I’ll offer a brief comment on one aspect before I leave you to read their article.  One of the reasons given, by an official who participates in the meetings, for not broadcasting open meetings on cable was “that meetings should not be taped because they are an opportunity to ‘not really worry about what we are saying.’”

I really do understand, and support, the need policy makers have to be able to have free flowing discussion without having to monitor every word they say before they say it.  A public meeting, however, is not the appropriate venue for that.  There are certainly work-arounds: tabling that particular matter until the next meeting; or taking a brief recess to allow board members to think over the issues and what they want to say or what questions they want to ask.

I certainly want all the people who set the rules by which I’m to live–from the city council right up to Congress–to have the time they need to educate themselves, ask stupid questions, make stupid comments, in the context of private conversations.  But when it comes to public meetings, the more open the better.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

The thought of the Little Rock incident touched on another memory, one closer to home, in Charlotte, NC.  It’s one that my dad, Kays Gary, wrote about in 1957, the first time a black child attended a previously all-white school in Charlotte.  Here’s what Dad wrote about Dorothy Counts, offered here as food for thought on this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day:

Dorothy Counts

A head needs no face for expression.

The way it is carried upon the neck tells all.

If it is too high it shows defiance.

If it is too low and twists from side to side with a forward thrust of the neck it is full of shame.

Between these extremes is the posture of dignity and confidence, and a certain blend of humility and pride.

And that is the way she held her head.

They spat and she was covered with it.

Spittle dripped from the hem of her dress.

It clung to her neck and her arms and she wore it.

They spat and they jeered and screamed.

A boy tumbled out of the crowd and hit her in the back with his fist.

Debris fell on her shoulders and around her feet.

And the posture of the head was unchanged.

That was the remarkable thing.

And if her skin was brown you had to admit that her courage was royal purple.

For how many of us could have taken that walk to and from a school?

Originally published September 5, 1957, in The Charlotte Observer, and copied here with permission.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

Last week I posted the latest and last decision in my Kafkaesque journey through the Looking Glass world of the OPR. Click here for that post and the history covered in it. This week I unpack that decision.

Last January I posted an update at the point I was told that the OPR would be getting a new psychologist, presumably one without any conflict of interest, on the Investigative Team (IT) to review the complaint against Mary Willmuth. I was told then to expect it to take another month or two, but knew better, and so wasn’t surprised when it was another five months before I heard anything.

So, what happened with the new, unbiased psychologist they were to have gotten on the IT? And what happened with Ed Adrian, the attorney who had shepherded the case for about two years? His boss, Robert Backus–whom I mentioned in last week’s post as far from being free of appearances of conflict of interest himself–doesn’t spell it out, but here’s what Backus wrote in his Report of Concluded Investigation:

Consideration was given to hiring a licensee [i.e. a psychologist] to review the evidence to aid the prosecutor [Adrian] in evaluating the complaint. However, the prosecutor originally assigned to the complaint [Adrian] requested that Prosecutor Backus review the case and determine the appropriate procedure. The original prosecutor desired the opinion of a second prosecutor. Accordingly Mr. Backus, the senior prosecutor for the Office of Professional Regulation reviewed the file and determined that there was no need to consult with an expert. [Emphasis mine.]

Ah, what a surprise! Not. At least not after one has gotten used to this being Kafka-Carroll Land. As that’s the last reference to Mr. Adrian, it appears that Backus also decided to just take over the case.

But this gets even better yet. Better, that is, from the point of view of showing clearly why Vermont needs a State Ombudsman Office. It’s much worse, however, from the point of view of anything approaching justice having been served.

The complaint against Willmuth centered on her conflicts of interest. There is only one of those that Backus treats as worthy of comment, and I’ll get to that in a moment. But very much worthy of notice is that the OPR investigator didn’t quite do a complete investigation. I know this because a witness to one of WIllmuth’s conflicts of interests was never contacted by the OPR.

This is a common trick used by all sorts of people in adversarial cases. It’s deeply disappointing when it happens in the office of perhaps the most idealistic of elected state officials. The trick works this way: if you want to make sure you don’t have any evidence of something, just don’t look for it. An example to illustrate: I once had a client who had a worker’s comp claim that his employer’s insurance company was trying to dodge. To that end they required him to see a psychiatrist in Boston for an evaluation to determine if he really suffered from depression related to his work-induced physical disability. He was surprised–as was I–when the Boston psychiatrist allowed him to tape their interview, but the psychiatrist didn’t really care. He was getting paid by the insurance company one way or the other. His evaluation to the insurance company said, predictably, that he found no indication that my client suffered from depression. When the client and I listened to the tape together, the reason became clear: the psychiatrist had not asked a single question about depressive symptoms.

So the OPR did not interview the one person who would have confirmed one of Willmuth’s conflicts of interest, and that way they had no evidence of it.

There was, and is, however, one conflict of interest that is clear from the record, and incontrovertible to everyone who lives outside of Kafka-Carroll Land, which Backus clearly does not.

Mary Willmuth acted in a conflicting dual role in my case in that she was the psychologist on the IT who recommended I be prosecuted, and she then served as the state’s purported “independent” expert witness against me.

Here’s the Looking Glass spin Backus puts on that. I’ve edited slightly for brevity only:

The allegation that the Respondent [Willmuth] acted in a dual role is based on a misunderstanding of the role of Board members on the Investigating Team. [Emphasis mine.] The Board member gives the prosecutor an unbiased, and expert, opinion so that the prosecutor can understand the professional standards applicable to a given case and whether or not those standards have been violated. If called upon to testify it is the role of the Board member to provide the same expert and unbiased opinion. [Emphasis mine.]

Oh, dear–where to start?

First, Backus’ fantasy supposes that the Board member starts with no bias. Remember, they conveniently didn’t interview the one person who would have confirmed Willmuth’s pre-existing bias.

Second, once a psychologist has recommended for prosecution, he or she is no longer unbiased, having invested some degree of professional credibility in the recommendation to prosecute.

Third, and the point at which Backus’ position starts falling apart in a serious way, is this: If it was a “misunderstanding” that a Board member is in conflicting roles to act as both an IT member recommending prosecution, and a purported independent expert witness, then that “misunderstanding” was shared by the Board members who excluded Willmuth’s testimony from consideration in my case, as well as the Board’s attorney who allowed them, perhaps even required them, to exclude her testimony.

Wow. There are so many people misunderstanding that one that we’re all to count ourselves very fortunate that the one person on the planet with the “correct” understanding was available to enlighten us all.

Last but not least for this post: Backus rightly notes that a licensee expert on the IT [usually but not always a Board member] is there to help the prosecutor “understand the professional standards applicable to a given case and whether or not those standards have been violated.” And as Backus also revealed, he decided not to hire an expert to advise him or Adrian, as prosecutors, on that very issue. He decided to dismiss the complaint against Willmuth without benefit of that kind of professional opinion regarding her violation of professional standards.

There’s more Kafka-Carroll Land details to Backus’ opus, but I’ve hit the highlights and the rest would be repetitive detail for this post, so I’ll spare you. The rest can wait for the book.

Remember that all this is taking place under the authority of Deborah Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State, who presents herself as a champion of responsible, open government. To repeat what should be repeated: if Markowitz’s own office is given to so much dodging, obfuscating, and CYA’ing, then we really, really need a State Ombudsman Office in Vermont.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

P.S.  I added another bit of the background, or at least an elaboration of what I’ve posted on BureaucracyBlog, in this post to Green Mountain Daily, 7/7/08.

Consider this from today’s DailyBreeze.com story:

Navigating sometimes rough waters between community factions and city bureaucrats, Wilson has managed to earn the respect of committee members.

“He’s done a good job of trying to keep the battle between the city and the citizens in perspective and on an even keel,” said John Mattson, a member of the Pacific Corridor Community Advisory Committee. “Most importantly, he’s tried his very best to be fair and consistent to all parties and to keep things moving forward.”

Mr. Wilson’s experiences in business, specifically Spirit Cruises, on his schooner “Spirit,” and expanding into restaurants, led him into community involvement as he noticed that as his businesses improved, so did the community. As he says, “A rising tide raises all boats.”

Leaving San Pedro and jumping across a continent and the Pond, there’s a community in the UK that could really use their own Jayme Wilson just now. The Milton Keynes Citizen today reports that the city council “drove itself to the brink of collapse last night.”

At issue in Milton Keynes are a two-month old no-confidence vote against a councillor that stemmed from a school build scandal, and calls for her to step down despite her having been elected council leader last night, in which position she will sit with a cabinet stripped by the council, also last night, of all power.

Further, there is a move underway to change the Council’s constitution. The council’s lawyers have warned that “…last night’s interim move to shift power away from elected councillors may be illegal and the Government could intervene through the High Court.”

Maybe Jayme Wilson could just hop over there after his honors dinner tonight.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

Town ends comical ‘Stop’ signs like ‘Stop! In the Name of Love’

1 day ago

OAK LAWN, Ill. (AP) — Oak Lawn has removed comical remarks in octagonal shapes it placed under stop signs in an effort to get motorists to obey the law.

Mayor Dave Heilmann says the Illinois Department of Transporation determined the signs violated the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. He says had Oak Lawn not removed the signs, the city could have lost federally funded projects.

For a picture of one of the signs, go here.

Notice how the state trumped the city because of federal rules.

We need a bureaucratic set of lyrics to go to the tune of “The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone.”

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

What rhymes with “antlers”? (Jack Bog’s Blog)
We’re on the mailing lists for all sorts of communiques from the City of Portland. Lately we got two city bureau newsletters — one from the Bureau of Development Services (which I think is what they used to call the building permit office), and the other from the Water Bureau. They make an interesting contrast.

The BDS version, which bears the hopelessly Kafkaesque title “The Plans Examiner,” is a grim two-color affair, mostly covering wonkish news that only bureaucrats and developers could love…

Having recently been dubbed by JD Ryan at Green Mountain Daily as a “bureaucracy wonk,” I want to make clear that “wonkish news” that “bureaucrats could love” does NOT equate to news that bureaucracy wonks could love. I find the contents of “The Plans Examiner” he cites to be just as stultifying as one would imagine a publication of that title being.

That said, I do appreciate Jack Bogdanski’s application of the term “Kafkaesque” to the realm that spawned it, and which too few people recognize these days. In Kafka’s defense, however, he was merely a genius who saw what really was, and it’s a tad unfair that his name is synonymous with the ugliness he articulated so clearly. But there you have it.

I also appreciate Jack’s pointing out to the fair and otherwise citizens of Portland, Oregon, that they have paid for the two publications which he cites. People should know just how their money is spent. And if a number of Portlanders feel that their money was misspent in the publication of either or both of these communiques, I do hope they will express their dissatisfaction to the powers that be, and won’t simply not bother because it’s not so much money at issue. As always, I persist in my belief that we wind up with the big abuses because we tolerate the smaller ones.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

Porn viewing runs amok at DC agencies

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON –

An investigation of city computers found that dozens of employees frequented pornographic Web sites at work and clicked on thousands of images, the mayor said Wednesday.

The D.C. powers-that-be are to be commended for taking immediate remedial action after discovering the problem, but one wonders just what they were doing that allowed the problem to become so enormous. 

I also can’t help wondering if, prior to the employee complaint that resulted in this clean-up, there had been others, and people told to just keep their mouths shut.

Coming soon: a report on back channel communiques from bureaucrats.  There are good bureaucrats out there who want to see all kinds of problems corrected, but who can’t speak publicly for fear of losing their jobs.  I have been hearing from some of them.

Later, and Peace.

Deborah Alicen

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure and honor of doing research for Si and his wife, Elizabeth Minnich, for their book, The Fox in the Henhouse: How Privatization Threatens Democracy. Si has been working for many years against private for-profit prisons, the ramifications of which are staggering. Thus far in this blog I’ve mostly written about and cited examples of bureaucratic abuse and corruption that have power over others at their center. The profiteering, though astronomical, is for many people secondary to the power.

In the case that Si writes about, it seems that the profit motive comes first. The bald arrogance of it–to pursue the building of this private prison through the city and county even long after the state of North Carolina has ceased to outsource prison management–speaks to an overweening sense of entitlement by some who have come to mistake the public trust as their private right.

I should know better, as a psychologist, but there’s still a part of me that can’t help but wonder how anyone can even imagine they should be allowed to make a fortune off of other people’s misery, even were that a matter of skulking along humanity’s darkest baseboards in the smallest hours of the longest nights. But right out in broad daylight, as if it were a good thing and even a public service to do so–that deserves all the outrage it is generating, and more.

Here’s to the day when such an idea will be recognized as unconscionable across the board.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

Mark Green: Rudy Watch IV: When “Transparency” Means Secrecy and Deception – Politics on The Huffington Post Three City Officials got police security and city cars over eight years — Rudy, me and Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Tragically, Hevesi years later as the State Comptroller was indicted and convicted of misusing public funds to transport his ailing wife. It’s impossible to explain ethically or legally why Hevesi was convicted and evicted from public office for misusing his security detail for private reasons while Giuliani gets off scot-free by misleading or stonewalling journalists who ask about this scandal.

There’s the deal: whether or not one is held accountable often depends on one’s degree of power within and over the bureaucracy.

As in NYC or D.C., so too in Montpelier? Quite likely. More about that shortly.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen