College needs to own its policies

springcampus_5

Some issues just aren’t adding up regarding the matter of Amarillo College’s hiring policies, which now have become the subject of community discussion.

Who’s in charge of administering and enforcing those policies? Aren’t there some others at AC who should be held accountable for this embarrassing development?

Ellen Robertson Green quit her job as AC vice president for marketing and communication after it was revealed that she allegedly violated AC nepotism rules by hiring her daughter to work as a content producer for Panhandle PBS, the college’s public TV station.

Green supervised Panhandle PBS. Her daughter, thus, reported directly to her mother.

That violated the school’s rules against nepotism.

I’ve already declared my own stake in this matter, given that until recently I worked as a freelance blogger for Panhandle PBS and that I consider Green to be a friend.

I now am an outsider looking at this situation from some distance.

However, I do know that everyone works for someone else.

Green didn’t operate in a hermetically sealed environment at AC. I’m going to take a bit of a leap here and presume that the college has qualified and competent legal counsel advising senior administrators of matters that might cause problems.

Thus, I am unclear as to why Green is taking the fall by herself by resigning her post at AC, particularly after the college terminated her daughter’s employment when reports of this policy violation became known.

The way I see it, if the school fired her daughter, that ends the nepotism problem right off the top.

Green was one of several VPs at the school who report directly to AC President Russell Lowery-Hart. Was the president unaware of the hire? Did he let it go? If he was unaware, why was he kept in the dark?

I fear the questions will linger for a time longer and cast a growing shadow over a public institution that — until just recently — had enjoyed a stellar reputation throughout the community it serves.

It’s time to clear the air.

Fully.

 

Note to Kim Jong Un: Study up on ‘MAD’ doctrine

getty_2012_04_13_kimjongun_lede_

I have used this blog on occasion to question North Korea’s fruitcake/dictator’s sanity on judgment, but not — necessarily — his intelligence.

Still, someone in Pyongyang needs to take the young man aside and explain the MAD doctrine to him.

The letters “MAD” comprise an acronym, meaning “mutually assured destruction.”

The United States and the Soviet Union understood its implications.

If one country were to launch a nuclear strike against the other — or its allies — then all hell would break loose. Both sides would be destroyed. Gone! Obliterated.

Now, though, Kim Jong Un says he won’t use nukes unless his country’s sovereignty is threatened.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-other-foreign-policy/279172-kim-jong-un-north-korea-ready-to-improve

Even that caveat makes any thought using nukes, well, rather MAD … don’t you think?

It’s important to note that he is the lone leader of a nuclear state that keeps referencing the potential use of nukes. Does the People’s Republic of China say anything about it? How about the United States? Or Russia?

Oh, wait! I almost forgot! Presumed GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has said he wouldn’t oppose Japan or South Korea developing nuclear arsenals as a hedge against North Korea.

That, too, is MAD.

It’s simply in Kim Jong Un’s best interest — really and truly — to consider the implications of what MAD means.

 

Palin illustrates GOP affliction

5-sarah-palin

You might be wondering: Just how messed up is today’s Republican Party?

I might have an example to share with you.

The former half-term Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, said she’s going to work to defeat House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin’s upcoming Republican primary.

Why would the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee do such a thing? Because the speaker says he cannot “yet” support the probable 2016 GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Palin has endorsed Trump. Ryan has so far declined. It’s not clear that he ever will. Why do you suppose the speaker is withholding his support?

My guess is that Trump isn’t a “real Republican,” that he doesn’t adhere sufficiently to basic Republican principles to suit the speaker.

Palin calls herself a true-blue Republican. But she’s backing Trump. Now she wants to work against a fellow true GOP believer, Ryan.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/sarah-palin-paul-ryan-paul-nehlen-endorsement/index.html

As near as most of us can tell, the only principle to which Trump holds dear is to himself. I believe that’s why he’s been labeled a narcissist.

