Political Will…Or Won’t

Will we or won’t we?

The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform issued its recommendations while I was teaching a class for mid-career government employees in Southern Indiana. They applauded many of the proposals. When the conversation turned to the likelihood of action, however, they were cynical. As one said, “Ultimately, those guys in the statehouse look out for their own political interests, not those of the citizens.”

We all have a stake in proving him wrong.

Those of us who teach public administration like to use words like “transparency” and “accountability.” What those terms mean in simple English is that citizens should be able to figure out who is in charge of what, and who made what decision. It isn’t rocket science.

The Commission’s recommendations would eliminate lots of unnecessary layers of government, and that streamlining would obviously have a major fiscal impact. But important as cost-saving is, the real product of reform will be more transparency, more accountability, and greater efficiency. (How many township assessors or county coroners do we elect based upon their skills in assessing or dissecting? How many of us even know who’s running for those positions?)

The major elements of the report have been widely publicized, but other excellent  recommendations haven’t received enough attention. I particularly like Recommendation #24, which would prohibit employees of a local government unit from serving as elected officials of that unit. (Under this provision, Monroe Gray, among others, would have been disqualified from acting both as lawmaker and city employee.) As the report points out, such service is a clear conflict of interest. It undermines the chain of command and procedures for discipline, and “diminishes the faith that citizens must have that local governments act in the public interest.”  

Recommendation #16 proposes moving municipal elections to even-year cycles, when all other elections are held. Not only would this save the considerable costs involved in holding an extra election, it might improve voter turnout for these contests. In the last Indianapolis mayoral election, for example, only a quarter of those who were eligible voted. Thirteen percent of registered voters chose Greg Ballard. That’s hardly a mandate, and that reality will make it harder for him to govern.

Many of the other recommendations are equally common-sensical. Several have been kicking around longer than I have—and believe me, that is a long time!

I’m not suggesting that legislators obediently enact every single one of the Commission’s recommendations. Some will need to be tweaked. All should be fully debated and analyzed. But overall, the Commission has produced a map to the 21st Century for a state whose administrative structures mostly date from the 19th. If the bulk of these recommendations become law, we can expect the outcomes the Commission identifies: local governments that will be “more understandable, more efficient, more effective and more accountable.”  

The question is whether we have the will to withstand both vested interests and civic inertia—if we have the will to prove my cynical students wrong.   

 

 

 

 

Comments

Rhymes with Witch

Women who venture into preserves formerly considered male get used to sexist put-downs. There has been progress; females attending law school today are unlikely to encounter the sorts of accusations that were routine when I was one of a handful of women students in the 1970s: I was taking a place that should have gone to a man. I was just a bored housewife amusing myself with tort law. My children would become drug addicts.  

People—okay, men—who should know better still say remarkably stupid things, of course. Just last year, Representative Steve Buyer told The Hill that women "don’t fight fair. Men do very well at focus, well at what’s in front of them. Women bring their memories to the debate and bring in things that may not even be relevant…  They bring in external things that may have occurred in the past. So you have to come in, nod your head and be a good listener."  But most politicians—whatever their private prejudices—have learned to avoid such patronizing buffoonery.

And then Hillary Clinton decided to run for President.

Now, Hillary is not my favorite political figure, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose her candidacy that do not rest on gender. If the polls are correct that she has a significant lead among women, it may be in part because women resent the gender-based putdowns by some of her opponents. The most recent episode, and the one that has gotten the most attention, was the exchange between Senator John McCain and a (female!) supporter who asked him “How do we beat the (rhymes with witch)?” McCain just laughed at the use of this time-tested epithet for “uppity” women.

McCain’s response can at least be dismissed as political. But what about what passes for professional commentary from our increasingly irrelevant chattering classes? Chris Matthews, commenting  after one of her appearances, said “We were watching Hillary Clinton earlier tonight and she was giving a campaign barn burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman. It can grate on some men when they listen to it. Fingernails on a blackboard..” Another time, he characterized her voice as “shrill” and her body language as “judgmental,” terms unlikely to be applied to a male.

