Archives for category: Accountability

Governor Gavin Newsom has been fighting a two-front war: the devastating fires in Los Angeles and the massive amount of disinformation about the state’s efforts.

One widespread rumor is that Governor Newsom cut the state’s firefighting budget by $100 million in the year before the LA fires.

Politifact reviewed the facts. As usual, it’s complicated. Newsom did cut the fire budget by $100 million at the same time that the overall fire budget increased. If you want to see how this happened, read the report in full.

Here is the conclusion.

Cal Fire’s budget and spending have grown

Cal Fire’s total base wildfire protection budget has nearly tripled over the past 10 years (from $1.1 billion in 2014‑15 to $3 billion in 2023‑24), according to a March analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office before the 2024-25 budget was approved.

Cal Fire’s overall budget also has increased, with its combined budget for fire protection, emergency fire suppression, resource management and fire prevention more than doubling over the past 10 years from $1.7 billion in 2014‑15 to $3.7 billion in 2023‑24. (Newsom’s office sent us similar information showing budget increases.)

The number of staff members working in fire prevention have similarly grown during that same decade rising from 5,756 to 10,275.

Another way to look at Cal Fire is through expenditures rather than the budgeted amount because it’s not unusual for the state to dip into other pots of money to spend more than budgeted for addressing fires. 

The legislative analyst’s office estimated total Cal Fire expenditures have risen during Newsom’s tenure:

* The 2024-25 amount does not yet reflect additional costs being incurred for the current Los Angeles-area wildfires.

Source: California Legislative Analyst’s office estimate, not adjusted for inflation, provided to PolitiFact

Joel Westheimer is Professor of Education and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. He is also a columnist for CBC Radio in Ontario. His most recent book is What Kind of Citizen? Educating Our Children for the Common Good.

This column appeared in the Globe & Mail in Canada.

When Mark Zuckerberg declared that Meta would stop its fact-checking efforts on its social media platforms, he was conducting a master class in bowing to authoritarianism. The move has been viewed as an effort to placate U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, who has praised Meta’s decision. But while it’s easy to direct our outrage at Mr. Zuckerberg personally, his announcement reflects something much deeper and more troubling: the rarefied world of the modern plutocrat.

Social norms govern behaviour for most people, setting limits on what we deem acceptable. But those norms are no longer the same across different social and economic strata. We would like to believe that commonly held norms reflect ideals of fairness, decency and accountability. But Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellow plutocrats share their own set of norms that privilege shareholder value, political expediency and the maintenance of their unparalleled influence. These norms, values and perceptions of what is acceptable behaviour are shaped not by the needs of democracy or society, but by the insulated, self-reinforcing logic of their own milieu – a logic wherein bowing to a fascist seems reasonable, even admirable.

As former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland pointed out more than a decade ago, plutocrats live entirely insulated from the rest of us. Their lives are global. They move from one Four Seasons hotel to another. They eat at the same restaurants. They see only each other. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, Mr. Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and their peers do not feel guilty at night. They sleep fine.

The chasm between their world and ours mirrors the grotesque wealth inequality that defines our era, an inequality not seen since the days of the robber barons. And like that earlier gilded age, this one is undermining democracy at its core.

The insulated world plutocrats live in also allows for dangerous indifference to the consequences of their decisions. While the rest of society grapples with misinformation, rising authoritarianism and the erosion of trust in public institutions, the tech elite shrug. Their wealth not only shields them from the effects of democratic decline but often ensures they benefit from it. After all, authoritarian regimes offer stable environments for market expansion and profit maximization – no pesky regulations or democratic checks to contend with.

The implications are chilling. Meta’s decision isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a reflection of a deeper decay in democratic accountability. In a world where billionaires and their companies wield extraordinary power, platforms such as Facebook and X have become the de facto public squares of our time. Yet these spaces are governed not by the public interest but by the profit margins of the ultra-wealthy. When this small handful of individuals decide what speech is amplified, suppressed or ignored, they fundamentally reshape the boundaries of democratic discourse.