Sure, it’s appealing to a lot of Republican “base” voters who like how Trump “tells it like it is.” Someone, though, has to explain to me what “it” really is.

Trump and Ryan plan to meet this week, as I understand it. Will they settle their differences? Don’t look for a kumbaya moment after their meeting.

As for Palin, I guess she’s trying to make herself relevant yet again by seeking to defeat the nation’s most powerful Republican politician.

What she is managing to do, though, is demonstrate — as if it needed further demonstration in the context of this year’s presidential primary season — how dysfunctional this once-great political party has become.

 

How are they going to find that kind of dough?

920x920

Stories like this pique my interest partly because I once was part of this community, and also because I wonder about the nature of the judgment handed down by the court.

Here’s the summary: A Jefferson County, Texas, judge has ordered two former Beaumont Independent School District administrators to pay the district $4 million apiece in funds they admitted to embezzling.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Ex-Beaumont-ISD-officials-ordered-to-pay-back-4-7397631.php

Devin McCraney once served as BISD’s chief financial officer and Sharrika Allison was the district’s comptroller. I don’t know either of them, as they came on board long after my wife and I left Beaumont in January 1995.

District Judge Milton Shuffield ordered the two of them to pay $4 million each, plus another $93,000 in interest.

Here’s what makes me scratch my head.

I worked for nearly 37 years in daily journalism. I made a decent salary during a good bit of my working life. My combined salary over the course of my entire career never even came close to a fraction of the amount of money assessed by the judge in this embezzlement case.

How does the judge expect these individuals to pay back the money?

Did they pocket the money somewhere in a secret place? Will they be able to just hand it over once they uncover it?

I guess I should note that both of them received prison sentences, which took them out of the work force for several years.

I don’t know what these individuals earned while working for BISD, which has fallen on extremely hard times in recent years. The state education agency swooped in and took over day-to-day management of the district. Its former superintendent, Carroll Thomas, “retired” after helping steer the district into the tumult that resulted in the state takeover.

Now a district judge has ordered these two former administrators to repay the district millions of dollars.

I’m a layman watching this story from afar. How does that work?

 

Perry portrait unveiled … sans glasses

7C2A9423_jpg_800x1000_q100

Let’s talk about something truly insignificant for a moment.

I’ve had a busy day doing one of my part-time jobs. I am a bit worn out, so I thought I’d share my view on former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s portrait unveiling at the State Capitol in Austin.

He’s not wearing the glasses he donned prior to running for president the second time.

No, his portrait depicts him barefaced. No specs.

That’s all right with me. I came to know the governor without the corrective lenses. I always thought he donned the glasses prior to running for president for effect, anyway. They were intended to make him look smarter.

Actually, he didn’t need them for that purpose.

It’s not that I believe the former governor is a dummy. I don’t … and he isn’t.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/06/perry-portrait-unveiled-and-burning-question-answer/’

As a glasses-wearing individual myself, I am kind of partial to eye wear on politicians.

Now for a quick aside: I’ve worn specs since the eighth grade. I want to salute Mr. King, my science teacher at Parkrose Heights Junior High School in suburban Portland, Ore., for noticing I was squinting one day while watching a film strip.

The bell rang for the next class and he took me aside and asked, “Can you read what’s on the blackboard?” I responded incredulously, “Well, no-o-o-o,” as if he thought I should be able to read it.

He sent me home that day with a note to my parents.

Looking back on it many decades later I am convinced I was born blind.

I got the glasses. I threw up in the car on the way home from the optometrist. Why? Seeing the leaves blowing in the breeze made me sick to my stomach.

The glasses might have made me look smarter, too. They didn’t make me a better student.

Back to the former governor …

I’m glad the portrait shows him without the eyeglasses. I made his acquaintance in 1990 when he campaigned for Texas agriculture commissioner without them.

He did pretty well over the years in Texas — politically speaking — without dressing up his face.

Once again: Constitution is a secular document

delay_constution_140220a-2-800x430

Tom DeLay knows his audience and he speaks their language.

In this case, the former U.S. House majority leader was speaking a couple of years ago on a religious program hosted by John Hagee Ministries.

If only, though, he would speak accurately about the very founding of this great republic.

Host Matt Hagee asked DeLay where he thought the nation had gone wrong. DeLay’s response was, shall we say, more than little off the mark.

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/02/tom-delay-people-keep-forgetting-that-god-wrote-the-constitution/#.VTt_WhZmKvw.facebook

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay explained. “When we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”

Well …

Where do we begin?

We’ve had a “secular government” since its very founding. The Constitution — as I’ve noted in this blog before — contains precisely two religious references. That would be in Article VI, which declares that there should be “no religious test” for anyone seeking election to public office; and in the First Amendment, where the founders declared there would be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

That’s it, folks.

The founders knew precisely what they were doing when they omitted any other religious references in the Constitution. They intended for the government to be free of religious pressure or coercion.

I happen to be totally OK with that.

DeLay, though, sought to parse the Constitution differently when he told the Hagee Ministries audience about how God “wrote the Constitution.”

This gets to the debate that continues to this day. Indeed, it’s been going on virtually since the United States of America emerged from its revolution.

The Rawstory item showed up on my Facebook feed today I suppose as a reminder that this national debate likely never will go away.

Can’t we just accept the notion that the founders built a government framework that would be free of religion, but which allowed each of us to worship as we see fit?

That happens to be — in my humble view — one of the true-blue beauties of a secular government.

Now, here’s a political dilemma

1407859219000-Election-3-

My dictionary defines “conundrum” most succinctly.

“A riddle; a dilemma.”

By that definition, the Republican Party is facing a classic conundrum with its presumptive nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Do the conservative purists who run he party want to stick with their guy — who they detest — and watch him lead the party to a potentially historic defeat? Or do they look for an alternative, a true believer, to run as an independent candidate and then assure that historic loss?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278941-third-party-push-gaining-steam

The Hill reports that the third-party push is “gaining steam” within the ranks of the GOP.

The publication says the push got some added juice when House Speaker Paul Ryan said he cannot support Trump’s nomination. At least not yet. Trump’s got to “unify” the party, Ryan said.

Frankly, I don’t care which way the GOP goes as it struggles with this, um, dilemma.

Were the party brass to ask me, though, I’d possibly advise them to back their guy. Stand by their nominee and then set out to rebuild the party once the ballots are counted in November.

The Republican Party as many of us have known and respected — if not loved — appears to be drawing its final breaths.

It’s no longer even the party of Ronald Reagan, let alone the party of Abraham Lincoln. It’s the party of Trump. Think about that for a moment.

A man with zero government experience — at any level — is about to become the party’s nominee for president of the United States. By almost every calculation imaginable, he is patently unfit for the office he seeks. Qualifications? He possesses none of them.

The fitness level, though, is even more frightening.

Either way the party goes, from my perspective — and factoring in my own bias — the GOP is headed for the political boneyard. A third-party/independent bid by a true believer merely seals the party’s fate.

I’ve long favored a robust two-party system. I like having two healthy parties argue policy differences in public. I’ve grown used to divided government, but prefer it to actually work, to function productively. We haven’t seen much productivity in the past eight or 10 years.

And, yes, Democrats bear some responsibility for the stalemate as well.

Maybe once the smoke clears from the upcoming election, we’ll find a Republican Party ready to reach out and re-engage in the act of governing.

‘Bama judge defies highest court

moore

Roy Moore is back in the news and it has nothing to do with the brilliance of some legal opinion he wrote.

Instead, it is because the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court has decided to flout a ruling by the nation’s highest court about gay marriage.

Moore got into a pickle once before when he refused to take down the Ten Commandments from the court building grounds in Montgomery, Ala. He got removed from office, then was elected again to the court. I didn’t have as much of a problem with that as I do with his latest bit of judicial grandstanding.

