Nowhere is there a finer showcase for the depths to which public education has fallen than the Granville-Schools/Newark-Schools/Kraner-development argument about profits.
Money drives it. Who profits by how much is the point at issue.
There was a time - and I was fortunate enough to be a student back then - when teachers taught because they didn't mind being underpaid since they believed in the nobility of their mission. School administrators were judged on how well they could pinch pennies, not on the skill with which they milk taxpayers.
That today's schools would deal in students as though they are cattle going to market - as though they have price stickers attached to them - is simply incredible.
Educators - teachers, administrators, boards of education, state bureaucrats, legislators, college presidents and boards of trustees - should step back and observe the depths to which they've drug public education by focusing on its profitability.
Take a good look, and be ashamed.
Showing posts with label Kraner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kraner. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
We need action, not political hype about the Sunshine Law
Whether or not the state Sunshine Law was violated by certain Newark City Council members is the subject of an Advocate report, "Meeting might have violated Sunshine Law," that said: "The February 2006 meeting at Kraner's New Albany office included David Rhodes, Doug Marmie and John Uible, who were and remain members of council's five-person Economic Development Committee. They also are chairmen of the Finance, Capital Improvements and Economic Development committees."
and ..
"Uible (said) the meeting was informational but Kraner briefly touched on some key issues for the future.
"I think he just mentioned he would want to talk to us about annexation of some of that land, particularly in the Newark School District, but we didn't talk a lot about that," Uible said. "He wanted to see if we would be supportive of this. He didn't want City Council opposing (what Kraner and administration wanted)."
The Advocate followed with an editorial "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy" which said "The city's law director disagrees but we believe a meeting between members of a Newark City Council committee and developer Bill Kraner was a clear violation of at least the spirit, and likely the letter, of the state's Sunshine Laws."
The city law director, Doug Sassen, responded to that with a guest column entitled: "Sunshine Law is taken seriously and applied liberally in Newark"
Mr. Sassen defended his inactivity regarding the meeting in question with this statement: "In the case of the February 2006 meeting with developer Williams Kraner referenced in the editorial, it is important to note that the law director's office, and presumably the Advocate as well, was not aware of the meeting until the summer of 2007, well more than one year later. As a result, the actual facts of what occurred at that meeting remain uncertain, hence the opportunity for reasonable minds to differ as to whether a violation of the Sunshine Law might have occurred.
"The editorial noted, 'majorities of any committee cannot gather for discussion of city business.' Because the facts are unclear, did we know then, and do we know now, whether 'city business' was 'discussed'?"
It is informative that Mr. Sassen never mentions in his rebuttal whether he actually asked anybody about the facts of this case. If he did, and if he got stonewalled, this would be significant. If he didn't ask anybody, then this is even more significant.
Mr. Sassen said, "... we are making every effort to ensure full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law by all members of City Council and the Administration." He never said what's changed, or going to change.
Mr. Sassen does, however, take great pains to make it seem as though he is partnering with Marc Guthrie in pursuit of open government. He says, for instance, "Marc and I work well together and have taken an aggressive, unified approach to safeguarding the right of public access to all public meetings." This is the first time I'd heard of such a partnership, and I would be interested in reading exactly what Mr. Sassen's contributions have been to such a partnership.
The New Albany thing is not going to go away by blowing smoke at it. Citizens want to know exactly what questions about this meeting were asked of whom. Citizens want to know why it seems impossible to get that information. Citizens want to know what's going to happen if the same thing occurs in the future. Citizens want to know what the law director intends to do about e-mailed cyber meetings.
More political hype doesn't get it. Citizens need the law director's specific plan for how he is going to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law.
and ..
"Uible (said) the meeting was informational but Kraner briefly touched on some key issues for the future.
"I think he just mentioned he would want to talk to us about annexation of some of that land, particularly in the Newark School District, but we didn't talk a lot about that," Uible said. "He wanted to see if we would be supportive of this. He didn't want City Council opposing (what Kraner and administration wanted)."
The Advocate followed with an editorial "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy" which said "The city's law director disagrees but we believe a meeting between members of a Newark City Council committee and developer Bill Kraner was a clear violation of at least the spirit, and likely the letter, of the state's Sunshine Laws."
The city law director, Doug Sassen, responded to that with a guest column entitled: "Sunshine Law is taken seriously and applied liberally in Newark"
Mr. Sassen defended his inactivity regarding the meeting in question with this statement: "In the case of the February 2006 meeting with developer Williams Kraner referenced in the editorial, it is important to note that the law director's office, and presumably the Advocate as well, was not aware of the meeting until the summer of 2007, well more than one year later. As a result, the actual facts of what occurred at that meeting remain uncertain, hence the opportunity for reasonable minds to differ as to whether a violation of the Sunshine Law might have occurred.
"The editorial noted, 'majorities of any committee cannot gather for discussion of city business.' Because the facts are unclear, did we know then, and do we know now, whether 'city business' was 'discussed'?"
It is informative that Mr. Sassen never mentions in his rebuttal whether he actually asked anybody about the facts of this case. If he did, and if he got stonewalled, this would be significant. If he didn't ask anybody, then this is even more significant.
Mr. Sassen said, "... we are making every effort to ensure full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law by all members of City Council and the Administration." He never said what's changed, or going to change.
Mr. Sassen does, however, take great pains to make it seem as though he is partnering with Marc Guthrie in pursuit of open government. He says, for instance, "Marc and I work well together and have taken an aggressive, unified approach to safeguarding the right of public access to all public meetings." This is the first time I'd heard of such a partnership, and I would be interested in reading exactly what Mr. Sassen's contributions have been to such a partnership.
The New Albany thing is not going to go away by blowing smoke at it. Citizens want to know exactly what questions about this meeting were asked of whom. Citizens want to know why it seems impossible to get that information. Citizens want to know what's going to happen if the same thing occurs in the future. Citizens want to know what the law director intends to do about e-mailed cyber meetings.
More political hype doesn't get it. Citizens need the law director's specific plan for how he is going to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
When public business becomes private, a newspaper can make its own Sunshine Law
The Sunshine Law says, in effect, public business shall be conducted in public. The need for that law is created by public employees who know that their activities and decisions are not in keeping with the public's best interests.
It's that simple, though the law itself is not so simple and I have written about it here.
That public employees would even consider hiding the public's business from the public is pure insolence. It is an insolence occasioned by the attitude of public employees that the public assets entrusted to them are no longer public, but are now roadways to their personal power.
The public's business encompasses every single word that is spoken and/or written by public employees, or to public employees, regarding the public's business. Every sheet of paper in every government building belongs to all citizens. Every e-mail sent by a public employee regarding public business belongs to the public and therefore should be open to public scrutiny.
So where's the argument about whether these matters are public's business or not? Public employees, no matter how important they are, or think they are, are employees of the people. When they agree to work for the public, it is implied that they owe allegiance to the public.
If public employees meet with businessmen and lobbyists - Kraner, Reese, vendors, or Joe Blow - it is the public's right to know what is being said. When a newspaper reporter is excluded, or not notified, it is fair to assume that the reason for that is the best interests of the public are being endangered.
I credited the Advocate for having drawn a line in the sand over this matter with public officials. Recently, there appeared an editorial entitled "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy." So far, the Advocate's line in the sand is also cloudy because government secrecy will not go away as a result of a few editorials.
Reporters have to do like they used to do - which is know where government employees are grouping and with whom. And then they ballsie their way through the door and sit there with pen and pad.
Should they get out-muscled at the door they go back to the newsroom and they name names, editorialize, maybe go to court, keep bitching about it, and use it as ammo the next election.
With a newspaper determined enough to do that, the community has its own Sunshine Law.
It's that simple, though the law itself is not so simple and I have written about it here.
That public employees would even consider hiding the public's business from the public is pure insolence. It is an insolence occasioned by the attitude of public employees that the public assets entrusted to them are no longer public, but are now roadways to their personal power.
The public's business encompasses every single word that is spoken and/or written by public employees, or to public employees, regarding the public's business. Every sheet of paper in every government building belongs to all citizens. Every e-mail sent by a public employee regarding public business belongs to the public and therefore should be open to public scrutiny.
So where's the argument about whether these matters are public's business or not? Public employees, no matter how important they are, or think they are, are employees of the people. When they agree to work for the public, it is implied that they owe allegiance to the public.
If public employees meet with businessmen and lobbyists - Kraner, Reese, vendors, or Joe Blow - it is the public's right to know what is being said. When a newspaper reporter is excluded, or not notified, it is fair to assume that the reason for that is the best interests of the public are being endangered.