What does it mean for democracy when the norms governing the lives of the wealthiest people on Earth are so utterly detached from the values of the societies their platforms claim to serve; when truth is sacrificed to political gain; when fascism is appeased to protect market share; and when those with unimaginable resources opt to placate authoritarianism rather than challenge it? These decisions do not occur in a vacuum. They emerge from a cultural context that prizes wealth and influence above all else – even the integrity of democratic systems.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s announcement is a reminder that democracy does not simply erode; it is eroded. The responsibility for this erosion lies not just with one, two or three men or companies, but with a broader culture of plutocratic complacency and complicity. The erosion is cumulative, each decision stacking upon the next to create a structure that serves the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

The rest of us, however, are not powerless. History demonstrates that when perverse norms of the wealthy are weaponized against democracy, people can and do fight back. From labour movements to civil-rights struggles, ordinary citizens have reclaimed power from elites before and can do so again. Norms can be reimagined and reclaimed. It’s time to insist that truth is not negotiable, that democracy is not a product to be monetized, and that the plutocrats of our age should not be above accountability.

The robber barons of old built railroads and monopolies; today’s tech barons shape reality itself. If we fail to hold them accountable, the price will be not just economic inequality, but the very fabric of democracy. And that is a cost we cannot afford to pay.

When I worked in George H.W. Bush’s administration from 1991-92 as Assistant Secretary of Education, I quickly learned about the importance of the Department’s Inspector General. He or she is nonpolitical, a guardian of the Department’s integrity, a watchdog. The IG is a crucial safeguard against corruption. Trump fired a bunch of them Friday night.

He acts as though he is a king or a dictator and the laws do not apply to him.

Heather Cox Richardson explained that his firing of them was illegal:

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people’s safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don’t do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

Scott Maxwell, opinion writer for The Orlando Sentinel, points out a glaring example of double standards of justice: Matt Gaetz and anyone else charged with the same behavior. Matt Gaetz got away with behavior that would land anyone else in jail. It is astonishing that Trump thought he was the right person to hold the highest position in the Justice department.

Maxwell writes:

By now, most of you have probably heard about the U.S. House report on the behavior and actions of former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.

If you haven’t actually read the full report, I’d encourage you to do so.

The descriptions of drug- and sex-fueled parties seem like something you’d expect in a tabloid report about Charlie Sheen — not an American lawmaker recently nominated to be this country’s attorney general.

But the most important thing to know about this report is that House investigators concluded that Gaetz repeatedly broke the law.

The report mentioned “illicit drug use” a half-dozen times and said there was “substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz met with women who were paid for sex and/or drugs” on “at least 20 occasions.”

It cited testimony that “Victim A recalled receiving $400 in cash from Representative Gaetz … which she understood to be payment for sex. At the time, she had just completed her junior year of high school.”

The report’s conclusion: “… there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”

Maybe none of this surprises you.

What should outrage you, though, is that virtually all of this behavior — including multiple accusations of law-breaking — was greeted with a collective shrug by Florida law enforcement.

I know it’s tempting to consider this story just another report about slimy behavior from another slimy politician. But I’d encourage you to look at this report in terms of how justice is generally doled out in this state and country — with powerful and connected people getting a pass while we throw the book at low-level offenders.

In fact, I’d like to juxtapose the Gaetz report to another Florida case I wrote about just two weeks ago in a column titled: “Prison for poor addicts. Deals for wealthy crooks. Twisted ‘justice’ ”

That piece featured a federal judge from Orlando who was incredulous that federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws required him to send a homeless drug addict to prison for five years for taking $30 from a man who asked him to deliver a package of drugs.

Judge Roy “Skip” Dalton argued that this destitute man of the streets with no history of drug dealing needed treatment for his addiction, not five years in prison. Dalton said a lengthy prison sentence wouldn’t make the community any safer, wouldn’t help the man with his addiction and would cost taxpayers gobs of money.

The justification for tough sentences is supposedly that lawbreakers deserve no mercy or sympathy — unless you’re a member of Congress.

Or a fraud-committing CEO.

Or the kid whose parents cut big campaign checks.