This time, the judge has ruled that Alabama doesn’t have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama-chief-justice-faces-ouster-after-gay-marriage-fight/ar-BBsJrvw?ocid=spartandhp

He ordered in January that probate judges can keep enforcing the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. A state judicial conduct office has filed a formal complaint against Moore, resulting in his immediate suspension from the bench until this matter is resolved.

Let’s just consider for a moment a critical element here.

Alabama is one of 50 states. Its judges take oaths to follow the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, moreover, is empowered to interpret that Constitution and to determine what’s legal under its framework.

The high court has determined that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause gives gay couples the same rights of marriage as heterosexual couples. The ruling makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states … and yep, that includes Alabama.

Chief Justice Moore, it appears to me, lacks the standing to make unilateral decisions when they contradict rulings by the duly appointed U.S. Supreme Court.

The complaint against him will play itself out in due course.

It’s interesting to me that a true-blue conservative jurist would rail against what he would consider to be acts of “judicial activism.”

I think I would describe Chief Justice Roy Moore’s edict as just such an act.

Why the soft-shoe on Trump, congressman?

Thornberry_9

Mac Thornberry is going to be re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives this fall.

The veteran Republican lawmaker is going to win big. He’d win big even if he had a Democratic opponent. He has represented one of the House’s most reliably Republican congressional districts — the 13th — since 1995.

Why, then, does he waffle on whether he intends to “support” or “endorse” the pending GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump?

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-05-05/thornberry-evades-endorsement-urges-voters-watch

He came back to the Texas Panhandle congressional district this week and fielded some questions about whether he intends to endorse Trump.

Thornberry didn’t commit to it.

C’mon, Mac! You’re in zero danger of losing your House seat. Step into it, man.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is playing his cards much too carefully. If he were in any jeopardy, I might understand some reluctance to offer an endorsement.

Instead, he said something about endorsements carrying little weight — and even less so in this election cycle.

Well, tell that to former Gov. Rick Perry, who has announced his endorsement of Trump. For that matter, tell it to other former Trump opponents who’ve gone the other direction by refusing to endorse because they think so little of the presumptive nominee.

So, you might be wondering: Why try to speak for the congressman? Why not let him make up his own mind?

He works for me. He’s my congressman. I believe all his constituents — his bosses — have the right to hold him accountable for issues such as who he plans to endorse to become the next head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the greatest military machine on Earth.

Remember that GOP pledge of support?

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump looks at a signed pledge during a news conference in Trump Tower, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015 in New York. Trump ruled out the prospect of a third-party White House bid and vowed to support the Republican Party's nominee, whoever it may be. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he won’t vote for, or support, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush echoes that view. Bush says Trump is unfit for the presidency and won’t get his vote.

These two men have something in common apart from their mutual distrust and loathing of the guy who beat them in the GOP presidential primary.

They both signed the “pledge” to support the Republican presidential nominee — no matter who he or she is.

Didn’t former New York Gov. George Pataki say just recently that he won’t support Trump?

To be sure, we need to hear from a lot of other former Republican candidates. Sen. Ted Cruz signed the pledge. His running mate — for all of nine days — Carly Fiorina signed it, too. The last candidate to drop out, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, also has made his feelings quite clear about Trump: He can’t stand him, either — and, oh yes, he signed the pledge, too.

Ben Carson’s already on board with Trump. So is former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

We need to hear from the rest of the once-huge field.

This is why such phony pledges get candidates in trouble.

I happen to respect Sen. Graham and Gov. Bush very much. I believe they’re standing on a principle. They do not want their party represented by a huckster, which is what they’ve determined Trump to be.

Interestingly, the only GOP candidate to refused initially to sign the pledge was Donald Trump, who later signed it … and then recanted his pledge.

Still, the others did put their names on that pledge.

I guess Graham and Bush can take it all back. Politicians do it all the time.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience