Talking about Ethical Lapses?

Is it any surprise that the Alabama Democratic Party blogger, despite commenting on Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby and others, has not said a word about the Siegelman indictment?

And he claims that Beth Chapman is a hypocrite when talking about ethics in government?

Vote! ... if you can slip past me!

Nancy Worley stated in the voter guide put out by her office in 2004:

"Your vote is important. In order for our democracy to be of the people, by the people and for the people, the people must vote... Join me at the polls on Election Day!"

It's kind of hard to vote when the state's chief election official is apparently taking steps to keep you from voting ... or so that is what is alleged in the lawsuit filed against her.

Shading the Truth

I saw yet another letter to the editor in The Birmingham News today accusing Bill Bennett of being a racist for his comments regarding blacks, abortion and crime. (In case you've been fortunate enough to forget, he said that if all black babies were aborted, the crime rate would go down.)

Bennett and his apologists claim he isn't racist for saying these things because he pointed out how morally reprehensible such an idea is and that it would be wrong to implement it.

The thing is he's right. Blacks commit some percentage of crime, regardless of whether or not they do so disproportionately. And if no more blacks grew up, then those who perpetuate crimes would be gone and the crime rate would go down.

Of course, the same logic applies to whites, or hispanics, or Asians. All groups commit crimes. Do away with any one particular group and crime will go down by what percentage they account for of total crimes. Plain and simple.

What really makes Bennett sound bigoted or even racist is that for his example he automatically - as if by second nature - chose blacks to be the subject of the analogy he was drawing. He could have chosen any group. Or he could have followed the lead of the caller who didn't identify a group when he said that if abortion was illegal, those aborted babies could have grown up to be productive taxpayers.

Security Blanket

The Birmingham News reports today that the State of Alabama has paid $125,000 to install retractable steel posts to prevent a truck bomb attack on the Alabama State House. The State House is the home of the Legislature and the Attorney General, as well as office space for several other agencies.

While the retractable posts will hinder a mad truck or car bomber from going down one ramp and accessing the loading the dock at that building, there is at least one other access point for vehicles which was not secured. Additionally, next to the State House is a parking deck which has a top-level with access points on the street that have not been secured except by an arm that drops across the entrance.

If a stopping a car bomb is the real goal, then these gaping holes should be points of concern. Further, it is quite easy to pull a car or truck up to any number of positions around the building, especially after hours when employee vehicles aren't parked alongside the building.

The chief of security for the State House commented that the building needs protection because "[i]t's a symbol of government." I guess the occupants of the Capitol Building (Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, and their employees) must take comfort that their building hasn't been targeted for security enchancements. Their building must not be a symbol of government or must have no security weaknesses.

Of course, it has been suggested that the Capitol Building already has some sophisticated security mechanisms in place that must be protected at all costs. I guess they should be sufficient.

Did we need a Yank paper to reveal that to us?

Was Nancy Worley being uncharacteristically forthcoming with the Chicago Tribune earlier this year? She said that

It's always dangerous when people have a title and don't know what to do with it.

You decide.

Looking for a Good Value

I wonder where the slippery slope lies?

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation which would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Proponents of the legislation say lawsuits holding the manufacturer liable for the actions of a criminal are frivilous, unjust and merely an effort to financially ruin the gun makers. Opponents argue that gun makers should be held responsible for misconduct that puts guns in the hands of criminals.

We are a blame society. Americans are almost constantly in a struggle to assign blame, usually to others and never to ourselves. We are constantly trying to demonize those with whom we disagree and show they are the source of our ills. Of course, sometimes what we say is true. Sometimes it's not. We may debate about who is to blame for something in particular, but as we know, someone is always to blame.

The interesting thing about the folks who support this particular legislation is they say the producers should not be responsible in any way for how their products are used. Even President Bush commented, saying:

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products."

Most of the supporters in the U.S. House are Republicans or conservatives. While Republicans are usually linked with notions of personal accountability (and their support for this bill reflects that), they are not always on the side of personal accountability.

Republicans and conservatives often strive to restrict the availability of certain products in the marketplace: "violent" movies and video games; "obscene" music; "pornographic" books, magazines and films. They allege the availability and use of these items leads people toward a wayward path, often times leading to criminal or otherwise undesirable behavior. Should the producers be prevented from making and freely marketing these items because of some correlation with bad behavior? Would that not be holding them responsible for the misconduct of others?

Conservatives would respond by saying that these other things (e.g., obscenity, violence, pornography) are inherently bad or evil and therefore any product incorporating those to any degree is bad news from the get go. The rejoinder, of course, is to contend that guns are inherently bad or evil, even if a necessary evil in some cases ( e.g., war).

But that is merely peeling another layer off the onion and revealing the deeper issues: whose values will dominate in our culture.

Teacher, teacher, try to teach me!

One would think a retired teacher would know the lessons that are taught to all school kids: be responsible, do what is expected of you when it's expected, and don't lie to cover up your own mistakes, errors, or lack of judgement

Nancy Worley proves once again she has no shame ... and no real idea what she's doing as the state's chief election official. In the Monday, 17 October 2005, edition of The Huntsville Times, Worley is reported to have addressed the looming 1 January 2006 deadline for implementing a new statewide voter registration system.