The reality is that this country has two systems of “justice” — one for the powerful and privileged and one for everyone else.

Politicians and law enforcement love to talk about how they’re “tough on crime” — until they or their friends are involved.

Need proof? Consider the long list of lame excuses by Florida law enforcement agencies for why they didn’t pursue charges against Gaetz.

Remember: The House report said that Gaetz “Violated State Laws Related to Sexual Misconduct” and “Used Illegal Drugs” — with some of those alleged activities taking place in Seminole County at the home of former legislator-turned-lobbyist Chris Dorworth.

But when the Orlando Sentinel asked state and local law-enforcement agencies why they didn’t do anything, they merely made excuses and pointed fingers.

Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office said local police or FDLE should’ve handled things.

The FDLE wouldn’t answer questions.

And the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office said that no one came to them with allegations and that they thought the feds were on the case.

I’ve seen less buck-passing at the U.S. Mint.

Imagine how ridiculous it would sound if you heard that chorus of excuses from authorities for some street-level criminal:

We thought the other guys were handling this. This isn’t our job. Nobody directly complained to us about these activities (that were widely documented in the media)

Also, it’s worth noting that none of these investigative agencies said they didn’t think crimes were committed — just that they didn’t think they were the ones who should be doling out justice.

For his part, Gaetz, who comes from an extremely wealthy family in Florida’s panhandle, has denied any legal wrongdoing.

“My 30’s were an era of working very hard — and playing hard too,” he said. “It’s embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now.”

Way back in his 30s. Gaetz is 42.

Most Floridians would be quaking in their flip-flops if Congress released a report that said they had broken all kinds of laws. Not Gaetz. He’s already back on Twitter (X), promoting Bitcoin and fuming about immigration proposals.

Why? Because Gaetz knows how justice in this country works.

If you’re poor and lacking connections, you’ll be sent to prison for small-time crimes. But if you’re powerful and connected, you’ll get a pass — and maybe a talk-show deal or Cabinet nomination.

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

The following letter appeared on the blog of Steve Nelson. I think you can guess who sent it. He calls himself “the Prince of Peace.” He also signed the letter, but used only his first name. Steve is a retired headmaster of the Calhoun School.


Dear Pete,

I watched your confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Forces Committee with great interest, Don’t feel either singled out or special. I watch everything on Earth with great interest.

It was somewhat disappointing to hear your regular references to me. First, I have no place in the secular proceedings of Congress, as my inclusion contradicts the 1st Amendment of your Constitution. The fact that such contradictions are increasingly commonplace makes them more, not less, problematic.

Two aspects of your testimony were particularly troubling. 

As you know, perhaps, the Bible refers to me as the Prince of Peace. I’m actually not a biblical literalist, as it gets many things wrong, but that part is essentially accurate. It is, therefore, deeply troubling that you uttered the words “warrior” and “lethal” throughout your answers. While justifications for war are seldom convincing, your posture and rhetoric were those of a man spoiling for a fight; your right, I suppose, but not a personal or professional quality with which I wish to be associated. 

If you know your Bible, this may be familiar:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

   And the government will rest on His shoulders;

   And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

   Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

I am that son. 

While, God forbid, the government does not rest on My shoulders, it may partially rest on yours. I fear your inclinations seem more belligerent than peaceful. 

Also, about that tattoo you’re so proud of that got you kicked off the security detail:

Leviticus 19:28 (YLT)- “`And a cutting for the soul ye do not put in your flesh; and a writing, a cross-mark, ye do not put on you; I [am] Jehovah.” 

The other thing that troubled me deeply was your apparent belief that I have offered or could offer you redemption. 

“I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my lord and savior Jesus.”

I might offer the retort,”Who says so?” Your public assertion, reverting to my original faith, takes a lot of chutzpah.

But let us stipulate that I can offer redemption. Given that redemption, whether through good works, 12-step programs or profound honesty and remorse, is possible, you have not earned such grace. (By the way, the claim that I could turn water to wine was metaphorical, not a suggestion to drink wine like water.)

In response to questions about your serial infidelities, sexual assault and many episodes of public and private drunkenness, you could only say, “Anonymous smear.” While that might have served as cover for your MAGA enablers, the so-called “smears” are not anonymous. Inconveniently for you, at least as redemption goes, I remind you that I’ve seen it all – and I don’t mean that in the, “Well, now I’ve seen it all!” sense. I’ve actually seen it all.

The victims of your aggressions, assaults and indecency were absent in the testimony, both by affidavit or by any acknowledgment or statement of remorse on your part. And to think that you dodged those issues in part by alluding to a child born of your affair with a mistress while married! Chutzpah on steroids….

To finish reading this stern reprimand of Pete Hegseth, open the link.

This is the story of the takeover of a city and a political party and a state by the farthest right fringe of the Idaho Republican Party. These extremists want to defund education. They want to control everything, not just education.

The article focuses on one community college that they targeted, North Idaho College, which may lose its accreditation, not because of academic or financial problems but because its board is in chaos.

The extremists target all public education. They think education is indoctrination. They think it’s dangerous, even vocational and technical education.

Here are a few illustrative paragraphs:

The charter violations that kicked off this accreditation scandal four years ago never had anything to do with academics. The two-year community college offers a solid education and features the top nursing program in the state. Their finances are stable too. No, NIC might go under because the Board of Trustees has existed in a state of toxicity, chaos, and dysfunction ever since the far right gained a board majority four years ago.

It is difficult to overstate how catastrophic disaccreditation would be for the people of North Idaho. With a price tag 65 percent lower on average than four-year state institutions, community colleges place higher education within reach of the least advantaged Americans; over a third of their students make less than $20,000 per year. At NIC, 57 percent of students
receive financial aid. Local businesses depend on the college for employee training on everything from office software to forklift operation. High school students can enroll in dual credit programs, which let students get a head start on their first year of college and allow homeschoolers to obtain official transcripts….

How could this happen? The problem goes far beyond a three-person majority on the trustee board of a small community college. NIC and many other institutions are in danger because, over the last decade and a half, a core group of extremists has slowly taken over the Idaho Republican Party in the same way that a parasitic wasp slowly takes over its host. This required no astroturfing or Koch-fueled cash infusions, just a regular, everyday indifference to hyperlocal politics. The tactic is underway elsewhere, but Idaho got a head start. This crisis is what happens when insurgency bears fruit….

The consequences of that agenda go far beyond NIC’s accreditation crisis. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country; citing difficulty recruiting doctors given the risk of criminalization, two hospitals have already closed their labor and delivery departments, leaving many rural Idahoans hours from maternal care. Armed militia members have shown up in the children’s section of libraries looking for pornography, and libraries are limiting service due to legislation that holds librarians criminally liable for books deemed inappropriate. Idaho’s primary and secondary schools are literally falling apart; it spends less per student than any other state and ranks 43rd in education quality.

This “parasitic wasp” is at work in other red states.

In October 2020, near the end of his first term, Trump imposed a new classification for career civil servants called Schedule F. It was intended to strip job security from career civil servants so they could be replaced by Trump loyalists. One of Joe Biden’s first actions was to eliminate Schedule F.

Trump pledged during his 2024 campaign to implement Schedule F. He calls the Civil Service “the deep state.” He believes that career bureaucrats slow-walked or impeded some of his most extreme ideas. And he is on his way, with full control of the Executive branch, both Houses of Congress, and (usually) the Supreme Court.

By implementing Schedule F, Trump would gain control of 50,000 jobs that are now held by civil servants. He and his deputies could replace them with MAGA loyalists.

The creation of the Civil Service was considered a very important reform and has been sacrosanct for more than a century. Before the Civil Service Commission was created in 1883, government jobs were handed out based on party affiliation. This was known as “the Spoils System.” The saying went “to the victor goes the spoils.” Win the election and appoint the people of your own party, who will be loyal to you.

Trump wants a return to the Spoils System, so he can appoint Trump loyalists. He wants to turn the clock back more than a century.

Here is a brief description of the history of civil service reform:

The first comprehensive merit-based civil service system was put in place by the Pendleton Civil
Service Reform Act of 1883, which created the United States Civil Service Commission. The
Act ended the Spoils System by specifying that merit – qualifications measured by testing – is
the basis of hiring decisions. For the first time, appointments were open to all citizens, made
based on merit, and were given to the best qualified applicants. The Act also protected
incumbents from being thrown out of office simply because of a change in the Presidency,
providing tenure protection for employees and ensuring their political neutrality. Initially, only
about 10.5% of Federal jobs were included in the competitive civil service system. By the end
of the century, approximately 42% were included; by the early 1900s, it was over 60%; and by
1952, over 90% of Federal jobs were included in the civil service system.

Merit-based civil service systems followed in the states and at the local level. The first state civil
service law was enacted under the leadership of then-Assembly Member Theodore Roosevelt
and then-Governor Grover Cleveland in New York in 1883. Teddy Roosevelt also served as a
commissioner on the United States Civil Service Commission and was a staunch supporter of
the civil service during his presidency, leading to a period of major government expansion and
further reforms of the civil service system. Roosevelt is known as the “Father” of modern civil service….

After World War II, the rise of collective bargaining in the public sector and the civil rights movement affected the civil service system, bringing the ideas of Equal Employment
Opportunity, affirmative action, and equal pay for equal work into the world of personnel
administration. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1990 all marked the growing inclusiveness of public personnel policies and procedures. These
movements clearly spoke to the fundamental civil service ideal that appointments are based on
merit established by competitive processes, not on any other factors.

By the 1970s, a new civil service reform movement began with the goal of making civil service more responsive to the personnel needs of executives and managers. While the first reforms begun in the late nineteenth century established the principles of competitiveness and merit, they also created a significant separation between management and personnel administration.

Managers had little control over personnel issues and their day to day operational needs were
often stymied by overly restrictive civil service rules. Despite the decentralization of civil service
systems during the Roosevelt era, personnel offices still retained significant control and
managers continually found there were significant barriers to effectively attracting, retaining, evaluating, disciplining, rewarding, and terminating employees.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was designed to address these issues at the Federal
level. The Act abolished the Civil Service Commission and created the Office of Personnel
Management in its place. Agency chief executives were given direct policy control over
personnel functions and the purpose of the civil service system moved from a regulatory
function to a service orientation in order to better support organizational and leadership efforts.

Civil service processes were streamlined and simplified; the merit system restated and
expanded to include an employee’s abilities, education, experience, and job performance; and
the emphasis turned to recruitment, career advancement, performance based compensation,
and performance appraisal. The Act also created the Senior Executive Service, which is
designed to help attract and retain high level senior executives outside of the civil service
system. Many of these changes were mirrored at the state and local levels.

This latest reform movement lost momentum under President Reagan during the early 1980s
and many of the same concerns brought to light during the 1970s regarding the responsiveness
of civil service systems continue to exist today.

The primary goal of the civil service system has been and continues to be to ensure that
appointments to government jobs are based on merit and ability as determined through a
competitive process. The principles of civil service specify that the most qualified person be
appointed to the job; that appointments not be based on any other factors such as political
activity or patronage; and that incumbents are protected from the political whims of elected
officials. This primary purpose of civil service has remained constant throughout the various
historical movements that have changed and shaped civil service over the last 200 years.

Adapted from the website for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (www.opm.gov) and
The New Public Personnel Administration by Nigro, Nigro, and Kelloug

Gary Rayno, veteran journalist in New Hampshire, reports on the Legislature’s pending decision on expanding vouchers. It is astonishing that any state is still considering universal vouchers, in light of what we have learned from the experience of every state that has done so.

We know now that the overwhelming majority of vouchers are used by students already enrolled in private and religious schools. In other words, they are for the most part a subsidy for families already able to pay tuition.

We know now that universal vouchers bust the state budget by offering to pay private school tuition.

We know now (see Josh Cowen’s recent book The Privateers) that when poor kids leave public schools for voucher schools, their academic performance declines, often dramatically.

We know now, based on state referenda, that the public opposes vouchers.

Gary Rayno writes about what’s happening in New Hampshire:

The advocates for opening the state’s school voucher program, Education Freedom Accounts, to all students in the state regardless of their parents’ income did a massive public relations and organization effort before the public hearing last week on House 115, which would remove the salary cap from the four-year old program.

While many parents with their children turned out for the public hearing that needed three rooms in the Legislative Office Building to hold the attendees, the people responding electronically —many posting testimony — on the bill were opposed by a more than four-to-one margin, 3,414-791.

Groups like the Koch Foundation funded by Americans for Prosperity sent out at least three email “urgent” messages to its followers encouraging supporters to attend the public hearing.

Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut sent out a press release the day before the public hearing with the headline “New Hampshire’s cost per pupil continues upward trend,” indicating the state’s average per-pupil cost increased from $20,323 last school year to $21,545 this school year and noting the enrollment has been trending down.

In his press release he also noted the average national cost per pupil at $15,591, while noting that New Hampshire’s largest school districts were the cheapest with Manchester at $17,734, Nashua at $18,270, Bedford at $18,498 and Concord at $23,159, while rural Pittsburg, at the very top of the state, has the highest cost at $44,484.

“The taxpayers of New Hampshire have worked hard to support students, families and our public schools, increasing funding by more than $400 million since 2021, resulting in a record high cost per pupil,” Edelblut said. “New Hampshire remains dedicated to continuing efforts to expand educational opportunities and pathways to help every child succeed in a fiscally responsible approach. The persistent trend of declining student enrollment combined with rising costs creates substantial financial strain on school districts, taxpayers and communities, necessitating new and creative approaches to educating our children in a system that can be sustained over the long term.”

In other words these skyrocketing public education costs cannot be sustained, and efforts like the EFA program is the wave of the future for taxpayers and students, although the program offers no guarantees the state money flowing into the program is being used for what it was intended or wisely by parents.

He does not mention that New Hampshire is either 49th or 50th in financial support for K to 12th grade public education, while cities and towns are picking up over 70 percent of the costs of public education and yet their residents are the ones approving the budgets that increased per-pupil spending.

Edelblut also doesn’t mention that the state downshifted the obligation of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 15 years to school districts, municipalities and counties when it stopped paying 35 percent of the retirement costs for employees, or that he has failed over the last five years to request additional money for the special education catastrophic aid program although costs have been rising substantially further downshifting millions more in costs to local school districts.

And the public hearing on the bill was held on one of the earliest days in the session, which says the Republican leadership wants to separate this bill from the state budget as much as possible.

A trend of declining revenues, the drying up of the federal pandemic aid and past surpluses, along with the elimination of the interest and dividends tax, which is a huge benefit to the state’s wealthiest residents, and business tax rate cuts will make difficult work for lawmakers and new Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who gives her first budget address next month.

The GOP leadership doesn’t want to discuss the $100 million in new expenses in HB 115 when budget discussions hit snags over what to fund.

During the public hearing, a number of parents brought their children with them to talk about the wonderful things they have been able to accomplish by using the state taxpayer money for alternative education settings.

Many also trashed public schools saying they failed their children although the public schools continue to serve about 90 percent of the state’s students.

Some of the parents noted public schools don’t align with their beliefs or political philosophies, which really says they do not want their children to be exposed to different beliefs or cultures.

David Trumble of Weare noted that some of the private and religious schools don’t take LGBTQ+, special education or English-as-a-second language students.

“There is nothing universal about universal vouchers. The only universal option is the public schools because they accept every single child and give every one of them a good education. That is why you have a constitutional duty to fund them. You have no obligation to fund the private schools,” Trumble told the House Education Funding Committee.

“Our first obligation is to fund the public schools.”

Under the EFA program, 75 percent of the students did not attend public schools when they joined the program, meaning that neither the school districts nor the state was paying for their education, their parents were.

In other states where universal vouchers have been approved almost all of the new money goes to families currently sending their children to private or religious schools or being homeschooled, which is a new expense to those states just as it would be in New Hampshire, where the potential for additional costs is over $100 million annually.