I credited the Advocate for having drawn a line in the sand over this matter with public officials. Recently, there appeared an editorial entitled "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy." So far, the Advocate's line in the sand is also cloudy because government secrecy will not go away as a result of a few editorials.
Reporters have to do like they used to do - which is know where government employees are grouping and with whom. And then they ballsie their way through the door and sit there with pen and pad.
Should they get out-muscled at the door they go back to the newsroom and they name names, editorialize, maybe go to court, keep bitching about it, and use it as ammo the next election.
With a newspaper determined enough to do that, the community has its own Sunshine Law.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Kraner v. Cauchon: Whose rights getting stomped?
Whose legal rights are getting stomped may be decided in the outcome of the biggest little lawsuit to involve Licking County adversaries in many years.
Local developer William Kraner claims Dennis Cauchon, Granville, defamed him and interfered with a business contract. Kraner's suit, filed in Franklin County, alleges Cauchon made false and defamatory statements about him and he wants $1.5 million and some public apologies.
All of this was reported by the Advocate, along with down-loadable files of the legal complaint and other documents at this link.
An interesting comment was posted in the newspaper's forum that adds dimension to the Advocate report. Here is is:
"Having had one of these hung on me when working on housing issues in Indianapolis, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Cauchon. Even with free legal support from Indiana University law professors, it took three and a half years and all our time and attention as a neighborhood association to get the charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning they were groundless and could not be refiled in any form). Interference with contract and defamation of character will never be proven in this case, as Mr. Kraner's actions as a public figure were discussed in a public way, and personal animus and intent isn't even on the table.
"But Mr. Kraner can easily afford to have a staffer manage this case for the next few years, while Mr. Cauchon's kitchen table will have to shift focus to getting this SLAPP dismissed, which is the entire point. Meanwhile, Mr. Kraner could donate $10,000 to support the city of Newark's effort to attract the Crew facility if he wanted a public gesture proving his good will. Instead, he sues.
"Read the wikipedia link."
Following that link to Wikipedi will take you to an essay about Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). I didn't know there was such a thing, though I myself had been so victimized many years ago.
The following are two segments from the Wikipedia article that reduce this subject to its basics. The first is the definition of a "SLAPP;" the second is the legal remedy provided to Californians, one that should be enacted by every state. (Hey Jay Hottinger, where are you?) Readers are encouraged to visit the on-line article because it has many interesting and important links.
"A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") was originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. ... It has been defined more broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue. ... This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring."
...
"The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
"The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.
"California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed."
Local developer William Kraner claims Dennis Cauchon, Granville, defamed him and interfered with a business contract. Kraner's suit, filed in Franklin County, alleges Cauchon made false and defamatory statements about him and he wants $1.5 million and some public apologies.
All of this was reported by the Advocate, along with down-loadable files of the legal complaint and other documents at this link.
An interesting comment was posted in the newspaper's forum that adds dimension to the Advocate report. Here is is:
"Having had one of these hung on me when working on housing issues in Indianapolis, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Cauchon. Even with free legal support from Indiana University law professors, it took three and a half years and all our time and attention as a neighborhood association to get the charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning they were groundless and could not be refiled in any form). Interference with contract and defamation of character will never be proven in this case, as Mr. Kraner's actions as a public figure were discussed in a public way, and personal animus and intent isn't even on the table.
"But Mr. Kraner can easily afford to have a staffer manage this case for the next few years, while Mr. Cauchon's kitchen table will have to shift focus to getting this SLAPP dismissed, which is the entire point. Meanwhile, Mr. Kraner could donate $10,000 to support the city of Newark's effort to attract the Crew facility if he wanted a public gesture proving his good will. Instead, he sues.
"Read the wikipedia link."
Following that link to Wikipedi will take you to an essay about Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). I didn't know there was such a thing, though I myself had been so victimized many years ago.
The following are two segments from the Wikipedia article that reduce this subject to its basics. The first is the definition of a "SLAPP;" the second is the legal remedy provided to Californians, one that should be enacted by every state. (Hey Jay Hottinger, where are you?) Readers are encouraged to visit the on-line article because it has many interesting and important links.
"A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") was originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. ... It has been defined more broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue. ... This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring."
"The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
"The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.
"California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
