March 3, 2011

Bus Drivers Deserve Respect Too

by Steve Dana

After watching the video of the school bus driver in our district make national news, it’s clear that the bus driver made a poor decision in dealing with the student bus rider.  He even admitted in a TV interview he had a bad day and reacted to the situation poorly.

I, for one, have a lot of respect for the bus drivers; they do a job that requires technical skill and interactive personal skills.  If all we needed was truck drivers that could manage the bus itself without dealing with the live cargo then being a good driver would be the important consideration.  If in addition to operating the bus, we ask that the driver also wrangle the kids, then that requires different skills.

I entered the school system as a first grader 55 years ago.  There were bus drivers then too, but there was a difference.  In my “old days” bus drivers got more respect and student riders were expected to behave on the bus; if they didn’t behave, they didn’t ride the bus any more.

I know that things have changed a lot in the past 55 years.  Today, kids don’t respect their bus drivers, their teachers and if that is the case, they probably don’t respect their parents either.  I say that because respect starts at home.  Parents who never teach their kids respect seldom get respect.

I listened to parents describe their “near nausea” at the sight of the child being yanked to the floor of the bus.  Did it ever occur to any of them that the child in the video has a responsibility for the outcome as well?  I am not suggesting that a six year old can be responsible in the same way that we expect the bus driver to be responsible, but we have clear rules for riding the bus and we hold the driver responsible for the safety of the kids.  If he fails in that regard, he is subject to punishment.

That looks like the bus driver is in a lose/lose situation.  If he requires that the kids stay in their seats, and they refuse, the bus driver is punished.  If the bus is involved in an accident and the child is injured it’s worse.  If the bus driver takes any aggressive measures to get the kids to comply, he is punished.  So how does that work for the bus driver?

I am not trying to make a case for bus drivers.  I am trying to make a case for the responsibility parents have to teach their kids respect so that when they go out of the home they treat others with whom they interact with the respect they deserve.

It takes hard work to be consistent with kids in teaching them hard lessons.  But if we don’t start teaching those lessons when the kids are young, they rarely learn them at all and we can see where that leads.

What Mr. Taylor should have done was keep his cool that day and subsequently refused to transport that child ever again.  School bus drivers should not be forced to work in conditions where they have huge responsibility and no authority.  Kicking unruly children off the bus is the only tool available to drivers today that considers the safety of the other kids.

And NO, riding a school bus is not a right, it is a privilege.  Abuse the privilege and you lose your ride.  Let the parents figure out how to transport their unruly kids.  And maybe after we get them to school, we apply the same techniques to the class rooms.  Drop by any public school to observe and you may well be truly nauseated.

Some of the righteous parents who are “sickened” by the behavior of the school bus driver should see their little darlings in the class room then tell me who has a right to be sickened.

Judging from what I have seen, Mr. Taylor is showing proper remorse for his actions and has quit his job as a bus driver.  I am sorry if that doesn’t satisfy “outraged” parents.  They can always show how angry they are by suing the school district.  To what end, I don’t know.  Or maybe they can look at the outcome and be thankful things didn’t turn out worse and chock it up as a learning experience for everyone.

Litigation seems to be the answer for parents who never learned to respect other people’s rights either.  They are eager to teach everyone they won’t be disrespected, but fail to learn the lesson for themselves.

March 2, 2011

When Does Poor Judgement become Criminal?

by Steve Dana

Bernie Madoff was in the news the other day.  According to the news story, people were feeling sorry for Bernie because he had to keep the secret to himself that he was defrauding all those investors, rather than sharing the crime with others who might have blown the whistle on him.  How could anyone feel sorry for Bernie Madoff under any circumstances?

The story reminded me how much Bernie’s Ponzi scheme  resembles Social Security and government pension systems.  Each of them requires that someone else participate down the line to provide the revenue to pay earlier “investors”. 

Ponzis are illegal because they are not involved in a legitimate investment activity to produce the revenue to pay investors.  Don’t get me started on what the definition of “legitimate investment activity” might be.  That will be a discussion for another day.

So Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?

With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue.  Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.

Does any of that sound like the problems we face with defective retirement pension systems? 

Bernie’s investors never cared what he was putting their capital into as long as they received their promised return.  Some of them probably suspected that it wasn’t legit but since they were getting paid better returns they kept quiet.

At a time when population was growing and the economy was expanding, revenue was also growing so why would the government want to get off the gravy train either? 

At one time the Social Security system had an actual trust fund with money in it.  Technically the Social Security Trust Fund still exists, but there is no money in it; just IOU’s.  If all the payments deposited in the fund had been invested over the years and the principal had compounded with interest, the system might not be facing insolvency.  My memory thinks President Lynden Johnson and the Democratic Congress raided the SS Trust Fund in about 1967 to pay for the Viet Nam War.  They discussed the implications at the time, but hey, they left an IOU!

They all knew from that time on the system was destined to collapse, but they also knew it wouldn’t happen on their watch so it was easy to rationalize.  Why would any other government entity think it was not okay to steal from future generations when the Federal Government endorsed the plan when they converted from a Trust Fund Endowment to a Government Sponsored Ponzi Scheme?

It will be painful to get back on the right track, but the sacrifices we all have to make will be worth the effort.  None of the alternatives offer an easy fix.

Rules for Pension Systems should require that each City, County, State or other government agency make contributions to “pension reserves” in addition to current pay out requirements to fully fund the pension system and LOAN the money in the Reserve Funds back for Public Works projects at market rate interest.  The key has to be growth in the investment value of the funds.  Forcing elected officials to recognize the impacts of labor contracts by budgeting for them today might be a good tool to keep them in the black.

Justice for Bernie Madoff will be spending the rest of his life in prison.  How do we get justice for the American people?

March 1, 2011

Retirement Trust Funds Can Work!

by Steve Dana

Under the Constitution of the State of Washington, all government entities are required to adopt balanced budgets every year.  But it is allowable to create budget obligations by contract for some time period in the future that are not funded in the period in which they are obligated with the expectation that current revenue will pay current obligations when they come due.

Why can’t we force state and local government agencies to make pro-rated annual contributions to the unfunded pension liabilities, creating a trust fund needed down the road to pay obligations without ravaging current revenues needed to provide current services.

Under the current system, we pay debt obligations and contract obligations first and if we are lucky there might be money for services.

When I was an elected official, the city had equipment replacement funds we contributed to every year so we didn’t have to scramble when equipment wore out.  If we treated employee pension requirements the same way, we wouldn’t have to scramble when our employees wear out and retire.

If we had to make employee retirement contributions, it wouldn’t be so easy to shift the burden to future budgets.  And if employees don’t stay long enough to qualify for benefits, contributions made in their name can either be returned to the general fund or designated for some other purpose.

What seems clear to me is our reserve requirements are not near high enough to meet our obligations resulting in stripping current budgets of discretionary spending.

February 28, 2011

Is This Really About Labor Unions?

by Steve Dana

So what’s the deal with these union guys?  Or what’s the deal with these wise guys in the Wisconsin Senate who have stuck it to their Republican colleagues in the past because they had the power to do who now have resorted to fleeing the state to prevent the Senate from taking action on the budget bill?

In all fairness, I don’t hold the union guys responsible for the trouble either Wisconsin faces or the rest of the country.  That responsibility falls on the elected representatives in both the executive branch (who negotiated the contracts) and the legislative branches for approving the contracts.

And that holds true for every level of government from the smallest to the largest.

I know from experience that the union reps sit down to the bargaining table with a list of “demands” for the upcoming contract.  The government side responds with a pitch counter-offering something less.  They dance back and forth a little and come to agreement.  The contract goes back to the union membership for approval and to the legislative branch for theirs and the deal is done.

So how tough can that be?

On the union side, things don’t get tough unless management refuses to budge on an important issue.  They have to decide how hard they want to fight for each issue.  Get the easy ones settled first then squeeze later for the harder ones.  Sometimes the parties are not able to come together and the union members exercise their rights under collective bargaining rules and stop work.  They are calculating that by stopping or slowing their work management will cave and agree to their demands.  Maybe, maybe not!

The rules of the game for the union are pretty much the same in both the private sector and the public sector with a few exceptions.

The difference between union negotiations with a public agency and a private company is the person negotiating on the private sector side is always a staunch advocate for the company shareholders and the company’s bottom line whereas on the public side, the person negotiating for the taxpayers may well be a union member themselves and not an advocate for the taxpayers at all.  You can imagine how some of those contracts might end up.

The negotiations in public sector contracts often are not negotiations at all.  The union puts their demands on the table and the government guy agrees then goes back to his legislative body and cries about how hard the negotiations were and how he got the best deal he could and we need to approve it.

As an elected official in my city, I was never allowed to sit in on union negotiations with my city manager.  Our council was only given limited details of the contract until it was voted on by the union.  We never had fiscal impact analyses prepared in advance so we could see how our long term liabilities were altered by the changing labor contract.

We were never actually allowed to see any of the details of the contracts until after we had approved them.

I understand that the union members are feeling Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is attacking them because this change will affect them personally.  And I feel for them in that regard.

But I also know what it feels like to be an elected official with a budget to balance and lots of folks with their hand out.  It’s a no win situation.

For years I have been talking about the ticking time bomb with our government pension system.  The issue came up in about 1991 when I served on the Joint Fire Board as one of the representatives for the city.  A fire department in California had been run by Commissioners who were retired fire fighters.  Whenever the contracts came up for renegotiation, they got great settlements with the expectation that when the cash flow got tight, they would just go to the voters to lift the levy lid.  If you present fire department money requests in such a way that failing to approve might result in a family member not making it in an emergency, voters approve.

So when pension commitments started coming due, they had to come out of current revenues since the fire district didn’t put any of that money away as the commitments accumulated.  When voters didn’t go along with raising taxes again, a crisis arose.

So was that a spending crisis or a revenue crisis?

Now take that scenario and apply it to nearly every government agency you can think of and imagine how large the crisis really is.

Sadly, the elected officials who negotiated these sweetheart contracts are long gone and the union leaders only did what they always do in advocating for their members.

Unfortunately the rank and file union members will be the ones that have to bear the brunt of the correction that must take place in order to get government back on a sound fiscal footing.

Elected officials in every district, council and legislature facing budget emergencies now have to figure out how to work around a problem that’s been accumulating for decades. 

I don’t envy them a bit.