The money for New Hampshire EFA program comes from the Education Trust Fund which also provides almost all of the state education aid to public schools including charter schools.

The trust fund once had over a $200 million surplus, but ended the last fiscal year June 30, 2024 at $159 million, and is projected to drop to $125 million at the end of this fiscal year.

If the bill passes, it won’t be long before money is drained and the squeeze is on public education because of the new education system set up by the legislature that many told the committee last week lacks accountability and transparency.

Many of the people in opposition to the bill said the state first needs to meet its constitutional obligation to pay for an adequate education for the state’s children before setting up any new program costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

But universal vouchers are not only a priority for New Hampshire Republicans, it is a priority at the national level as well.

It continues a movement begun in the late 1950s and 1960s advised by James Buchanan, an economist from the University of Chicago, who was influenced by Frank Knight as was Milton Friedman.

The plan was to both develop more conservative Republicans through the education system and through state legislatures.

One of the targets was public education and reforming it into a private system where if you have the money you can receive a good education, but if you don’t, well too bad.

While the EFA program was touted as helping lower income parents find an alternative education setting for their children who did not fare well in a public education environment, it has essentially been a subsidy program for parents whose children were already in private and religious schools or homeschooled.

Many of the parents speaking in favor of expanding the EFA program said they wanted every child to experience what they experienced.

Rep. Ross Berry, R-Weare, told the committee why should the EFA program be means tested, when public schools don’t require wealthy parents to pay for their children to attend.

That was one of the catch phrases uttered several times during the hearing along with “support for the student not the system.”

Someone had distributed the talking points.

But several opponents noted the program would not help eliminate educational inequity, it would exacerbate it, because a lower-income parent would not be able to afford to send their child to one of the private schools where the average tuition is over $20,000 with a $5,200 voucher, while those already able to send their child to a private school will be able to cut their costs by the same amount.

Once again New Hampshire is a great place to live if you have money, if you don’t, not so much.

The EFA program is part of the push for individual rights over the common good. You see it in education where parents want to remove their child from those who do not have the same beliefs or philosophies, you also see in health care with the establishment of specialty and boutique practices where if you have the money you receive the best care, and in the judicial system where if you have enough money you never have to be accountable for your crimes.

If HB 115 passes, and it probably will, the legislature will have created a situation where the public schools including charter schools will face operating with less state aid, not more as the courts said the state needs, and that will impact many sectors including businesses who will not know if the state has a sufficiently educated workforce or not.

The state should not want businesses asking that question.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.

Trump selected Penny Schwinn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Educatuin, under wrestling entrepreneur Linda McMahon, this choice for Secretary. Mercedes Schneider did some digging and quickly learned that where Penny Schwinn goes, controversy follows.

Among other issues raised by critics is Schwinn’s multi-million dollar no-bid contracts to TNTP (formerly known as The New Teachers Project), where her husband works.

Schneider writes:

President Donald Trump has nominated former Tennessee Ed chief, the controversy-steeped Penny Schwinn, for the position of US deputy secretary of education, a post that requires Senate confirmation.

Interestingly, even conservatives oppose her confirmation (see here also).

I’m not sure how much of the Schwinn sketchiness will reveal itself in Schwinn’s confirmation hearing, but the information is out there– easy enough for a Louisiana education blogger to find.

For example, in 2017 as Texas deputy commissioner for academics, Schwinn was in the news as part of a no-bid contract issue for several million dollars with a sketchy, inexperienced company out of Atlanta, SPEDx, which was supposed to handle special education data for both Texas and Louisiana.

The situation of two states offering no-bid contracts worth millions to a new company run by a CEO with no experience in analyzing special education data caught the attention if the media, and Texas canceled its contract even as Louisiana was questioned about keeping theirs.

When queried by the media, Texas education commissioner, Mike Morath, tried to distance himself from the situation. However, on December 28, 2017, Andrea Ball of the Austin American-Statesman revealed that Schwinn was involved in the contract and “helped write it.”