In a recent column,  Maureen Dowd reported on some telling research. In one recent study, Columbia University professor Ray Fisman confirmed the staying power of certain long-standing  gender biases.  As he put it, “We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.”  Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, found that “women who behave in ways that cleave to gender stereotypes — focusing on collegiality and relationships — are seen as less competent. But if they act too macho, they are seen as ‘too tough’ and unfeminine.”

There are plenty of valid reasons to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton.  “Rhymes with witch” isn’t one of them.

 

Comments

Rhymes with Witch

Women who venture into preserves formerly considered male get used to sexist put-downs. There has been progress; females attending law school today are unlikely to encounter the sorts of accusations that were routine when I was one of a handful of women students in the 1970s: I was taking a place that should have gone to a man. I was just a bored housewife amusing myself with tort law. My children would become drug addicts.  

People—okay, men—who should know better still say remarkably stupid things, of course. Just last year, Representative Steve Buyer told The Hill that women "don’t fight fair. Men do very well at focus, well at what’s in front of them. Women bring their memories to the debate and bring in things that may not even be relevant…  They bring in external things that may have occurred in the past. So you have to come in, nod your head and be a good listener."  But most politicians—whatever their private prejudices—have learned to avoid such patronizing buffoonery.

And then Hillary Clinton decided to run for President.

Now, Hillary is not my favorite political figure, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose her candidacy that do not rest on gender. If the polls are correct that she has a significant lead among women, it may be in part because women resent the gender-based putdowns by some of her opponents. The most recent episode, and the one that has gotten the most attention, was the exchange between Senator John McCain and a (female!) supporter who asked him “How do we beat the (rhymes with witch)?” McCain just laughed at the use of this time-tested epithet for “uppity” women.

McCain’s response can at least be dismissed as political. But what about what passes for professional commentary from our increasingly irrelevant chattering classes? Chris Matthews, commenting  after one of her appearances, said “We were watching Hillary Clinton earlier tonight and she was giving a campaign barn burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman. It can grate on some men when they listen to it. Fingernails on a blackboard..” Another time, he characterized her voice as “shrill” and her body language as “judgmental,” terms unlikely to be applied to a male.

In a recent column,  Maureen Dowd reported on some telling research. In one recent study, Columbia University professor Ray Fisman confirmed the staying power of certain long-standing  gender biases.  As he put it, “We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.”  Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, found that “women who behave in ways that cleave to gender stereotypes — focusing on collegiality and relationships — are seen as less competent. But if they act too macho, they are seen as ‘too tough’ and unfeminine.”

There are plenty of valid reasons to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton.  “Rhymes with witch” isn’t one of them.

 

Comments

Jeff Harris

Last week, I got word that Jeff Harris had died.

 

If you didn’t know Jeff, there is no reason you would have heard of him. I met him years ago when I was developing real estate, and he was involved in real estate sales and finance—one of many people whose paths I crossed doing business. A nice guy I’d promptly forgotten, until he called me a few months ago, joking that he was “a voice from your checkered past."

 

He’d called on behalf of a "good government" political action committee in Plainfield, Indiana. Plainfield has been growing rapidly, giving rise to concerns that its governing practices—rooted in casual, small-town "handshake" politics—were not proving adequate to the challenges of a more sophisticated economic development environment. They thought the Town needed an Ethics Ordinance and Jeff remembered that I had once chaired the Indianapolis Ethics Commission. Could I help?

 

During the following months, I met with Jeff and other members of the Plainfield PAC. I found a model municipal Ethics Ordinance, and worked with them to revise it to meet Plainfield‘s needs. I attended the Town Council meeting where Jeff asked for consideration of the Ordinance. And I enjoyed getting reaquainted with Jeff, who was unfailingly cheerful and upbeat–the result, he told me, of a heart transplant he’d had ten years before. It "brought home how wonderful life is."

 

What I thought was wonderful was seeing a group of citizens coming together for the sole purpose of improving the way their Town’s government did business. If there was a hidden agenda, I didn’t see it. None of the people I met had business interests involved. Their efforts certainly weren’t partisan (everyone in Plainfield, apparently, is Republican). The PAC members had grown concerned that questions were being raised about the Town’s business practices, and they wanted to put rules in place to provide ethical guidance and ensure transparancy. If there were any personal scores being settled, I saw no evidence of it. What I saw was a group of good citizens taking responsibility for their community—not carping, not complaining, not dealing in accusations or innuendos, but spending their own time and money to make their government more open and responsive.

 

In Jeff’s case, he was using some of his "borrowed time" to engage in the effort. He’d raised his children in Plainfield, and he wanted them to be proud of their community. He wanted to ensure that Town business was conducted "fair and square." That’s what good citizens do.

 

When Jeff’s transplanted heart gave out a few weeks ago, Plainfield—and Indiana, and America—lost a good, decent man and a model citizen.

 

When I get depressed about our national politics—the corruption, the partisanship, the contempt for the rule of law—I think of Jeff Harris and the people like him, people who don’t want to run for office, don’t "wheel and deal," and don’t create organizations based on business calculations.

 

They are the best of America.  

 

Comments

Lessons from the Closet

 

 

Word Column                                                              Sheila Suess Kennedy

October 8, 2007                                                          611 words

 

Lessons from the Closet                                                                                               

 

I remember laughing at my mother because when the newspaper came each morning she turned first to the obituaries, to see if anyone she knew had died. (As she got older, she told me that she wasn’t looking for the names of friends—“I look to make sure I’m not there. If I’m not, I get up and get dressed.)

 

Well, that was then, and now is now, and I find myself scanning the death notices just as faithfully as she used to do. And every once in a while, you see an obituary like the one I noticed this morning. Beneath a photograph of a square-jawed, severe-looking woman was a column attesting to a long life with numerous accomplishments—a doctorate, many civic and charitable activities, devotion to nieces and nephews. She had never married, never had children. The eulogy was delivered by her “close (female) friend” of many years.

 

I have no way of knowing whether this elderly woman and her “close friend” were lesbians, but it is a reasonable assumption. Hers was a generation born before coming out days and gay pride celebrations. Recently, one of the news magazines featured a personal essay by an 88-year old woman who had just lost her life partner, and had decided to declare her orientation publicly for the first time. As she wrote, “What can happen to me now? I don’t have a job to lose, or parents who will be scandalized or humiliated.”

 

As difficult as it can be to be gay and out today, those who were born 75 or 80 years ago rarely felt that they had the option to be honest about their identities. They usually remained closeted to everyone but a handful of others who were similarly situated, often living in fear that their secret lives would become known. When the AIDS epidemic hit, many gay men went to their graves insisting they’d contracted the disease from a blood transfusion.

 

I can’t imagine living a lie your entire life, living in fear that someone will figure out that you aren’t who you pretend to be. Just think of the amount of energy it must take to erect and maintain that sort of facade—energy that might be devoted to more productive and enjoyable ends. Think of the psyches that the need for secrecy has twisted, the Larry Craigs and Ted Haggards and others who have tried to escape detection by being more homophobic than the homophobes. 

 

To make matters worse, at least for men, the gay community has not been particularly hospitable to its elders. Gay men seem to put a premium on youth and muscle tone and good looks, in much the same way that heterosexual men prize good looks and youth in women. (Trophy wife, anyone?) But just as heterosexual women of a “certain age” feel bypassed, older gay men can feel isolated and rejected. 

 

As the LBGT community continues to make significant strides toward inclusion and equal rights, I can’t help feeling a pang for those who have lived their whole lives in the closet, never experiencing the relief that comes from not being constantly “on guard,” never knowing the joy of being accepted and valued for who they really are.

 

The next time you are angry over unfair treatment, outright discrimination or the general hatefulness of the not-very Christian Right, you might pause to consider that America is still a far better place than it was 30, 40 or 50 years ago. And then remind yourself that all of us—gay and straight—need to redouble our efforts to ensure that it will be better still 10 or 20 years from now. 

 

 

 

    

Comments