To bring you up to speed if you don't already know this -- Congress in 2002 mandated that each state have a voter registration system centralized at the state level to help ensure the accuracy of voter lists used in each county. The state system is to be the official list for all elections for federal offices. Congress' action was prompted by complaints in Florida that in the 2000 presidential election the voter lists contained a significant number of errors.

In 2003, Worley began the process of acquiring a new system so that Alabama would be compliant with federal law. However, as reported by The Huntsville Times, two years later, and a little over 2 months from the federal deadline, Worley has not decided on a vendor and hasn't begun to install the system.

However, Worley has stated she has no intention of signing a contract on a new system until the legislature provides certain funds to her office. In press release, Worley

"explained to representatives from each of the companies [seeking the contract for the system] that Alabama will not enter into a software licensing agreement until long-term funding for the operation and maintenance of the system is added to the state budget...

"But Secretary Worley says she is confident that Governor Riley and the Legislature will come through for Alabama...

"Secretary Worley will submit her budget request to the Governor within the next month."

Worley has concerns over money because the system will have to be licensed from the vendors rather than purchased outright. Although her office is sitting on over $40,000,000, that money is not intended to cover licensing fees in later years.

Let's not forget though that 1 January 2006 is the deadline for having a system up and running that meets the federal mandate. Inquiring minds want to know how Alabama will meet that deadline if Worley is not going to buy or license a new system until after that date. Remember, the Legislature can't budget more money for Worley until it goes back into session after the first of the year.

Worley's answer? The current system, ALVIN (the Alabama Voter Information Network) is substantially compliant! According to her comments in The Huntsville Times, the only reason we need a new system is because ALVIN is built on old technology. She said:

"We may not have a brand-new system by Jan. 1, but we have substantial compliance with the law with what we currently have - one that is very outdated in terms of technology."

However, ALVIN is not the type of system Congress envisioned in its mandate. Congress said the statewide system must be the official voter list and all poll lists are to be printed using the data in the central system. However, as Worley stated to the Justice Department, a number of counties use county-based voter registration systems to manage their voter lists. By her own admission, they upload their data to the state only weekly or monthly. They print their poll lists using their county system, which for a period of time will contain names of voters not on the state list.

Even the Election Assistance Commission notes in its guidelines for statewide voter registration systems that this practice is not permissible under HAVA. The uploads are not frequent enough to comply the idea of a centralized, official voter list:

"If a statewide voter registration list is not hosted on a single, centralized platform, States must ensure that all information contained on local, satellite databases is uploaded (synchronized) into the statewide voter registration database routinely, such that the State database can be viewed as the sole, official list of registered voters. Similarly, States must assure that the data comprising the official list (maintained by the State database) is downloaded or sent electronically to local systems on a regular basis so that local officials may have immediate access to the official list. At a minimum, the statewide voter registration list should be synchronized with local voter registration databases at least once every 24 hours to assure that the statewide voter registration list contains the names and registration information for all legally registered voters in the State. In the same way, the State must electronically send or download the appropriate information in its database to local election officials at least every 24 hours, so that they have immediate electronic access to the official voter registration list."

By Worley's own statements to the Justice Department, Alabama has 28 counties that do not meet this requirement.

It seems that Worley knows she has problem on her hands. If she doesn't comply with the 1 January deadline, she will have the biggest failure of her term of office (out of many failures). It's no wonder she's straining credulity with her claims of "substantial compliance" with the federal mandates.

Bobby and Troy

On 7 October 2005, Attorney General Troy King released the Lowder Opinion, which is sure to infuriate a large portion of the Auburn Nation. While King doesn't explicitly state that Lowder is able to serve on the Auburn University Board of Trustees until 2011, his statement of the law certainly dictates that conclusion.

Unfortunately, King's interpretation of the law doesn't stand up to scrutiny when applying the standards King's claims to be using. Some have argued the quality of King's legal reasoning was influenced by more than a sober reading of the law and keen analytical skills. There may be something to that. More on that later in this entry.

King begins his discussion of applicable law by citing the following statement by the Alabama Supreme Court:

"It is plain and unambiguous, and where this is the case, the framers of the constitution should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed and consequently no room is left for construction. Possible or even probable meanings, when one is declared in the instrument itself, the courts are not liberty to search for elsewhere... When the language is plain, no discretion is left to us. We have no right to stray into the mazes of conjecture, or to search for imaginary purposes." [The State vs McGough, 118 Ala. 196]

He then goes on, not to apply the law as plainly written, but to strain at a gnat to develop a legal argument that is not supported by the plain language of the constitution. Basically, his argument is that "term of office" refers to the length of time that a person may be a member of the Board of Trustees, not to some set time period that a term runs regardless of who holds the position. The constitution states that a trustee "... shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and shall hold office for a term of twelve years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified." [Amendment 161, Constitution of Alabama].

He further argues that since the constitution says a trustee shall serve 12 years, plus the length of time it takes to appoint and confirm a new trustee, then it is only logical that one trustee's term ends only when the succeeding trustee takes his or her seat. For example, if Trustee #1 has served her 12 years, but it takes 6 more months to appoint her successor, then Trustee #1's 12.5 year term is legal and Trustee #2's term begins at that point in time.

However, King's conclusion contradicts the plain language of Amendment 161. Amendment 161 provides that "[t]he board shall be divided into three classes, as nearly equal as may be, so that one-third may be chosen quadrennially", meaning every four years. This provisions continues the previous practice under Article XIV, §266, in which members of the Board of Trustees were also appointed for terms of 12 years with terms staggered so that one-third of the members would be chosen every four years. In fact, Article XIV, §266, even explicitly provided for when this system of staggered terms would begin.

"The board shall be divided into three classes, as nearly equal as may be, so that one-third may be chosen quadrennially... Successors to those trustees whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and three shall hold office until nineteen hundred and eleven; successors to those whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and five shall hold office until nineteen hundred and fifteen; and successors to those whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and seven shall hold office until nineteen hundred and nineteen."

Amendment 161 honors and leaves in place the staggered terms set up by §266:

"The members of the board of trustees as now constituted shall hold office until their respective terms expire under existing law, and until their successors shall be appointed as herein required."

In contrast to King's conclusion, the history of the appointment process for trustees to Auburn's board reflects the creation of set terms (12 years) with specific expiration dates (the end of the third quadrennium after appointment). While the constitution, both in §266 and in Amendment 161, states that a trustee serves until his replacement is appointed and qualified, it wouldn't appear that the constitution, or its writers, intended that post-12-year period to shift the beginning and end dates of a trustee's term of office. The constitution clearly states that new board members are to be chosen each quadrennium.

Of course, the drafters of §266 and Amendment 161 weren't as clear as they could have been regarding untimely confirmation of a trustee. They could have stated that the new appointee serves the remainder of the 12-year term, when the previous trustee serves over 12 years. Or they could have stated that the new trustee's term begins immediately upon confirmation. However, they didn't do either of these things. But they did state that a third of the board would be replaced each quadrennium. I suppose they didn't expect the Legislature to shirk its duty to provide timely confirmation of new trustees.

The question that we raise now is why did King go to such lengths to make the case for rolling beginning dates for trustee terms? I have no answer to that question but have found some interesting background information.

As reported by The Auburn Plainsman, King tried to avert any appearance of a conflict of interest by returning a $10,000 contribution to Bobby Lowder, the main trustee whose term is in question. However, some digging has revealed some other ties:

• Bobby Lowder is the head of Colonial Bank.
  
• Colonial Bank utilizes the services of Miller , Hamilton, Snider and Odom for lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives.
  
• One of Miller, Hamilton, Snider and Odom's attorneys is Matthew C. McDonald.
  
• Records on file with the Alabama Secretary of State show that Matthew C. McDonald is the registered agent for "Troy King for Attorney General, Inc."
  

Not quite a smoking gun. Too circumstantial for that. However, putting the dots together may provide some insight as to why King strained to make the legal case he put his name on.

Open Meetings Law

The Alabama Legislature passed a new open meetings law during the regular session earlier this year. Aside from new provisions regarding when a governmental body must meet in public, the law went a step further in specifying methods by which those bodies must notify the public about their meetings. One provision specified that the Secretary of State's office must publish those notices on its web site. The law also says persons must be able to sign up to an e-mail list so they can receive e-mail notices published by agencies they are interested in. The web site and e-mail list had to be functional 1 October. You can access the web site and sign up for the e-mail list here.

The web site as a whole looks pretty good. It's good to see that Worley was able to get it up and running on time. However, for some reason there are some corrections and suggestions for the site:

1) State and local governmental bodies are not "companies." If you click the button to sign up for the e-mail list, you are presented a list of governmental bodies that hold public meetings. Worley has identified those bodies as "companies." I guess her programmers used an application set up for something else but forgot to finish customizing it.

2) The list of governmental bodies (read: not companies, agencies or commissions, etc.) is not in alphabetical order. If you don't see a particular agency or committee in the list right off the bat, look a little closer. The list of governmental bodies is not in good alphabetical order. This is a small point, but there's really no excuse for not having done it. It's not hard to alphabetize a list when populating it. Alphabetizing goes a long way to help the user though.

3) The list of governmental bodies contains an entry for the now-defunct Office of Voter Registration. That agency doesn't exist anymore since its voter registration functions were merged into the Secretary of State's office more than 2 years ago. Seems like Worley would know that, eh?

4) But, while including the Office of Voter Registration, Worley left out the Voter Registration Advisory Board. Perhaps that's no surprise since Worley ignored that body when she was considering a vendor for the new statewide voter registration system.

5) The list of meeting notices is in date order without any way to sort by governmental body. While I imagine a date-ordered list meets the letter of the law, it would be much more useful to the public to have be able to sort by agency or commission names -- if you really want to make the list work for people.

Perhaps Worley can get the site fine-tuned per these suggestions and help folks make better use of the web site.