You can read about the details in this March 20, 2018, post.

Two years later, in February 2020, I again wrote about Schwinn. By this time, she had moved from Texas to become commissioner of education in Tennessee and had been there for a year.

Controversy followed her there, as well:

Within ten months of Schwinn’s arrival as Tennessee ed commissioner, the Tennessee Department of Education experienced 250 resignations, including “people with decades of institutional knowledge,” which the November 15, 2019, Tennessee Chalkbeat characterized as “not typical.”

In 2019, according to the Tennessee Lookout, the Tennessee legislature nixed Schwinn’s ability to vote on state textbooks after complaints from a publisher and some district leaders following accusations that Schwinn was “playing favorites.”

Too, Schwinn and no-bid contracts were again connected:

On February 12, 2020, Schwinn was again in the news related to a no-bid contract controversy, this time in connection with Tennessee’s school voucher program and the ed-fund-tracking company, ClassWallet, as Chalkbeat reports:

Lawmakers who oversee the spending of Tennessee taxpayer money blasted the Department of Education Wednesday for its handling of a no-bid contract with ClassWallet, hired for $1.25 million a year to manage the state’s upcoming voucher program.

Commissioner Penny Schwinn and members of her team were grilled for almost two hours over the decision to bypass a competitive bid process to hire the Florida-based company — and for twice the amount budgeted for work this year on Gov. Bill Lee’s education savings account program. …

“Fiscal Review didn’t find out about this contract grant until Nov. 13 when it was published in Chalkbeat. Do you think that that’s acceptable?” asked Rep. Matthew Hill, the Jonesborough Republican who chairs the panel. …

“To the general public, it looks like you found a vendor, and then created a contract,” said Faison, a Republican from Cosby.

There is a lot more detail to the Chalkbeat article, which is certainly worth a complete read. It seems that Schwinn’s rogue maneuvers have the support of Tennessee governor Bill Lee, and Schwinn justified her no-bid decision by saying it was necessary to begin the voucher program in 2020, a year earlier than the legislature planned, as per the governor’s wishes.

Another major irritation for Tennessee legislators is the ballooned pricetag due to Schwinn’s no-bid: The legislature budgeted $750K for costs associated with the voucher program, but Schwinn blew it up, committing her ClassWallet no-bid to $2.5M for two years.

But there’s more: Schwinn’s chief financial officer said that it decided– without legislative approval– to use teacher-pay funds from an expired program to fund the increased voucher program cost due to the no-bid it awarded. In response, Tennessee House Fiscal Review Panel chair, Matthew Hill, replied, “…We robbed teacher pay. … I can’t stress how bad this looks for us….”

Schwinn remained in her Ed commissioner post in Tennessee until 2023, when she resigned effective June 1st. In 2021, Schwinn faced a possible no-confidence vote of the Tennessee legislature, a vote that did not happen. Then, in 2022, the Tennessee Holler noted this conflict of interest, which is included in my May 12, 2023, post:

In April 2022, the Tennessee Holler noted that Schwinn omitted from her most-recent financial disclosure mention of her husband’s employer, TNTP (started by Michelle Rhee, incidentally)– a notable omission since on March 01, 2021, Schwinn signed a two-year, $8M contract with TNTP, with the Tennessee Lookout noting, “The contract took effect March 12, and is to run through fiscal 2022 at a rate of $4.032 million for each year, even though only four months remain in this fiscal year.” In December 2021, the contract was renewed for an additional $8M through 2024 “despite a potential conflict of interest for the state’s education commissioner,” the Tennessee Lookout again reports.

Penny Schwinn in a confirmation hearing? 

We’ll see where this one goes.

Trump freed all the J6 insurrectionists, even those convicted and sentenced to 20+ years for insurrection.

The Republican Party is not the party of law and order.

Read Jim Stewartson and be alarmed.

Attacking police officers, trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is now a sign of patriotism.

Even JD Vance said that the J6 terrorists who committed acts of violence would not be pardoned. He was wrong.

Even the guy wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt was pardoned.

All of Trump’s thugs.