payroll, critique of the Budget Director (Gail Cook) for refusing to release to County Commission a list of all County employees who are paid out of multiple pay codes, possible insurance contract kickbacks, etc.

In my view, that’s a reasonable topic for public discussion.

Personally, I’m tempted to contact Lewis Cosby — the retired CPA who recently undertook a review of problems in Knox County — and see if he might be interested in digging into Anderson County’s records as well.  The guy could quickly develop a reputation of being the taxpayer’s Superman.

I’ll say it again: if the County deems it necessary to ensure productivity by blocking non-work-related websites, so be it.  But if they’re going to do so, they ought to be blocking ALL non-work-related sites, including those owned by County Mayor Rex Lynch’s direct reports for personal profit.

Unblocked!

I just got word that Anderson County employees have regained a little freedom in their online reading.  A few weeks ago, several local sites were selectively blocked from county computers, including Citizen Netmom, Bull Moose, Atomic Tumor and Atomic City Talk that I know of.

To block nonessential sites from the workplace, while a bit draconian, is entirely within the employer’s rights.  Acting to keep government employees from wasting time on non-work activities is okay too, so long as it’s equitably administered — i.e., all similar sites are blocked. 

That isn’t what was happening at Anderson County, though.  While Atomic City Talk was blocked, the Oak Ridger forum was not, with the key difference being that there was a thread on ACT that might be construed as critical of certain local officials, while Mushroom Cloud was sucking up over at the other place.  It was blocking based upon political opinion, not conserving time.  At the same time, three local blogs were blocked, while at least one county employee’s personal promotional site is not.

In any case, we’re back online.  Thanks to whomever pulled the plug on that bad idea.

If you’re gonna “just say no…”

I thought about liveblogging tonight’s Council meeting, but I’ve settled instead for watching it from the comfort of my bed.

Everyone in Woodland seems happy about the recent police roundup of crackheads, but too many are just as exercised, breathlessly decrying the "encroachment" of business into our community.

We said NO to a new, upscale shopping center that would have provided a nice accent to our quality of life. We said NO to growing our tax base, keeping more of our sales tax dollars at home. Tonight, it seems like a fair number of Woodlandites have turned out, pre-written speeches in hand, to say NO again.

Sadly, the proposed hotel would be far nicer, far more upscale than any of the adjacent homes. Let’s hope Council shows some backbone and votes, like the Planning Commission, unanimously in favor of Shalish Patel’s Holiday Inn Express.

Jane Miller moves approval, which was seconded. Tom Hayes asks about the center turn lane (Jerry Kuhaida’s referenced "suicide lane"), which does indeed carry traffic in both directions. It does that regardless of whether or not the hotel is approved.

Ellen Smith says she intends to vote against it, but proceeds to ask a number of questions anyway — about sidewalks, about construction access (which will be off Illinois Ave, not through Woodland), about whether the landscaping will be on the hotel’s property, elevation drawings, etc. A lot of questions, from someone whose mind is already made up?

If you’re gonna say no, don’t be unhappy when no business wants to even look in our direction. Don’t complain that your only choice is Wal-Mart. Don’t gripe if all our rowers end up staying (eating, spending their money) in Knoxville. And please, don’t gripe when your only neighborhood business is the crack dealer.

The rezoning passes 4-3, with Golden, Mosby, and Smith voting no.